When Jillette first began performing, his mother told him to get a manicure because people would be looking at his hands. In response to this, he had all of his nails painted red as a joke. The one remaining red fingernail is in memory of his mother.
whatever you or any other christian thought about what your jesus did or said is not my problem what matters to me is whether or not you try to take away my freedom because it somehow disagrees with your religion
@@neiltristanyabutas you all literally try to take away peoples freedoms and murder babies. Your politics are the worst ever lmao atheists literally ruined their society.
mediamonkey93 We've had many non-religious presidents here in Denmark, they are as obnoxious as their religious counterparts. Politics is mostly about making deals and trading power anyways ... there's little religion in it to begin with. Still, while it has officially been a long time since we had a self-proclaimed atheist at the helm, our current crop of ministers may officially identify as mostly Christians, but they sure do act and talk like atheists. Our current prime minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, is no different ... heck, I don't even know which religion/church she's supposed to belong to, and neither does her wiki page. She's probably in a Lutherian one anyways, most are, even if they never visit it, nor care for it. That said, Jilette would make an interesting minister. :)
Grumpy ol' Boot Thanks for that info, I had no idea about Denmark's politics, and its nice to hear that both religious and atheist people can be elected. However, this only reinforces the point that in other countries (such as the US), the fact that a person cannot run for office without believing in God is just preposterous. I simply don't get why a religious person's judgement call would be any more valid/valuable than an atheist person's. I could go on to make some unsupported claims here, but I won't for sake of pointless argument. But yeah... the day an atheist is put in office in the US, will be the day that prejudice and discrimination have finally been properly overcome, where beliefs by all human beings are treated as equal, and true quantification of beliefs can take place. (:
mediamonkey93 Well, the next step after that would be to have a non-religious, lesbian, female feminist as prime minister. Like Iceland did when they had Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir as their prime minister.
Grumpy ol' Boot Hey now that's a bit of a slippery slope you are heading for there! I don't know about the 'next step' but to have a fair chance would be nice to see.
Josh McCullough Debatable. While atheist, I won't argue that simply having more atheists makes the world a better place. A person's belief influences less how he treats the world than it does his perspective while treating the world in such a way. You could have atheists that are a total dicks because they reason that nothing matters and everything will go to dust anyways. (moral relativist?) You could have theists that justify being dicks because they've got god on their side. (crusades?) You could have atheists that try to be a fantastic person because they realize that one life is all they get. You could have theists that try to be the absolute best they can be because it's a holy thing to do.
Josh McCullough Okay, fair enough. I'm okay with people having religion, I just can't understand how they justify it. To me (obviously) it makes sense to be atheist. Until something really proves me otherwise, which hasn't happened so far, I try to keep an open mind about things. If someone somehow magically transmutes water to wine, walks across a lake, has it rain everywhere except a sheepskin, or preforms some other myriad of otherwise unexplainable miracles I'll at the very least look into it before declaring shenanigans. In the end, I say "it'd be nice to live forever, but It's not really going to happen." If I'm right, I have wasted no time. If I'm wrong, pleasant surprise depending on how wrong I was.
NijosoSefzaps I don't have a problem with people being religious either, except for the fact that it's holding society back and results in the murder of countless soldiers and civilians in countless wars...not sure how people can continue to support this sort of thing. Oh, also children get raped (by priests and also forced marriages) and it's "okay" because ... religion.
The Abrahamic Madness is offensive by definition, it seeks to convert by verbal or physical threat all who doubt it's veracity. In our modern age we are still beset by these bizarre hoary myths which damage the minds of their many adherents. I trust sufferers will one day recover from their delusions, my thoughts and sympathies are with the many victims of this insane, inane and arcane superstition. Hopefully the New Year may see some believer's recovery and abstinence from chanting, visions and the many symptoms they experience. I'm sure the Atheist Community agrees wholeheartedly when I wish them a speedy recovery.
What they really mean: "To some degree, or another, I'm willing to subvert my intellect, to believe (or say that I believe) in what I KNOW is false, in order to prove to my peers, in my 'clique,' that I am worth having. I'm willing to do all these things because I know I'll have the strength of numbers. I know that, like me, these other people will go along with my idiocy and defend me, even if I'm bug-eye-bat-shit-crazy, because I'll return the favor to them, in the name of our common 'belief.'"
I live in America and i was born in France. I also live in Texas and when i tell people I am an atheist, they look at me like i lost my mind. It is perfectly fine to be an atheist in France, we got a revolution against that as well, we were oppressed for the last 7 centuries with Church. In the USA, it is very hard to let people know you are atheist though, and it is harder with that Pledge of Allegiance, and I can't be forced to trust in "God". This is probably why i will never become american. That said I was born as a catholic, because i was forced by my parents, but once i was able to make up my own mind and think about religious beliefs and see all the cruelty that is happening in this world, I changed my mind and i never went back to religion. Now i can say i feel free.
+SithMasterpresents You're an ignorant bigot. Many people in Texas are agnostic or atheist. I live in Texas and i have no problem with atheists or other theists.. But it's a problem when any of them are dicks about it. Atheists are also assholes sometimes and just as religious in that they KNOW there is no God. I'm agnostic because I'm honest enough to admit I'm not sure. But i do believe in some sort of afterlife.
I like the idea that he's faking. He wouldn't have gotten in if he was an open atheist. From what I'm seeing in the US from the UK, Obama seems to be doing a pretty good job compared to his predecessors.
Glad I stumbled on to this video and others by Penn Jillette. He makes the arguement that I've been trying to ignore most of my life. When I was 12 I was an atheist Sunday, Monday and Wednesday. The rest of the week I was a Christian. When I was in my 20's and 30's I was an atheist Sunday, Monday, Wednesday and Friday. The older I get the more difficult it has become to ignore the obvious. There is no 'Supreme Being". We are here for a short time, be greatfull for that, and then it's over. It's kind of sad. It would be so nice to believe. Especially the part about an afterlife. Not for myself, but the idea that friends and family who have died we might sit and talk to again. And I guess that's why now, in my 60's I'm only an athiest, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Sunday and sometimes Saturday. Thanks Penn.
It's good that you're willing to question your beliefs. This means you're open to new ideas, which is a huge step. As a self-realized atheist born into a Methodist family and community, my advice to you is stay true to YOURSELF. Take everything into consideration and really, really think about things. Do research. Question everything, both under the possibility of religion and with scientific logic and deduction. I highly suggest you check out Charles Dickens, and keep an open mind. Peace~
What's most frustrating about comment sections like this is the amount of arguments taking place. Not even that people are disagreeing, but the way in which they are disagreeing. Just because you have different views on how our universe came into existence, doesn't mean you need to attack your opposer's character or overgeneralize their demographic. Not all theists are asinine or crazy. Not all atheists are narcissistic or immoral. Stop taking disagreement so personally. We're all human and deserve respect.
So great. The part at the end about the rosetta stone really sums it up. One of my only heroes since childhood! Penn & Teller are so much cooler than Buttman & Rubin.
People who deny abiogenesis act like the first life would need to have the genes to make amino acids. However, as you say, amino acids were abundant in the early Earth. It is thought that the pathways to make these and other building blocks of life started with the product and worked back to the raw materials. It's a lesson that if something we know happened doesn't seem possible, we should try flipping it round and see if it works the other way.
1) Yes on a quantum level thing (snap in and out) unlike the universe that snap out and never snap back in. plus the time between snap in and out is extremely fast. Only thing this tells us is that we shouldn't be here. 2) (Quantum level) this is like comparing the size of a pen to the size of the sun and not just any sun but a supergiant sun called like beetlejuice. 3) How do we know that this (snap in and out) effect is not just a byproduct of the universe?
The earliest fossil life is nearly 3.5 billion years old. This implies abiogenesis is really likely to happen, because there was enough life for some of the rare fossils to survive all the weathering and be with us today just a few million years after the rocks cooled down. L-form bacteria are a great insight into early life. They only need one lipid synthesis gene to control their whole division pathway. It isn't that efficient but early life, with little competition, didn't need to be.
No, you weren't sure because this is too complicated for you. I wasn't referring to people or works you mentioned. I was referring to the generally agreed upon plagarism of the Egyptian character Horus (if you've never heard of this before you are WAY out of your paygrade) for many of the events written into the Jesus story (walking on water, water into wine, raising Lazarus, the crucifixion). Using the writings of Josephus as evidence of Jesus is like using the Iliad as proof of Posiedon.
"The very idea that you would claim people are suffering and dying in order to prove god is on the side of one politician is sickening." How many wars have been waged to prove exactly this? Sickening it may be, but it is an ancient, deeply-seeded and unfortunately true sentiment.
My answer to his question, speaking as a former Christian, is that it is a sort of groupthink, an odd phenomenon of humanity that has survived in the form it takes by being so difficult to challenge. It was presented to me by family and community in an intimate way. My "faith," which included actually telling people I believed these things literally, was half willful self-delusion for the sake of comfort/sanity, and half lip-service. An unimpressive way to be, looking back on it.
Yeah, I actualy don't have to do anything, and I certainly don't need you to tell me that. I do things because choose to, not because of a feeling of having to, which is apparently your motivation.
You ask why someone "free thinking" would need a guide. Free thinking doesn't mean all knowing. A guide isn't a command, it's a suggestion. To be religious necessarily means following someone else's law. "Blindly" or otherwise is not at issue.
Agreeing, I think. Only referencing it because they can probably describe their own work better than I can in 500 characters or less. Just giving you some of the other sources of evidence for abiogenesis in case you were interested. Even the simplest modern Bacteria may be really complicated but you can find evidence of simpler ways of doing things in the modern genome and engineer simpler life in the lab, showing how little would need to happen "by chance," as if Chemistry was random.
Excuse me, i meant to say millions of years. What i was saying was that simple amino acids were present in the very early history of the earth and by virtue of molecular physics, these thing will eventually start forming more and more complex structures and over a long enough time frame, chance makes abiogenisis of life not as outlandish as some people think it is
I love it - I was wondering where he was going, until the 15-16 minute mark where it all comes together. The problem is, some people are that crazy, and others hide behind them.
One of the most important videos I've seen yet on You Tube and atheism. I had been an atheist years before viewing this, and yet walked away feeling more informed. Teller's musings are provocative, profound and brilliant.
Not all the stories in religion is meant to be literal (like the story of Adam and Eve may just be a metaphor for evolution). We're meant to take from them lessons of which we can learn from. Because of this, religion is the root of morality which is the origin of law and order. Its just that most people don't realise that we need to always ask questions about what was and what is and decide on our own what will be. But, in the end, everyone should be entitled to live their own way.
Grit he paints his nail red for his mother. He wears his father's ring and she once said you don't have anything of mine you can wear so he decided to paint his nail for her on the finger he has his dad's ring.
That "secret code" that Penn is talking about is the default mentality of many modern religious people. Most religious people you'll meet are fairly logical and yet never seem to find anything wrong with religion's senseless assertions. This is usually because of 2 things: 1. They never think about it because it takes place in their mind as an axiom; something that they never question and don't want to -- suspending logic. 2. They have no interest in thinking about it at all.
I feel that frustration in the end. If only i understood. I have managed to get a few religious people to talk, but all it boils down to is a kind of feel-good, placebo, fear of death or whatever thing. I can never get the 'why do you believe this? And why this particular thing? Why aren't you, as a perfectly sane person, leaving this behind? I don't believe you when you say you believe it'
That is so true. I think it is even crazier when people start to pick and choose from religion - like they someohow know which bits are meant to be literal and which bits aren't. Love the presentation of this video too - builds very nicely to the point.
Penn is one of my favourite speakers. Not just because I happen to agree with him regarding both libertarianism and religion, but because he goes out of his way to not misinterpret people who think differently to him. He is charitable in his interpretation, and he is a better thinker for it.
Honestly, there would be very few documents for something like this. The problem with the new testament is that it really is a mash up of literary genres - it isn't concerned with history the same way Thucydides would be. Christ would only be important to the relative few who followed him. The lack of early historical evidence doesn't mean he didn't exist - and if some evidence comes to light that he did, well, it doesn't mean he is supernatural either.
The thing about Penn's argument is that even though Christians are divided into sects, these sects have been meaning less and less over the passed few decades. That's why people are able to say "i'm a Christian," and not bother with the sect thing.
Thank you! I'm totally on your side there. It's an absolute mistake to judge a group by a few members, and I know several highly educated Christians myself. That's why comments like that get under my skin, because they could've been a well-reasoned argument. Also, the obvious not following of the teachings they claim to subscribe to is just shameful. I know all Christians aren't stupid, but the ones that are kind of irritate me, because there's almost no excuse nowadays for being that way.
/continued/ Lab experements like the one you describe showed that, in the conditions common in the early Earth, the building blocks of life readily formed by chemical reactions (Miller and Urey, 1953) More recent experiments looking at more specific environments within the early Earth, like clay beds, show how even more of the building blocks could be made. Without life to gobble them up, they would accumulate until they make something like RNA.
"I know u have not examine the truth or u would agree with me." That is a classically close minded statement. It is possibly that people have examined what you have examined but have come to different conclusions based on differing levels of understanding of what is being examined. If you automatically discount the possibility that you might be wrong you will never find what is right.
The answer is fear. They believe it for the same reason you believe in colors and the sturdiness of the reality you live in. Because to them, it's everything, it's the very assumption that they feel they'd go insane without. If they didn't have that answer in the back of their head, if they eschewed the assumption that they have a friend ready to protect them, they would come to the sobering conclusion that they're a speck of dust swinging around on other specks of dust on an even bigger speck of dust that is just a meaningless collection of sustained reactions, and that compared to the reality they've built for themselves; is horrid when they say hell is being without god, they mean it. The same way we convince ourselves to get up because we'll make a difference or the way we just chip away at the mountain of problems we've invented so we'll have something to do with our time instead of realizing the maddening, crushing weight of reality and our delusions about it.
Quite literally as I sit here and listen to Penn talking about "Bug Nutty, bat shit crazy", I see a Mini Cooper with the license plate, "B-Nutty". Serendipity folks.
I once thought that there was a secret code. People told me they had a relationship with god, and they spoke to him and he spoke back. I finally decided that they meant they talk to themselves a lot and feel better about it imagining someone is supportive of their inner dialogue, but at the time I thought that the only way it's possible for them to really be speaking with god, is if we are all god. That was a real trip though.
time HAS to do with it because the space/time and matter were initial rules already. that means that there's no time to make the universe to come into existence that too puts your argument into the fire. the origin of the universe is not supernatural because it can be explained with naturalistic means.
/continue/ Biochemistry gives great circumstantial evidence that life came from chemistry, even if we didn't have the lab experements to back it up the way we do. That the molicules of life are made of the most abundant elements in the universe (H,C,N,O), that they can mostly be made from the simplest molecules those elements form (NH3, CH4, HCN, H2O), that they all inter-convert with a few simple reactions seems convincing. Stuff like that is the basis of the RNA world idea
The evidence in the multiverse theory is in the math.. just because you don't get it doesn't mean that it's false. it's the same with a theory that rivaled string theory and that was super-symmetry. It's just a trial to pry deeper into the mechanics of the universe. If it's false then evidence will come to show it. the math can be falsified, if the math is wrong, its implications are also wrong. Simple as that,
I agree, to a certain extent, that the term “Christian” is used too freely-to the point that Mormons call themselves Christians. Watching an interview with Penn and Beck, Penn stated that he would like to see a time when atheist will also be called “Christian,” so there will be no exclusion to conversations. There is no point to my statements--just thought that it was interesting.
No thats just how it usually turns out, There are kids who start questioning and don't believe what there taught from the beggining. It doesn't happen often but it does happen, Added onto i'm talking to an adult who still believes whatever there parents believe,Not a little kid. It's way different.
I think you're talking about deconstructing things like DNA and proteins to see what the most likely starting conditions were, and i agree that it is a good thing to do but we've also started from simple chemical solutions without anything close to amino acids in them and, using our current understanding of the conditions of early earth, have combined these and made at least 2 of the 4 amino acids that make up DNA. We're working on the other 2 but they might have found them already. i'm not sure
Actually, you have little choice BUT to accept it. I have my freedom of speech just as you do. You are perfectly free to counter any argument I make, as I am to you. But you certainly DO have to accept it.
Also, to not dodge a question I would point to Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan as a record of Christianity - Epistulae X.96 - That is around the close of the 1st century A.D. Beyond that there is not much else in the Classical record extant. Archeology is more fruitful.
You're right! not all religious people are like that, evolution is not a belief, just as the theory of gravity is not a belief, its just the way things are, you are held to the earth's mass, and you are a evolved biological organism, no miss-communication. Things should be questioned and that's the whole scientific method in a nutshell, peer-review, experimentation, and evidence lead to Nobel prizes, not superstitious unwarranted none sense.
1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. 2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Now obviously number 2 applies to the religious, wich specifies "rather than proof", but even if you attempt to apply definition one to your beliefs it's still "complete trust" which is more trust than any rational person would give to anything or anyone. So to prove me wrong, show me your evidence.
I love Penn, but I'm not sure I agree with him on this one... It seems to me that what we see now has been echoed over and over for millennia, not that this is something unique to this era. People have said over-the-top stuff religiously for as long as we've had equipment to record it.
I love Penn's thinkings on the internet and our connectivity. It is just so great. You kids will find videos of Katy Perry. Once that happens, they find Big Think and this video. It will happen! Can't stop it. Internet!
"I think he wants to do good, I don't think there's any malicious quality" Those that threw virgins into the volcano _thought_ they were doing good, they had no malicious intent. Those that burned witches at the stake _thought_ they were doing good, they had no malicious intent. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And scattered with its victims.
By far, this is the most truthful speech of society ever. I've had this video linked as the only video on my facebook page for over 6 years, and everyone refuses to talk about it. I'm ashamed that nobody sees this most clearly defined lie of the world. @pennjillette How do you continue to live your life knowing that everyone around you is either insane or lying? I've been suffering my whole life trying to figure out why I'm the only person I've ever met that feels as strongly as I do about how everyone can live completely ignorantly about their strongest beliefs. Sir, I would like to have the pleasure of your company if only for you to tell me how you do it; because I can't--not any longer.
As a "Christian", I can't applaud this enough. Penn is definitely a much greater optimist than I. I feel everyone has an agenda and I think that most of the time, it's less than benevolent. These agendas have been a blight on Christianity and on possibly all religions, buy certainly all of the Abrahamic religions. Something like religious authority is so easily corruptible because that authority can wield unquestionable power and a book like the bible is so easily weaponized, it's disgusting.
There is absolutely no need for evidence of those things. When a mathematician says that they believe in a platonic view of numbers (look it up, too long for CZcams) I don't say, "you need some proof for that". It's not that kind of assertion. Similarly, when the religious person tries to say that they believe in the Garden of Eden not evolution, they're confusing the tool that we use to ask questions with the tool we use to cope with a lack of answers.
"High office in the greatest country in the world is barred to the very people best qualified to hold it, the intelligentsia, unless they are prepared to lie about their beliefs. To put it bluntly: American political opportunities are heavily loaded against those who are simultaneously intelligent and honest." - Richard Dawkins
I agree with a lot of what you said there. But I don't think we should generalize so much and assume ALL religious people are doing those things. Many productive scientists believe in God. But I do think both parties should question things more, including whether or not God exists and whether we have all of the facts right with our, generally accepted, evolution model. Accepting either type of belief as doctrine that shouldn't EVER be reexamined or questioned impedes progress. It always has.
Penn is one of the very few atheists I can listen to without getting annoyed. I sense no venom in his voice at all. If ever there were an atheist to change my mind about anything it wold be this guy.
Life didn't exist for billions of years on planet earth, but the components needed to create genetic material did and because of the complex ways that molecules interact, over a long enough time frame things like cellular membranes, DNA/RNA, and everything that defines the most basic organism will come together just as a result of basic physics and chemistry. Life isn't magical, its a perfectly acceptable outcome from physics just like the solar system
Look up Pascal's Wager. Essentially the idea is that your choices are either Christianity and Heaven or Athiesm and Hell and you have nothing to loose by choosing Christianity. The reality is, there a many different religions out there that claim that if you do not follow them, you will end up being punished. Since they all have equal amounts of evidence as Christianity, choosing one over another based on the fear of Hell makes no logical sense, since they are equally likely to be true.
wrong.. You see if the quantum mechanics works right now it must also work in the initial conditions of a singularity.. when things get so small like a singularity it's pretty much a safe assumption that there these same rules can apply, we don't understand the conditions that a singularity follows or how quantum mechanics plays a role in it YET but that's why its exciting to search for those answers.
Want to get Smarter, Faster™?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/SmarterFaster
When Jillette first began performing, his mother told him to get a manicure because people would be looking at his hands. In response to this, he had all of his nails painted red as a joke. The one remaining red fingernail is in memory of his mother.
penn is the fucking man. logic wins every time.
GabeN for president
there will be no WW3
We would only get to WW2 Episode 2
Evan Scott XD
+enggi gg Very clever!
+Evan Scott one could argue the Cold War was WW2 episode 2
The Lonely Tourist true
"Are you really gonna throw a stone at the motherfuckers head because he worked on a Sunday to support his family!?" Lol perfect argument
+Samy Wats even Jesus argued that people should work on Saturday/ Sundays if necessary.
whatever you or any other christian thought about what your jesus did or said is not my problem
what matters to me is whether or not you try to take away my freedom because it somehow disagrees with your religion
@@neiltristanyabutas you all literally try to take away peoples freedoms and murder babies. Your politics are the worst ever lmao atheists literally ruined their society.
11:57 Yes. So much yes.
18:45 had me laughing so hard I was crying. This is the same frustration I feel every time I speak with a YE Creationist. REALLY?!?
I've had someone use the mixing fabrics part as a justification for racism. And that's horrible.
Jillette for president!
It would be different!
mediamonkey93
We've had many non-religious presidents here in Denmark, they are as obnoxious as their religious counterparts.
Politics is mostly about making deals and trading power anyways ... there's little religion in it to begin with.
Still, while it has officially been a long time since we had a self-proclaimed atheist at the helm, our current crop of ministers may officially identify as mostly Christians, but they sure do act and talk like atheists. Our current prime minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, is no different ... heck, I don't even know which religion/church she's supposed to belong to, and neither does her wiki page. She's probably in a Lutherian one anyways, most are, even if they never visit it, nor care for it.
That said, Jilette would make an interesting minister. :)
Grumpy ol' Boot
Thanks for that info, I had no idea about Denmark's politics, and its nice to hear that both religious and atheist people can be elected.
However, this only reinforces the point that in other countries (such as the US), the fact that a person cannot run for office without believing in God is just preposterous.
I simply don't get why a religious person's judgement call would be any more valid/valuable than an atheist person's.
I could go on to make some unsupported claims here, but I won't for sake of pointless argument.
But yeah... the day an atheist is put in office in the US, will be the day that prejudice and discrimination have finally been properly overcome, where beliefs by all human beings are treated as equal, and true quantification of beliefs can take place.
(:
mediamonkey93
Well, the next step after that would be to have a non-religious, lesbian, female feminist as prime minister.
Like Iceland did when they had Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir as their prime minister.
Grumpy ol' Boot Hey now that's a bit of a slippery slope you are heading for there!
I don't know about the 'next step' but to have a fair chance would be nice to see.
What difference does it make, as long as his heart is in the right place. There is a difference between being religious and being a religious fanatic.
11:55 It scared the shit out of me when i first heard it.
keep pressing -- 11:58
"Band together in order to be different". That's a bloody brilliant rallying call.
11:57 over and over and over again!! haha
+Shalice Pierre almost fell from my chair on this moment
just doing my job
I blame this guy for the amount of atheists...if he can get Joey to buy an encyclopedia, selling atheism is easy as a pie for him...
+1 for the the Friends reference. But, the world would be a much better place if there were *more* atheists.
Josh McCullough Debatable. While atheist, I won't argue that simply having more atheists makes the world a better place. A person's belief influences less how he treats the world than it does his perspective while treating the world in such a way.
You could have atheists that are a total dicks because they reason that nothing matters and everything will go to dust anyways. (moral relativist?) You could have theists that justify being dicks because they've got god on their side. (crusades?)
You could have atheists that try to be a fantastic person because they realize that one life is all they get. You could have theists that try to be the absolute best they can be because it's a holy thing to do.
NijosoSefzaps Of course, but more atheists means less religion. That's better for us all in the long run.
Josh McCullough Okay, fair enough. I'm okay with people having religion, I just can't understand how they justify it. To me (obviously) it makes sense to be atheist.
Until something really proves me otherwise, which hasn't happened so far, I try to keep an open mind about things. If someone somehow magically transmutes water to wine, walks across a lake, has it rain everywhere except a sheepskin, or preforms some other myriad of otherwise unexplainable miracles I'll at the very least look into it before declaring shenanigans.
In the end, I say "it'd be nice to live forever, but It's not really going to happen." If I'm right, I have wasted no time. If I'm wrong, pleasant surprise depending on how wrong I was.
NijosoSefzaps I don't have a problem with people being religious either, except for the fact that it's holding society back and results in the murder of countless soldiers and civilians in countless wars...not sure how people can continue to support this sort of thing. Oh, also children get raped (by priests and also forced marriages) and it's "okay" because ... religion.
The Abrahamic Madness is offensive by definition, it seeks to convert by verbal or physical threat all who doubt it's veracity. In our modern age we are still beset by these bizarre hoary myths which damage the minds of their many adherents. I trust sufferers will one day recover from their delusions, my thoughts and sympathies are with the many victims of this insane, inane and arcane superstition. Hopefully the New Year may see some believer's recovery and abstinence from chanting, visions and the many symptoms they experience. I'm sure the Atheist Community agrees wholeheartedly when I wish them a speedy recovery.
Worthy Redeemed "The Abraham Madness" Holy Jahover, I just love that phrase it says it all !
By the Hoary Hosts of Hoggoth
What they really mean: "To some degree, or another, I'm willing to subvert my intellect, to believe (or say that I believe) in what I KNOW is false, in order to prove to my peers, in my 'clique,' that I am worth having. I'm willing to do all these things because I know I'll have the strength of numbers. I know that, like me, these other people will go along with my idiocy and defend me, even if I'm bug-eye-bat-shit-crazy, because I'll return the favor to them, in the name of our common 'belief.'"
well said!!..
NOOOOObody else hears an older Seth Rogan????
I love this guy.
Is it a crime to be an atheist nowadays?
No, but it is to be a Christian.
I live in America and i was born in France. I also live in Texas and when i tell people I am an atheist, they look at me like i lost my mind. It is perfectly fine to be an atheist in France, we got a revolution against that as well, we were oppressed for the last 7 centuries with Church. In the USA, it is very hard to let people know you are atheist though, and it is harder with that Pledge of Allegiance, and I can't be forced to trust in "God". This is probably why i will never become american. That said I was born as a catholic, because i was forced by my parents, but once i was able to make up my own mind and think about religious beliefs and see all the cruelty that is happening in this world, I changed my mind and i never went back to religion. Now i can say i feel free.
Steven Rix You live in Texas, that's why.
+SithMasterpresents You're an ignorant bigot.
Many people in Texas are agnostic or atheist.
I live in Texas and i have no problem with atheists or other theists.. But it's a problem when any of them are dicks about it. Atheists are also assholes sometimes and just as religious in that they KNOW there is no God.
I'm agnostic because I'm honest enough to admit I'm not sure. But i do believe in some sort of afterlife.
Thank you Penn, I have been saying this for years.
As I always say, whatever Barack Obama might be, the alternative is much worse. :o
I like the idea that he's faking. He wouldn't have gotten in if he was an open atheist. From what I'm seeing in the US from the UK, Obama seems to be doing a pretty good job compared to his predecessors.
Neither McCain nor Romney would be worse than Obongo.
bluestone bitterblue
But it will all go to shit if Trump gets in.
BlackEpyon
Wrong,you bern victim.
Ljilja Milić
Why would I be a victim? I agree with the guy.
I don't see why it has to be a God vs Science debate. I subscribe to the God + Science idea. Or Science + God.
Glad I stumbled on to this video and others by Penn Jillette. He makes the arguement that I've been trying to ignore most of my life. When I was 12 I was an atheist Sunday, Monday and Wednesday. The rest of the week I was a Christian. When I was in my 20's and 30's I was an atheist Sunday, Monday, Wednesday and Friday. The older I get the more difficult it has become to ignore the obvious. There is no 'Supreme Being". We are here for a short time, be greatfull for that, and then it's over. It's kind of sad. It would be so nice to believe. Especially the part about an afterlife. Not for myself, but the idea that friends and family who have died we might sit and talk to again. And I guess that's why now, in my 60's I'm only an athiest, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Sunday and sometimes Saturday. Thanks Penn.
It's good that you're willing to question your beliefs. This means you're open to new ideas, which is a huge step. As a self-realized atheist born into a Methodist family and community, my advice to you is stay true to YOURSELF. Take everything into consideration and really, really think about things. Do research. Question everything, both under the possibility of religion and with scientific logic and deduction. I highly suggest you check out Charles Dickens, and keep an open mind. Peace~
What's most frustrating about comment sections like this is the amount of arguments taking place. Not even that people are disagreeing, but the way in which they are disagreeing. Just because you have different views on how our universe came into existence, doesn't mean you need to attack your opposer's character or overgeneralize their demographic. Not all theists are asinine or crazy. Not all atheists are narcissistic or immoral. Stop taking disagreement so personally. We're all human and deserve respect.
So great. The part at the end about the rosetta stone really sums it up.
One of my only heroes since childhood!
Penn & Teller are so much cooler than Buttman & Rubin.
I love this video! It's so smart and compelling. Bravo!
People who deny abiogenesis act like the first life would need to have the genes to make amino acids. However, as you say, amino acids were abundant in the early Earth. It is thought that the pathways to make these and other building blocks of life started with the product and worked back to the raw materials. It's a lesson that if something we know happened doesn't seem possible, we should try flipping it round and see if it works the other way.
1) Yes on a quantum level thing (snap in and out) unlike the universe that snap out and never snap back in. plus the time between snap in and out is extremely fast. Only thing this tells us is that we shouldn't be here.
2) (Quantum level) this is like comparing the size of a pen to the size of the sun and not just any sun but a supergiant sun called like beetlejuice.
3) How do we know that this (snap in and out) effect is not just a byproduct of the universe?
Good to listen to from beginning to end, very inspiring stuff. Thanks for uploading!
Thanks very much for your insight! TIL: The color he uses is Jelly Apple Red (#054), according to Wiki.
The earliest fossil life is nearly 3.5 billion years old. This implies abiogenesis is really likely to happen, because there was enough life for some of the rare fossils to survive all the weathering and be with us today just a few million years after the rocks cooled down.
L-form bacteria are a great insight into early life. They only need one lipid synthesis gene to control their whole division pathway. It isn't that efficient but early life, with little competition, didn't need to be.
12:28 to 15:24 = AMAZING!!! Damn I love this guy!
Omg I had no idea that this channel even existed. I will subscribe to Penn every fucking day if i have to! Bro is a damn genius.
One of the best videos I've seen so far
No, you weren't sure because this is too complicated for you. I wasn't referring to people or works you mentioned. I was referring to the generally agreed upon plagarism of the Egyptian character Horus (if you've never heard of this before you are WAY out of your paygrade) for many of the events written into the Jesus story (walking on water, water into wine, raising Lazarus, the crucifixion). Using the writings of Josephus as evidence of Jesus is like using the Iliad as proof of Posiedon.
"The very idea that you would claim people are suffering and dying in order to prove god is on the side of one politician is sickening."
How many wars have been waged to prove exactly this? Sickening it may be, but it is an ancient, deeply-seeded and unfortunately true sentiment.
My answer to his question, speaking as a former Christian, is that it is a sort of groupthink, an odd phenomenon of humanity that has survived in the form it takes by being so difficult to challenge. It was presented to me by family and community in an intimate way. My "faith," which included actually telling people I believed these things literally, was half willful self-delusion for the sake of comfort/sanity, and half lip-service. An unimpressive way to be, looking back on it.
Yeah, I actualy don't have to do anything, and I certainly don't need you to tell me that. I do things because choose to, not because of a feeling of having to, which is apparently your motivation.
I love Penn Jillette. I want to say more, but I am hypnotized from this...
must...find...more...Penn...videos...
You ask why someone "free thinking" would need a guide. Free thinking doesn't mean all knowing. A guide isn't a command, it's a suggestion. To be religious necessarily means following someone else's law. "Blindly" or otherwise is not at issue.
Agreeing, I think. Only referencing it because they can probably describe their own work better than I can in 500 characters or less.
Just giving you some of the other sources of evidence for abiogenesis in case you were interested. Even the simplest modern Bacteria may be really complicated but you can find evidence of simpler ways of doing things in the modern genome and engineer simpler life in the lab, showing how little would need to happen "by chance," as if Chemistry was random.
Excuse me, i meant to say millions of years. What i was saying was that simple amino acids were present in the very early history of the earth and by virtue of molecular physics, these thing will eventually start forming more and more complex structures and over a long enough time frame, chance makes abiogenisis of life not as outlandish as some people think it is
I love it - I was wondering where he was going, until the 15-16 minute mark where it all comes together.
The problem is, some people are that crazy, and others hide behind them.
One of the most important videos I've seen yet on You Tube and atheism. I had been an atheist years before viewing this, and yet walked away feeling more informed. Teller's musings are provocative, profound and brilliant.
Not all the stories in religion is meant to be literal (like the story of Adam and Eve may just be a metaphor for evolution). We're meant to take from them lessons of which we can learn from. Because of this, religion is the root of morality which is the origin of law and order.
Its just that most people don't realise that we need to always ask questions about what was and what is and decide on our own what will be.
But, in the end, everyone should be entitled to live their own way.
Grit he paints his nail red for his mother. He wears his father's ring and she once said you don't have anything of mine you can wear so he decided to paint his nail for her on the finger he has his dad's ring.
Hey guys what court case was Penn talking about?
I want to look into it.
Thanks guys-ya'll rock!
That "secret code" that Penn is talking about is the default mentality of many modern religious people. Most religious people you'll meet are fairly logical and yet never seem to find anything wrong with religion's senseless assertions. This is usually because of 2 things:
1. They never think about it because it takes place in their mind as an axiom; something that they never question and don't want to -- suspending logic.
2. They have no interest in thinking about it at all.
I feel that frustration in the end. If only i understood. I have managed to get a few religious people to talk, but all it boils down to is a kind of feel-good, placebo, fear of death or whatever thing. I can never get the 'why do you believe this? And why this particular thing? Why aren't you, as a perfectly sane person, leaving this behind? I don't believe you when you say you believe it'
Thanks for putting up the question Penn, I wish that I had an answer!
That is so true. I think it is even crazier when people start to pick and choose from religion - like they someohow know which bits are meant to be literal and which bits aren't. Love the presentation of this video too - builds very nicely to the point.
Penn is one of my favourite speakers. Not just because I happen to agree with him regarding both libertarianism and religion, but because he goes out of his way to not misinterpret people who think differently to him. He is charitable in his interpretation, and he is a better thinker for it.
Honestly, there would be very few documents for something like this. The problem with the new testament is that it really is a mash up of literary genres - it isn't concerned with history the same way Thucydides would be. Christ would only be important to the relative few who followed him. The lack of early historical evidence doesn't mean he didn't exist - and if some evidence comes to light that he did, well, it doesn't mean he is supernatural either.
The thing about Penn's argument is that even though Christians are divided into sects, these sects have been meaning less and less over the passed few decades. That's why people are able to say "i'm a Christian," and not bother with the sect thing.
Thank you! I'm totally on your side there. It's an absolute mistake to judge a group by a few members, and I know several highly educated Christians myself. That's why comments like that get under my skin, because they could've been a well-reasoned argument. Also, the obvious not following of the teachings they claim to subscribe to is just shameful. I know all Christians aren't stupid, but the ones that are kind of irritate me, because there's almost no excuse nowadays for being that way.
/continued/
Lab experements like the one you describe showed that, in the conditions common in the early Earth, the building blocks of life readily formed by chemical reactions (Miller and Urey, 1953) More recent experiments looking at more specific environments within the early Earth, like clay beds, show how even more of the building blocks could be made. Without life to gobble them up, they would accumulate until they make something like RNA.
"I know u have not examine the truth or u would agree with me."
That is a classically close minded statement. It is possibly that people have examined what you have examined but have come to different conclusions based on differing levels of understanding of what is being examined.
If you automatically discount the possibility that you might be wrong you will never find what is right.
We lack "a belief". Lacking a belief means it's not there. It doesn't mean it's there "a little".
the modern tv and education systems certainly paints a rosy picture.
Superb Mr. Jillette, it is people like you where I keep my hope for humanity.
I was going to watch 5 minutes...had to watch the whole thing...brilliant!
The answer is fear. They believe it for the same reason you believe in colors and the sturdiness of the reality you live in. Because to them, it's everything, it's the very assumption that they feel they'd go insane without. If they didn't have that answer in the back of their head, if they eschewed the assumption that they have a friend ready to protect them, they would come to the sobering conclusion that they're a speck of dust swinging around on other specks of dust on an even bigger speck of dust that is just a meaningless collection of sustained reactions, and that compared to the reality they've built for themselves; is horrid when they say hell is being without god, they mean it. The same way we convince ourselves to get up because we'll make a difference or the way we just chip away at the mountain of problems we've invented so we'll have something to do with our time instead of realizing the maddening, crushing weight of reality and our delusions about it.
Exactly, some Athiests go as far as saying that the possibility of a God is impossible. But most only go as far as skepticism.
Quite literally as I sit here and listen to Penn talking about "Bug Nutty, bat shit crazy", I see a Mini Cooper with the license plate, "B-Nutty". Serendipity folks.
I once thought that there was a secret code. People told me they had a relationship with god, and they spoke to him and he spoke back. I finally decided that they meant they talk to themselves a lot and feel better about it imagining someone is supportive of their inner dialogue, but at the time I thought that the only way it's possible for them to really be speaking with god, is if we are all god. That was a real trip though.
time HAS to do with it because the space/time and matter were initial rules already. that means that there's no time to make the universe to come into existence that too puts your argument into the fire. the origin of the universe is not supernatural because it can be explained with naturalistic means.
/continue/
Biochemistry gives great circumstantial evidence that life came from chemistry, even if we didn't have the lab experements to back it up the way we do.
That the molicules of life are made of the most abundant elements in the universe (H,C,N,O), that they can mostly be made from the simplest molecules those elements form (NH3, CH4, HCN, H2O), that they all inter-convert with a few simple reactions seems convincing. Stuff like that is the basis of the RNA world idea
I know a lot of protestants who refer to all protestants as Christian and exclude Catholics from that which I've never understood.
The evidence in the multiverse theory is in the math.. just because you don't get it doesn't mean that it's false. it's the same with a theory that rivaled string theory and that was super-symmetry. It's just a trial to pry deeper into the mechanics of the universe. If it's false then evidence will come to show it. the math can be falsified, if the math is wrong, its implications are also wrong. Simple as that,
Love how humerous he presents this subject, kinda had to smile throurgout the whole video
I agree, to a certain extent, that the term “Christian” is used too freely-to the point that Mormons call themselves Christians. Watching an interview with Penn and Beck, Penn stated that he would like to see a time when atheist will also be called “Christian,” so there will be no exclusion to conversations. There is no point to my statements--just thought that it was interesting.
No thats just how it usually turns out, There are kids who start questioning and don't believe what there taught from the beggining. It doesn't happen often but it does happen, Added onto i'm talking to an adult who still believes whatever there parents believe,Not a little kid. It's way different.
Outstanding video!
I really wish this conversation was front & centre
You actually referenced an article. I'm impressed, and slightly confused. Are we arguing or agreeing?
I think you're talking about deconstructing things like DNA and proteins to see what the most likely starting conditions were, and i agree that it is a good thing to do but we've also started from simple chemical solutions without anything close to amino acids in them and, using our current understanding of the conditions of early earth, have combined these and made at least 2 of the 4 amino acids that make up DNA. We're working on the other 2 but they might have found them already. i'm not sure
Actually, you have little choice BUT to accept it. I have my freedom of speech just as you do. You are perfectly free to counter any argument I make, as I am to you. But you certainly DO have to accept it.
awesome video!!!!!! but why is your nail red?? 10:00
The white speck on his jacket is killing me. ...Oh, by the way, good points.
Also, to not dodge a question I would point to Pliny the Younger's letter to the emperor Trajan as a record of Christianity - Epistulae X.96 - That is around the close of the 1st century A.D. Beyond that there is not much else in the Classical record extant. Archeology is more fruitful.
You're right! not all religious people are like that, evolution is not a belief, just as the theory of gravity is not a belief, its just the way things are, you are held to the earth's mass, and you are a evolved biological organism, no miss-communication. Things should be questioned and that's the whole scientific method in a nutshell, peer-review, experimentation, and evidence lead to Nobel prizes, not superstitious unwarranted none sense.
1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Now obviously number 2 applies to the religious, wich specifies "rather than proof", but even if you attempt to apply definition one to your beliefs it's still "complete trust" which is more trust than any rational person would give to anything or anyone.
So to prove me wrong, show me your evidence.
I love Penn, but I'm not sure I agree with him on this one... It seems to me that what we see now has been echoed over and over for millennia, not that this is something unique to this era. People have said over-the-top stuff religiously for as long as we've had equipment to record it.
I love Penn's thinkings on the internet and our connectivity. It is just so great.
You kids will find videos of Katy Perry. Once that happens, they find Big Think and this video. It will happen! Can't stop it. Internet!
"I think he wants to do good, I don't think there's any malicious quality"
Those that threw virgins into the volcano _thought_ they were doing good, they had no malicious intent.
Those that burned witches at the stake _thought_ they were doing good, they had no malicious intent.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And scattered with its victims.
He once said it's part of the misdirection of being a magician. But I'd take that with a grain of salt
By far, this is the most truthful speech of society ever. I've had this video linked as the only video on my facebook page for over 6 years, and everyone refuses to talk about it. I'm ashamed that nobody sees this most clearly defined lie of the world. @pennjillette How do you continue to live your life knowing that everyone around you is either insane or lying? I've been suffering my whole life trying to figure out why I'm the only person I've ever met that feels as strongly as I do about how everyone can live completely ignorantly about their strongest beliefs. Sir, I would like to have the pleasure of your company if only for you to tell me how you do it; because I can't--not any longer.
As a "Christian", I can't applaud this enough. Penn is definitely a much greater optimist than I. I feel everyone has an agenda and I think that most of the time, it's less than benevolent. These agendas have been a blight on Christianity and on possibly all religions, buy certainly all of the Abrahamic religions. Something like religious authority is so easily corruptible because that authority can wield unquestionable power and a book like the bible is so easily weaponized, it's disgusting.
There is absolutely no need for evidence of those things.
When a mathematician says that they believe in a platonic view of numbers (look it up, too long for CZcams) I don't say, "you need some proof for that". It's not that kind of assertion.
Similarly, when the religious person tries to say that they believe in the Garden of Eden not evolution, they're confusing the tool that we use to ask questions with the tool we use to cope with a lack of answers.
dont ignore those with opposite opinions as you, respect and consider there opinion to keep yourself in check as i hope you do to them.
"High office in the greatest country in the world is barred to the very people best qualified to hold it, the intelligentsia, unless they are prepared to lie about their beliefs. To put it bluntly: American political opportunities are heavily loaded against those who are simultaneously intelligent and honest."
- Richard Dawkins
I've been rewinding the magic underwear thing for the better part of ten minutes. I cant stop fucking laughing.
I agree with a lot of what you said there. But I don't think we should generalize so much and assume ALL religious people are doing those things. Many productive scientists believe in God. But I do think both parties should question things more, including whether or not God exists and whether we have all of the facts right with our, generally accepted, evolution model. Accepting either type of belief as doctrine that shouldn't EVER be reexamined or questioned impedes progress. It always has.
3:30 no one had ever explained this better
Penn is one of the very few atheists I can listen to without getting annoyed. I sense no venom in his voice at all. If ever there were an atheist to change my mind about anything it wold be this guy.
Life didn't exist for billions of years on planet earth, but the components needed to create genetic material did and because of the complex ways that molecules interact, over a long enough time frame things like cellular membranes, DNA/RNA, and everything that defines the most basic organism will come together just as a result of basic physics and chemistry. Life isn't magical, its a perfectly acceptable outcome from physics just like the solar system
Look up Pascal's Wager. Essentially the idea is that your choices are either Christianity and Heaven or Athiesm and Hell and you have nothing to loose by choosing Christianity.
The reality is, there a many different religions out there that claim that if you do not follow them, you will end up being punished. Since they all have equal amounts of evidence as Christianity, choosing one over another based on the fear of Hell makes no logical sense, since they are equally likely to be true.
wrong.. You see if the quantum mechanics works right now it must also work in the initial conditions of a singularity.. when things get so small like a singularity it's pretty much a safe assumption that there these same rules can apply, we don't understand the conditions that a singularity follows or how quantum mechanics plays a role in it YET but that's why its exciting to search for those answers.
against religion: scientific, rational, reasonable, logical.
for religion: historical
philosophical could be both.