Want to get Smarter, Faster™? Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/SmarterFaster

@marcosm5183

3 жыл бұрын

Pretty good big boi

I love being proven wrong. Truth is the only thing worth knowing.

@ronj9448

8 жыл бұрын

That is called radical skepticism which only leads to dead ends in thought. This video addresses it and discards it because of that.

@zeromailss

7 жыл бұрын

+Dark Garison well said

@nopenopetheknight7519

7 жыл бұрын

I wish I liked being proved wrong. But at the same time I am more comfortable being wrong then doubting most reality.

@NateSassoonMusic

5 жыл бұрын

what is truth?

@stratblacknosugar.5125

4 жыл бұрын

Good point well put.

"Id rather be proven wrong, than be wrong my entire life." If people honestly wish to help someone and in turn BE helped and wish help then respectfully disagreeing and talking things trough face to face. Id rather (like Penn) be respected and proven wrong (or right) than be lipserved to and being in the lifeless static of PC.

I used to be hardcore religious. Now that I'm out, I wish that there was some way that I could explain to my family why I left. I left simply because I couldn't rationalize my religion, not because I was angry. I was at a point where I couldn't believe even if I tried. And before I knew it, I just simply didn't believe anymore. I wish I could explain that to my family. But I also know that when you're in religion that deep, you simply can't hear a rational argument. Some of it is plugging your ears. But some of it is also legitimately because all they've ever known is religion. So when they hear an argument against their religion, even if it is rational, it sounds like something evil to them. Simply because they've never ever been able to entertain rationality when it comes to their religion in that way. It's so strange being out of religion and watching these rational videos that I once met with hostility, and now simply watch them and appreciating what they have to say. I still don't appreciate it when people are just condescending and they pretend like they want to help religious people but instead just bash them and make them feel like they're stupid. (Although I can understand the frustration. I just don't think its helpful.) I really appreciate these thoughtful critiques. I hope I can speak this way to my family one day.

@MikaelLewisify

3 жыл бұрын

Very similar experience to mine. People always assume that I was hurt or offended or angry, but none of that was the case. I just simply could not accept it as truth anymore. I like to tell people that I didn’t lose my faith; I tossed it aside as the spent garbage that it was.

@canadiankewldude

2 жыл бұрын

I really hope that issues with your family have gotten better.

@zacharyhonachi2166

2 жыл бұрын

You can't rationalize with people who are irrational.

@debeb5148

Жыл бұрын

If you want an angry version of you it's me lol

Something that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

@bulldogsbob

7 жыл бұрын

The problem is that Christainity does have evidence atheists just don't admit it.

@usMarinecuv902

7 жыл бұрын

bulldogsbob I'm all ears

@Knite_13

7 жыл бұрын

Yes, I'm quite intrigued. So tell me, what evidence do you have? Secondly who is the authority to "interpret" the Bible? I mean it says I can own slaves. Secondly, why are there so many sects of Christianity? Also I'd like to know why people think the earth is on 5000 years old when in fact it's millions. The Bible also mentions Unicorns, where can I buy one?

@bulldogsbob

7 жыл бұрын

Knight Fox Do you want real answers or just rant because all the answers to your questions are available on this wonderful called the internet.

@bulldogsbob

7 жыл бұрын

***** It's all there you just will not admit it.

Tolerance, IMHO, is putting up with an irritant or an annoyance. Acceptance is embracing something without resistance.

@meleahsemper7725

8 жыл бұрын

+Malcolm Nicoll I've never really understood the term ''tolerance' applied to people. Saying i 'tolerate' this person's belief or lifestyle makes you sound like you begrudgingly accept the fact that this person has thoughts and opinions that differ from your own. it seems rude and disrespectful. by the way is it just me or is that title a little misleading...

@Warsie

8 жыл бұрын

+Me Leah Semper begrudingly accepting someone's beliefs is still much better than fucking killing them over it.

@brobsty1856

8 жыл бұрын

You think tolerance is rude and disrespectful? Tolerance is the act of allowing other ideas to exist that run counter to your own. It is a sign of respect.

@traplover6357

8 жыл бұрын

don't tolerate intolerance and we are good.

@tenhirankei

6 жыл бұрын

What do you call an intolerant tolerant person? A liberal.

I love being proven wrong. It means I get to learn something and not be wrong anymore.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Evelyn Hall

@lukezeiolf6977

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for quoting her properly. It’s such a relief to see this not credited to Voltaire

I sort of get what he's saying, but tolerance is not supposed to equal acceptance. Sometimes it's really about picking your battles. It can mean agreeing to disagree and letting it go just for the sake of social harmony. Some things aren't worth fighting over. It's only a problem if you compromise your integrity in order to tolerate the intolerable.

@sovereign7034

8 жыл бұрын

true to that

@WardofSquid

6 жыл бұрын

Snaps to you. Too true

@HereTakeAFlower

3 жыл бұрын

"Believe in what you want but kindly respect the laws in your country"

@HereTakeAFlower

3 жыл бұрын

@@crc9564 my bad, in Italy to "respect" a law means not to break it, that's what I meant.

@buckplug2423

3 жыл бұрын

Tolerance and acceptance both allow people to express themselves, but acceptance goes a step further by denouncing critique, denouncing conflicts, denouncing truth really (if we can all believe in everything then we don't believe anything). Tolerance accepts conflict, accepts critique - even strives for it. A tolerant society is still very much one that fights interally - it just does so with words, not power.

Even as a christian, I can appreciate this perspective. People should disagree, and that's great! People should not be forced to conform to someone else's lifestyle/perspective/religion/politics/etc. I accept that my faith is not logical, that's why it's called "faith," and not "logic." When it comes to politics/societal issues, we should rely on logic, and not faith.

@nmatney353

8 жыл бұрын

+John Doe You are a Christian. Your faith is completely logical. Try reading The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel. He makes solid points on the logical reasoning of believing in God.

@johndoh8283

8 жыл бұрын

N Mats Cool, will do.

@rebeccadavis7219

8 жыл бұрын

iamsosorry4u

@johndoh8283

8 жыл бұрын

REBECCA Davis I'm sorry for your English teacher's wasted time.

@briandonovan1584

8 жыл бұрын

That was well played but "faith" is not a virtue, its opposite of virtue.

Dick Gregory said: "I never learned hate at home, or shame. I had to go to school for that."

@ComicBookGuy420

3 жыл бұрын

Yep

@Cyrus_II

3 жыл бұрын

That's a very naive viewpoint that has been disproven. No, we're not inherently good.

@newnastyn

3 жыл бұрын

@@Cyrus_II we are neither inherently good or bad. We are. Then we make choices. On the other hand, every primate ever tested had shown to have a sense of equity and a perception of injustice in a given situation. And western society does not represent the whole of humanity, it is a far more individualistic place, although it has done a good job of exporting it's view of things and disrupt more community centered societies. Which then also turn incredibly violent in response. A sad state of affairs, but not hopeless. Yet.

@Drood.

3 жыл бұрын

@@Cyrus_II That hasn't been proven at all, the study most frequently used to "prove" that is the Zimbardo Prison experiment, which has been shown to have been incredibly flawed in it's methodology. The only way to prove it would be to raise children in completely controlled conditions from birth, something witch is incredibly unethical.

@Pelcurus

3 жыл бұрын

@championchap That's not the point of the quote.

It's simple. The non aggression principle. You can believe whatever you want without proof, but you can't violate somebody else's rights because if it.

@kimghanson

8 жыл бұрын

+vexx506 And yet the government does this every day

@NoIfsAndsOrButtsCA

8 жыл бұрын

+vexx506 You're living in a fantasy world, all actions are based on beliefs, if you believe bullshit you will, at some point, do harm, it is unavoidable.

"Religions are experts at analogies, once science has found the actual truth." I forgot who said that, but it always resonated with me.

@PikesvilleAl

3 жыл бұрын

Total bullshit

@Pigeon249

3 жыл бұрын

@@PikesvilleAl How so?

I've always thought this but part of me has always been doubtful about it. I always want to keep an open mind but I need to have the courage to take more action, even if I turn out to be wrong sometimes. Thanks for the extra push!

I love Penn, but the problem with his thinking here is obvious: there is a world of difference between saying, "I believe in a particular idea/concept" and "I get to inflict things on other people because of what I believe." Jillette says he believes in the physics of matter outside himself. How is this different than someone saying they believe in a power beyond themselves? Neither notion can be proved or disproved, and both are only personal statements. It's when ANY notion moves beyond the personal and turns into a hierarchal, shared, dogmatic system ("I believe X, so you have to believe it too, and by the way, here are some rules you have to follow, and if you believe in X you're obligated to hurt other people for the cause of X.") that there are problems. Whether the system is one of religion, antireligion, or science, it will operate by the same rules, with the same hideous results.

@SiouxWarlord

9 жыл бұрын

I mentioned this above, but to agree with your statement, by Penn's logic, love is equally illogical. It cant be proven, people believe in it's existence without proof, many many bad things have happened because of the idea of love. And he said "Once you said you believe something you cant prove to someone else, you've completely walled yourself off from the world." So.. love = bad

@nikitakade5242

9 жыл бұрын

SiouxWarlord Wonderful observation! I'm surprised that Penn didn't pick up on what was bound to be some of the critique aimed at his statement; he's a talented, bold thinker, and I would have thought he'd catch the pitfalls in this argument before he made it...

@SiouxWarlord

9 жыл бұрын

Thank you for saying so. As far as Penn goes I also think he is talented and a bold thinker. And i am always interested in seeing what others have to say about topics. Not that i always want to argue about things but just the way he said it reminded me of how it resembles the concept of love.

@brandonmorris7303

9 жыл бұрын

***** Penn is Libertarian, Not an anarchist.

@brandonmorris7303

9 жыл бұрын

I'm a Libertarian. Limited Government like murder, theft, robbery, etc. End the war on drugs, End the NSA, End IRS, End the Patriot Act.

i LOVE this video. i have felt this way since forever. people can't take you challenging their ideas or feelings. many get angry, but if i'm taking the time to try to show you my opinion and give you an opportunity to show me yours, then i am showing you infinitely more respect than someone i just let spew whatever they want. In the former scenario, i'm saying i think you're smart enough to handle this conversation, i care that you might be wrong. in the latter, you're saying the exact opposite.

Thank you for your thoughts Penn. I really love the clarity you have at describing your position.

I'm a firm believer who Jesus is, and I really appreciated this video. Thank you for your honesty and transparency. I truly believe there is a lesson for us all in here

@madman2u

3 жыл бұрын

Who is Jesus to you, and how do you know what you believe is true?

@ninja8flash742

3 жыл бұрын

@@madman2u they probs wont reply so ill reply for them; jesus is their god and they know by faith/dont know but believe to be true by faith

@ninja8flash742

3 жыл бұрын

@Condom Arms i mean u dont have to believe i have no proof and dont believe i was just answering the reply cuz it wouldnt be answered otherwise

In previous time when I've "come out" and declared my atheism in letters to a newspaper letters column, almost invariably I would find letters in my mailbox telling me to "believe in god", and often quite abusive in their tone, and in EVERY instance, anonymous with no return address, often hand-delivered. I rank such letter-writers among the cowards of the world.

@CT_Taylor

2 жыл бұрын

also felons, the hand delivered ones

At 2:25, my answer would be "Because believing or experimenting with something does not people license to push it onto other or use it as an excuse to treat others badly." Secondly, having a feeling something is true & wanting to experiment with it can also go together with a desire to find out, and the logic that goes with that - but that is a choice. It also means that we not very good at telling how honest ppl are to themselves. Btw, I reckon that a lot of spiritual experiences are from interactions with spirits who used to be people with a physical body on earth. This, as a theory, explains a lot of things. Love and truth-seeking need to go together, not one or the other.

"The more I know the more I realize that I know nothing at all"

Wow, this is a great video, I'm glad to see Penn is opening his heart and still able to be logical at the same time.

I believe that Penn is correct. I can't prove it, but I feel it in my heart.

@JukeboxJake

5 жыл бұрын

That is what believe means. Your comment could have been a sentance shorter.

@Reverend_Mojo

2 жыл бұрын

@@JukeboxJake well I believe it could also be a sentence longer.

I so thoroughly enjoy listening to Penn, it always impresses me that his trade is the art of deception (ie "magic" tricks) and entertainment, but that allows him such a clear view of reality that he is capable of a level of honesty that if attempted by almost anyone else (myself included) they would trip over their own ego and fall. I truly consider him a great role model on being both open minded yet capable of rational filtering and that character trait that is often so absent in so many, absolute honesty, even at expense of the ego. In a world of people that possess those 3 qualities, there would be no war, everything would be handled through civil discussion. We'd all be willing to admit we're wrong, AND would be the first to do so when we busted our own wrongs. My take away from this is to have a mind like a bucket, that scoops up as much information as possible. A thought process like a great filter, sifting out the BS, and a soul that can recognize when the filter has failed so that it can be repaired and reinforced with haste!

Penn Jillette is my favorite atheist. Love that guy!

@JustinLowmaster

10 жыл бұрын

Yeah, he's pretty cool. I like people you can disagree with and neither side gets all mad about it.

@ssesf

10 жыл бұрын

I like some of his video clips - just not this one.

@alan9garcia

4 жыл бұрын

His whole argument in this video is built on a strawman. Sounds smart but its not that deep. He's a better magician than he is a philosopher.

@PikesvilleAl

3 жыл бұрын

@@alan9garcia Penn is actual stupid. He claims to love his kids, but there is no proof love exists.

@haakonhunter7621

3 жыл бұрын

If this a joke you’re funny if not, i feel bad for you

if someone does believe in a subjective truth, that doesn't mean it validates the actions of others, based on there subjective truths. To me, everyone believes what they want to believe, as long as they do not act violently upon these believes, or force others to believe in the same subjective truths. I don't believe in a personal god, but I also don't dismiss the hypothesis that there is one. simply saying that something doesn't excist, creates a similar dogma. just be, and withhold violent behavior. that way, we can discuss and figure out the moral truths of or decade, and change them when new knowledge arrives.

@PolrisTired

3 жыл бұрын

You have to know that Penn isn't saying with all confidence that there cannot possibly be a god, but rather that he doesn't think people should assume there is one based on subjective truth. And that the problem with accepting subjective truths is it just makes little sense to go on and say "my subjective reality is correct and justifies this, but your subjective reality cannot be right and thus cannot justify that" which is just senseless, because both sides have the same amount of credibility or proof to what they believe, yet one pretends to hold a moral high ground over the other. Of course this doesn't mean people who accept a subjective reality should allow people to justify unjustifiable things with their own subjective realities, Penn is really just trying to point out how hypocritical it is in all honesty for them to still refute others "wacky" beliefs

@marcar9marcar972

3 жыл бұрын

@@PolrisTired the problem is that this isn’t all subjective. You can look back at the history, the books, the word of god and make that call for yourself. Scientists aren’t the only people who can ascertain the truth, everyone can really. I mean who do you think scientists are in the first place ;)

@PolrisTired

3 жыл бұрын

@@marcar9marcar972 I can barely tell what you're saying honestly. This isn't all subjective? As in, implying the existence of god is objectively true? Everyone can assert their own truth from their perspective, but that's what you call subjective reality, which just brings us back to the original point Penn was making

@PolrisTired

3 жыл бұрын

@@marcar9marcar972 I did have to try to interpret some of way you were saying as it didn't seem all that clear to me so feel free to correct me

but there has to be a difference between acceptance, tolerance, and rejection; at least when it comes to ideas. Rejecting an idea would be 'forcing' another person to 'believe' what you want them to (however effective that might be...) Accepting all ideas is the same as saying they are all correct and all truth (and therefore there is no 'real' truth; at least not within reason and contradiction) Tolerance to me is the middle ground between these, and I know there are many that share this perspective. Tolerance from this definition is no more condescending than simply disagreeing and believing another person is wrong, yet respecting their right to that belief (how that results in practice is a whole other discussion). that being said, definitions are the root of so many 'disagreements' anyways.. when it comes to behavior, I would argue civilization depends on tolerance. These things are important to keep in mind I feel.

@Dwayne_Bearup

3 жыл бұрын

Sorry this is late to the party, but I feel compelled to argue that rejecting someone else's idea is not the same as forcing them to believe something else. I know a woman who truly believes in everything to do with cryptozoology - bigfoot, yeti, chupacabra, the moth man, all of it. I reject that belief, unequivocally, but she has not changed her belief one iota, nor did I expect her to. If rejection were equivalent to forcing a change in belief, she would no longer believe in bigfoot.

@unappropadope

3 жыл бұрын

@@Dwayne_Bearup I don't think I agree at all with 6 years past me; It's hard to read, frankly. I think what I wrote then was a thin veiled argument for being bigoted and rejecting others' rights while hiding behind semantics. Hard to tell now.

Everyone has a right to believe what they want, it's what they do to others that has to be questioned. This is the ancient wisdom of keeping different cultures separate.

I love when people from different crafts come out to be really well rounded people with a good knowledge of things.

This man has a great heart! Always awesome to hear his calm loving way of accepting someone, but not accepting their beliefs.

@tyman7156

2 жыл бұрын

the human heart is wicked above all things.... who can know it.....

Very well said! Respect.

I am one of those people. I gave you a like on the video and I was already subscribed to the channel. Just because you have a different set of answers for the universal questions of life is not a problem for me. We all get to say for ourselves what those answers are. I am a positive person who tries to help those who in need of a friend. I'm a big fan of comedy I and in the early 1970s I got my dad to buy me a ticket to a film about Lenny Bruce. The Publishers Clearinghouse sent me Al Goldberg's Screw Magazine and the pulps of Issac Asimov and the Harvard Lanpoon before any movies were associated with the brand. I've watched all of show's and love how you two built a career from being unique. I'm amazed at how much you put fear into the magic community. Everyone starts somewhere so if you are not sharing their secrets are being propagated by someone! I like what James Randi does. I understand that we're diametrically opposed, but we all have our parts in this show.

He's not against tolerance. He's against pluralism of truth. Good on him.

I was once explaining to a hardcore religious friend that I thought it was very important that one should always be aware of the fact that they may be wrong about something. Even about one's most deeply held core beliefs. I told her how difficult such a frame of mind was to maintain and mentioned that it does make me more tolerant of others. Her definition of tolerance, was however, the same as Penn's in this video. So she didn't think too much of that. And neither do I. But tolerance doesn't always mean that you think all points of view are equally valid. It's certainly not what I meant because I don't believe that to be true at all. I'm definitely with Penn on this. (one thing that drive's me up the wall is the idea that there are "alternate ways of knowing" - I could literally scream when I hear that). Just goes to show you how one word can mean such different things - and how difficult it can be to clarify those meanings. What I mean is that I think I am right and you are wrong but I can tolerate your views without hostility because I know the reverse might be true (no matter how unlikely I think that may be). Religious believers are often violently hostile because they KNOW they are right

That last comment about fundamentalists and liberalism irks me a bit. I ask this without a trace of irony; how is it respectful when two parties (who are un-budging in their ideals mind you) tell each other that the other is wrong. I think what you mean to imply is that, if two parties can look each other in the eye and say 'You're wrong.' but still fundamentally get a long despite their difference, that is respect. There is a big movement for 'tolerance' in this day and age. More than ever before, I believe that people are trying to figure out a way that we can all be one people and understand each other but, I will agree with you that tolerance(in so far as to say that tolerance is just like saying 'Meh, believe what you want.') is condescending because it gives the impression that people don't really give a shit about the others ideals and that is *wrong*. We need harmony, not tolerance. We need for people to be able to look at each other and say 'Oh, I see where your coming from but, doesn't this make a little more sense?' without being brash or offended. Religion kind of stymies that because it implies that if your wrong, you're going to eternally burn in hell. Universally, that's a bad thing. No one I've ever met has ever wanted to be subjected to fire for any amount of time, much less eternally. My problem is not with religion but, with it's propensity to use scare tactics to control the masses. I wonder how many people maintain their good nature simply because they don't want to be punished and feel like it's a chore to be good. I wonder how many people actually exhibit true hearts of gold. I want to believe that there is a God, or some afterlife of some sort; a reward to be had at the end of the game. I pray when I desire good to happen to myself or more especially, people I care about. However, I do not tell people I believe in God because I cannot possibly make that claim. I can't prove it, I can only place faith in it and hope for it to be true. I'll close this comment out with a proverb to match your quote. "Doveryai no proveryai" It's a Russian proverb that means, 'Trust but verify' So it should be followed in day to day life as it should be with the church. Have faith in your church, but have even more faith in the ability you've been given, by God or by experience, to decipher right and wrong.

@CookinginRussia

10 жыл бұрын

You wrote, "I want to believe that there is a God..." - Why? Why would anyone want that? Look at the suffering and torment in the world. There are only three possible scenarios: 1. God exists and doesn't care how much we suffer, or possibly takes pleasure in it as a sadistic monster. 2. God exists and is incapable of helping living people, but after you die you are going to be judged by this being who created you and let you suffer for decades. 3. There is no God. Seems like #3 is the preferable condition, and without a doubt the far, far, far more likely of the three.

@Trixiehobbits

10 жыл бұрын

CookinginRussia When people say, "I want to believe that there is a God..." they generally mean to speak about a being of supreme benevolence and as a listener to that kind of statement, you are supposed to assume that at face value. Those points undermine the value of that initial statement which really kind of makes your question come of as rhetorical and not really seeking an answer. I followed up that statement however, with 'I cannot make that claim because I cannot prove it.' though, I didn't mean 'prove' in the sense that I can look at the being and be satisfied that 'Yup, that's god alright.' so much as there is simply a lack of proof that it exists. You're missing the fourth possible course of action. You've got two negatives(points 1&2) and arguably either a neutral or a positive (we'll say positive for the sake of this argument) but you're neglecting the truest neutral of them all. Everyone assumes 'God' is all powerful, all-encompassing and can, at the snap of his fingers or less, solve all the worlds problems. So then, an inquisitive mind may ask, why is there any problems at all. Consider this: God is an intelligent being playing a highly intensive resource management sim game. Much like we play the Sims or Banished, we try to nurture our people that the game gives us license over and grow attached to them as the progress with our guidance. Assuming their provided for, left to their own devices these systems could run themselves for theoretical eternity until in-game variables, disasters and diseases create circumstances that have not been prepared for. If God is asleep at the wheel, the civilization perishes, if we have a smart God, we flourish. Every major action we do is queued up by the guy in a neatly or perhaps not so neatly organized priority bar. Bottom line; God prepares. He cannot change the rules of the game, or if he can, he only cheats (preforms miracles) in situations where he feels like he doesn't want to lose the game. Yet, it is just a game to him as much as Banished is a simulation to us. He cares, but doesn't empathize. If we vanished, he'd be sad but, he could just start a new game.

@KilloZapit

10 жыл бұрын

Trixiehobbits Personally, my take on it is this. If we assume a benevolent but non-omnipotent god who guides humans (which is one of the only ways I can see to solve the old "problem of evil" debate) is there a real difference between God and "The Idea of Good"? Is there any real reason to assume all goodness comes from and is personified by a particular being? I would almost think it a bit insulting to imply that human beings aren't capable of telling right from wrong or that simple acts of kindness are some alien concept to us. I much rather people, if they worship anything, worship the collective idea of goodness, pray to that little spark born of our collective consciousness, then to try to place all our faith in a perfect being forever beyond our reach.

@Trixiehobbits

10 жыл бұрын

KilloZapit A valid point. If you want my personal (admittedly ever-changing notion) of God, if I had to believe in one, it is likely that God is indifferent to us. It's not that he cares or doesn't care as a parent would their child (and I'm using masculine pronouns assuming gender neutrality.) but that they simply can't empathize. We don't register to him as life, but small programs in the way that gamers don't empathize with their sim characters as living beings but still desire for them to prosper, no less being excited that one passed away if they are not fulfilling a useful function to their entertainment. Again, it's not a matter of benevolence or malevolence it is simply the case of a higher being not being able to recognize the lower ones as living on a fundamental level. I would agree, though I don't know if humans will ever get to that point, that believing in a collective 'good nature' within the human race would be much more beneficial and healthy for us but, I know of several people not religious eccentrics who I would wager couldn't understand the point of being good if god didn't exist. They're not bad people. But they're not necessarily the most intelligently mature and would rather believe god shaped the world than agree with complex theoretical physics that they can't completely grasp the concepts of as the progenitor of space and time.

@KilloZapit

10 жыл бұрын

Trixiehobbits I don't really buy the argument of a higher being not being able to empathize. People empathize with game characters all the time, it's just mostly people choose not to, because it's easier that way. But really my attitude is if it doesn't have anything to do with me it might as well not exist, so I would probably be just as indifferent to god, unless he came down and messed with me. Also, I think humans getting to that point is just a matter of what ideas we fill our kids with. People usually tend to grasp on whatever ideas they are taught and have a hard time letting go I think.

Very insightfull comments by a person i did not expect it from, who knew. Oh and i do agree on the whole aspect of walling yourself into a selfcontained buble of faith. It's why we have gotten nowhere in several years of religious debate.

You can only tolerate from a position of power, otherwise you just have to suffer. So be careful whom you tolerate because if you allow them into a position to tolerate you, they may not

Believing there are different paths to what you believe (not talking about religion exclusively) in is not condescending

@gerritkruitbosch4277

10 жыл бұрын

I think that was his point. So much of what passes for "tolerance" is not believing there are different paths but rather a self righteous sense of condescension. I think the problem is that fundamentalist literal thinking is what leads to this. The good news, I think, is that those who are that way are at least trying to use logic and reason they are just mislead - have made some fatal errors in their fundamental "axioms". But hopefully they eventually will not be able to ignore the conflicting evidence and illogical conclusions their beliefs have lead to. Speaking from experience that realization can be disruptive in someones life and my now realization that I don't "have all the answers" can be both liberating and create a great sense of loss at all the years I have spent fuxed up in the head thinking I do have all the answers.

I'm a Christian and I like what Penn says here - to be able to call someone out and say they are wrong when they are wrong - without compromising our beliefs - is a sign of respect and maturity. The Atheist vs Christian battle has waged on and on and if we as humans think it is noble to try and change someone else because we don't like the other's viewpoints, we are WRONG. I propose we discuss, reason, and share our differences with one another to the betterment of the other. Not because our precious ego is hurt by an opposing belief system. Let's leave the name calling, the accusations and the insults behind and move towards a mutually respectful relationship with one another....because we all gotta share this planet we live on. :-) Peace!!!

@WardofSquid

6 жыл бұрын

Lovely

@geraldbrienza4474

6 жыл бұрын

www.godisimaginary.com

@geraldbrienza4474

6 жыл бұрын

Atheist vs Christian “battle” is a misnomer. There is no battle. You (and every other religion) believe in an invisible sky magician deity that created the entire universe with his magic wand and to who you can speak and petition for favors because you think he cares so much about what you do and how you do it. I don’t believe that. It’s that simple.

@blueeyedchaz7468

6 жыл бұрын

LOL Gerald you just proved Tommy that there is a battle. If there wasn't a battle there would be no need for you to disrespect and demonize his beliefs, when all you had to say I don't believe that there is a battle and it may be just a perception that you have.

@geraldbrienza4474

6 жыл бұрын

blueeyedchaz: it’s always appropriate to “disrespect” bad ideas. Demonizing is the perception of one who believes in demons. There is no battle per se, it’s simply truth vs. mythology and if someone insists on promoting “illusions” then harsh criticism should be expected.

Penn you are a good man. I agree with the responsibility we all have to understand and use science to live work together and form a foundation for thinking acting and living. Well said. I’ve always enjoyed your integrity and talent as a magician. And was delighted to see how responsible and good a thinker you are as well.

I feel like this. Thanks for sharing.

A world where you could call on someone's bullshit and not fear lethal or cultural punishment would be a much more serine world. We'd learn from our mistakes far faster. I do have to agree and disagree with the use of the word Tolerance. Yes, it can be used as a mindset to dismiss others.... but it's also the word that helps people avoid being lynched because they can't be tolerated for [Insert Insane Bigotry].

@KevinWall426

8 жыл бұрын

+V Guyver Tolerance is not as bad as pluralism.

@vguyver2

8 жыл бұрын

Kevin Wall Separation of Church and State. i wonder why the GOP ignores why it was created. I suppose they would agree with Puritans that setting Quakers on fire is a great activity.

If you feel that there is some higher power in the universe, then good for you! Just because you cannot prove it to someone else, you can express that feeling in your life. You can express it in your actions everyday, and you can express it in art, in dance, or how you smile. Life isn't only about carrying out a logical argument! I think tolerance is a good idea, because it allows people to develop their ideas - as long as it doesn't oppress other people - lol - until they can finally give a more complete expression of that idea. I think of it as food. I am very picky about what I eat - I choose my food carefully according to my own taste and plans. I think of tolerance as simply letting other people choose what they want to eat (unless it oppresses others). Some things that people eat are disgusting and I think it is wrong, but I recognize that they have that freedom to explore life. That is what tolerance and respect is.

His discussion is about opening a dialog, not shutting the door on truth and respect. As he and teller discussed (in writing), the definition of intellectual “someone who can change their mind when given facts or logic” then say “I was wrong, I don’t feel that anymore.” It is not easy to say out loud “I am wrong” and then formulate a new truth in your mind? It is however a great step toward brilliance! When I met with Penn after his show he discussed with me how much he enjoyed doing "Big Think". He and Teller distinguish themselves from other entertainers by being grateful for their fans. They enjoy taking the time after their performance and staying in the lobby until everyone has had the chance to get a photo, signature or to simply have the ability to talk to them. They are as open and inviting in real life as they are on TV or stage.

The idea that we all share the same common physical reality seems valid to me. We could call this physical reality that we all share, perceive and interpret, "objective reality." Seems like a valid philosophical start.

Sure tolerance can be condescending, but I'm not going to really respect certain people anyway, even if I go through the futile effort to argue about something. A lot of people are children, so tolerance is a way of letting them be, without conflict and overt condescension. Not all of us have the personality to handle those people in a tactful way, and not all of us care to. Tolerance is polite, covert condescension, and that's fine with me.

I lik ethis guys thinking processes.. very refreshing too!

Thanks for being open and reasonable, Penn!

Love the way you think!

see? now as a Christian, i'd just like to say...I have no problem living in a world like that. why can't we all just look each other in the face and say "you're wrong" then go our separate ways? I really don't care what others believe or don't believe, just let me believe what I do, tell me you think it's wrong, I tell you I think you're wrong we leave each other be. simple.

@braveapollo5872

10 жыл бұрын

Edward Teach I have no problem with that either, except you are WRONG !

@ThePimV

10 жыл бұрын

i don't have problem with believing i have a problem with the shit that comes from religion. such as teaching young earth creation in public schools, homophobia, childen dieing from cancer becasue there parents refuse to give medicene.

@jamphibar

10 жыл бұрын

NBD, except that many of these religious people also believe in a heaven and a hell, and that for being a nonbeliever I am destined for everlasting torment. A person who would believe such a thing, yet passively permit me my 'folly', is in my eyes a goddamn sociopath.

@ericsmith1508

10 жыл бұрын

well that's where 85% or more of "Christian" faiths get it wrong. your salvation or lack thereof depend entirely on the work of God, his choosing and working in and on you. and many MANY people who will be in heaven may never show belief in this life. that is entirely between you and God, and he may not work on you in this life (for whatever reason) and still take you into heaven.

@ASkepticalHumanOnYouTube

10 жыл бұрын

Edward Teach Yes, that sounds wonderful, except that's not how it works. The religious people in this country don't just have these harmless beliefs that occupy the corner of their mind that are separated from the way that they act and live. They act in accordance with those beliefs. They attempt to prevent the attainment of equal rights by opposing homosexual marriage; they not only indoctrinate their ignorant, innocent children into their ridiculous belief system and spawn another generation of deluded religious believers, but they attempt to get this garbage taught in schools because it's not enough their family beliefs it: everybody else has to be taught it and believe it too; they attempt to stall scientific progress by standing in the way of stem-cell research; they mutilate their children's genitals, etc. (In anticipation of the complaint that I'm just "targeting the extremists", keep in mind that something like 40% of Americans believe the aforementioned nonsense.) Believe me, I haven't even gotten started, but I think I've made my point clear: there is no "leave each other be" among the religious people of this country. In one way or another, their beliefs are going to influence their actions in such a way that they affect other people. And your claim that "that's where 85% of Christian of faiths get it wrong" is laughable. Who are you to say that those other sects of Christianity are wrong? After all, aren't we supposed to respect each others views equally? You are on no firmer ground in your belief system than the person who believes in eternal torment for nonbelievers. In fact, you're actually in the worse position, because (perhaps unbeknown to you) the Bible does in fact endorse that position that you're condemning, on many different occasions. The Bible unequivocally states that belief in God and the resurrection of Jesus is a prerequisite for "salvation" and that failing to do so results in never-ending torture as a punishment. So if the Bible is in fact an accurate book (which it's not), then your particular flavor of Christianity is the one that gets it wrong. That position of yours really shows how divorced your belief system is from reality. Even from the warped, inaccurate position of being religious, you manage to take it a step further in irrationality by distorting what your own holy book says. But this is the very nature of religious beliefs: not caring about whether or not something is true, but simply asserting beliefs because they make you feel good. It doesn't matter what the Bible says on the subject of hell: you want to believe that your God is more moral than the monster portrayed within the Bible, so you reject what it says and falsely assert that nonbelievers in fact can escape hellfire. You are even more wrong than the fundamentalists who you condemn.

I really don't see the argument or point he's trying to make. In fact, before he began speaking, he wrapped his argument in some sort of safety net, that we must discard whether we believe that there are things above "reality". No offense to atheists, but why is it that you can't allow another human being alone to practice their own belief, whatever it may be? I believe in a higher power, I don't murder people, I don't question Atheists or start those annoying long debates, I don't spew hate onto people that don't agree with me, I just don't understand the need to dictate somebody else's life to the point in which you say that a human being is not allowed to "feel" a certain way.

@Formdesolver

10 жыл бұрын

You are the point he made lol

@V4ultK33p3r

10 жыл бұрын

Formdesolver I love you haha

@HT-on5sk

10 жыл бұрын

I'm an atheist and I fully agree with you. Having been exposed to many of these ideas, I know what kind of argument he's trying to put forth, although he doesn't articulate it very well at all. He's basically trying to say that a belief without evidence (i.e. God) is unjustified. His analogy with Charles Manson and Al Qaida is plain terrible.

@Formdesolver

10 жыл бұрын

ht bowser Ok then, if you think you can do it better then do it. He's not saying that it's unjustified to believe something with no proof, he's saying that it creates more people that believe like that, and he wants everyone to put everyone in check out of respect and not just let people go off of imagination, like what I'm doing for you, because you see him as someone lower than you when in fact he actually did articulate it well because the analogies don't even matter if the message gets across, and it did, I mean I don't think he has to make a video for middle school.

@nicolastambuyser3822

10 жыл бұрын

he is talking about how beliefs should be grounded in reality and facts, like the Late Great Christopher Hitchens said, "that which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" you cannot debate smoke and mirrors I have heard too many christians tell me God is like the wind on your face, you cant see it but you know it's there, you cannot have a rational discussion about why you don't believe with those people

Stellar. Thanks Penn for elucidating this so clearly.

I am happy to learn someone as great as Penn shares the same values and principles as I do.

Yes it is. Love thy Neighbor, not tolerate thy neighbor.

@python-pr8vk

3 жыл бұрын

Have you met my neighbor? 😭

As an atheist, it disappoints me how many atheists immediately turn to insults when someone says they're a Christian

Good to hear.

Your humility is refreshing, I will no longer refrain from expressing my contention with your viewpoint. Objectively speaking, who else but the true Almighty God would have true humility, which we undoubtedly must learn to imitate. Now I don't know where you learned humility from, but it really seems to be something that you wish to perform from the heart. Thank you.

He says he gets along well with fundamentalists. I think it might be because, like them, he believes in an objective reality that can be formulated with accuracy and reduced to universal formulas. Nietzsche noticed this resemblance between rationalists and religious people.

@veinerschnitzel

10 жыл бұрын

Truth: we exist. That is an absolute fact, as is mathematics. Mathematics may also be debatable but existence is not. We clearly exist. for existence is just being. And to be here we are being. We may be a dream, an illusion, an projection, a program, but this does not change the fact that we exist.

@marcsoucie4010

10 жыл бұрын

Dong Wong yes. The ''sense of being'' and the experiences we live from moment to moment are the only things we really know…the rest is conjecture...

@BrainManCoe

10 жыл бұрын

Dong Wong the only thing you can know for certain is that YOU exist you mint be imagining the rest of us and the same could be said for everyone. therefore the simple act of one person believing in the existence of another is an act of faith

@MrCharles7994

10 жыл бұрын

Ya, Nietzsche noticed similarities between rationalists and theists, because it takes a true nut-job to convince himself that reality isn't *real*. The subset of "not completly fucking bonkers people" does (or a at least did), indeed, include both rationalists and theists during the time of Nietzsche. Of course, many, many more theists have taken that route as their precious beliefs are continuously disproven by rationalist science, but that's neither here nor there.

@custos3249

10 жыл бұрын

Alec Coe There's an issue with your reasoning. You can firmly deduct that others exist simply because you are not a closed system. You are not in control of every aspect of your environment, and, for others to be a figment of your imagination, that requires you to, in reality, be God: be all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-present. Take your death, for instance. It just happened. You didn't see it coming. In a normal "others exist" reality, it's just the end of your story, but in order for the events that lead up to your death to happen in a "only you exist" reality, you would have had to already know everything that was about to happen, effectively meaning you and everyone else is never just "killed" but actually commits suicide upon death or death does not occur, if it occurs at all, otherwise your "not seeing it coming" would be a paradox. Unfortunately fortunately, you are not God, you are just some random dude herpderping on the internet who will die someday like all other people before you.

This guy has such a brilliant mind.

@stringlarson1247

7 жыл бұрын

*had* a brilliant mind. He's just in over his depth these days.

@351cleavland

7 жыл бұрын

How did you mean that?

Absolutely. If you say that you agree with something that you feel is wrong, you're really just trying to end the conversation before It's even began. Someone you respect is someone that you can say your truth to.

His final point mostly counteracted his first point! But I generally enjoy listening to him.

The biggest problem is throughout the centuries governments and individual people have used religion as a means for control. Political Correctness also used that way. What I want to know is why is it so important that other people agree with you? Both Christians, atheists, and everyone in between seem to need others to see their point of view. I believe people need to believe in what they believe in. I've been everything religiously: raised Baptist, became an atheist, and then went New Age. Fundamental Christians had a lot of respect for me when I was an atheist, but were very condescending to me when I became a New Ager. I think its because atheists have logic on their side and fundamentalists are afraid of that because deep down most fundamentalists don't believe fully in God they are just afraid not to. They mock New Age beliefs every chance they get. I've just learned to keep my beliefs to myself until I feel like I can trust someone. After all, in my system of beliefs, it doesn't matter, God judges people based on the goodness of their hearts not on their belief system. I admit I avoid talking to atheists because I feel like they are on seek and destroy mission, and like I said previous I need my beliefs.

@LootFragg

7 жыл бұрын

Do I smell a theist around? Need... to destroy... fallacies...

@DrewKF

7 жыл бұрын

so... what is it that you do believe? Do you have clarified beliefs, or is it more of an emotive curiosity? I'm not really sure what it means to consider ones self to have "gone New Age" or however it was put, but I'm curious!

I don’t want to attack religious people; it feels like a sort of unkind thing to do, to attack religious people, because, you know, it’s too easy, and it feels like the battle has already been won. But it just feels rude. Like if you’re at a party and someone says, "Oh, I’m a Christian, I’m a Muslim, I’m a Jew." It’s very rude there to say, "Oh, how ridiculous." I feel at this point we have to treat people with kindness and love and respect, in the same way you’d treat a child running round a party saying, "I’m a helicopter!" And you can say, "Good for you. We’re all having fun. I’m a choo-choo train!"

@OfMiceAndMegabytes

5 жыл бұрын

Question Everything this is exactly how I feel when confronted with religious people! Let the world deal with them, I'll just tolerate them and move on.

" That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”. ... Christopher Hitchens. “In other words, that the discussion about what is good, what is beautiful, what is noble, what is pure, and what is true could always go on. Why is that important? Why would I like to do that? Because that’s the only conversation worth having. And whether it goes on or not after I die, I don’t know. But, I do know that it is the conversation I want to have while I am still alive. Which means that to me the offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can’t give way is an offer of something not worth having. I want to live my life taking the risk all the time that I don’t know anything like enough yet… that I haven’t understood enough… that I can’t know enough… that I am always hungrily operating on the margins of a potentially great harvest of future knowledge and wisdom. I wouldn’t have it any other way. And I’d urge you to look at those who tell you, those people who tell you at your age, that you are dead until you believe as they do. What a terrible thing to be telling to children. …and that you can only live by accepting an absolute authority. Don’t think of that as a gift. Think of it as a poisoned chalice. Push it aside however tempting it is. Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty and wisdom will come to you that way.” Christopher Hitchens

Tolerance is necessary because there are no factual, right-vs-wrong answers to many of life’s great questions. So if you want others to show respect for how you choose to live (as long as you don’t harm yourself or others) then you need to show them the same respect. With tolerance a society starts to careen towards dogmatism and ethnic conflict.

4:35 His body language from this point forward is interesting.

The difference between someone saying that they feel in their hearth that there is a god and someone else saying that they felt in their hearths that they had to kill those people is that the second one harms other people. A more likely comparison should be between someone who believes in a higher being and someone who believes in the sasquatch, and is the last one liscenced to believe in that? Yes, he is, and as long as he doesn't disturb our coexistance because of that belief, it is fine and no one should bother him about believing in what he wants to believe. One persons freedom ends where another persons freedom begins.

@KafanskaTV

10 жыл бұрын

Indeed that sasquatch comparison would be closer, but at the same time don't forget people of all religions have used that as a justification for all kinds of atrocities including genocide. So by believing, they had an excuse to kill, just like Charlie Manson.

@MrComicsGuy

10 жыл бұрын

Kafanska TV Yeah, but that is not the same context anymore. I'm catholic and I too believe that the killing of the heretics was bold wrong. Still, in today's civilization religion won't do that kind of stuff anymore (at least christianity or catholicism) and if they do then they're just assholes and are in no way justified for what they have done.

@KafanskaTV

10 жыл бұрын

MrComicsGuy They say ''give a man some power to see who he really is''. The church had the power and showed it's face troughout the middle ages. There's no contextual defense, they were supposed to be guiding the world's biggest religion, one which calls it's god ''loving, compassionate'' and all that, and they used that same religion as a tool of war. Not to mention that god himself engages in battles, orders the slaughter or tribes that are not of the same religion and helps in some battles. That can only mean two things: 1) That god is real and he prefers one tribe, thus allowing it to kill anyone else 2) He's not real and people wrote those stories to justify their military actions. In both cases, I see no good in it.

@MrComicsGuy

10 жыл бұрын

Kafanska TV There is contextual defense, the mentality was different, those were war ages and religion wasn't the only cause of them. Besides you can't deny that the church has power nowadays, and you don't see them killing people. They have, more than once, apologized for the mistakes their PREDECESSORS did, the company back then was composed of other people, very different people, with very different ideas. The act alone of apologizing or regretting those acts that they weren't guilty of sustains the initial statement about how having an idealism that harms the freedom of other people is wrong, they are claiming that that's wrong. The God thing could be engaged in another argument but it doesn't add anything to the matter in dispute, the bottom line is that God's main lesson is to love each other which contradicts (at least for the followers) the possibility of people nowadays going raiding tribes and commiting homicide on people with different religions.

@KafanskaTV

10 жыл бұрын

MrComicsGuy As I already said, the same ''god's message'' was available to them back then, as it is today. There were always wars, religion wasn't always the cause, but Church could have at least avoid contributing to them, but it did because it had most european armies at it's disposal when needed, and it used them often. Today they don't have that kind of power, instead they have enough political power to protect pedophiles within their ranks so that they almost never go to court and jail where they belong, instead they get relocated to another church to continue their wrongdoing. In both cases, wars and pedophilia, the Church as an organization and the highest authority on the world's biggest religion, chose to go against ''god's message'' of love and compassion and all that. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT.

Good stuff.

Oh my gosh I love this.

I like the older style big think where whoever was being interviewed spoke their opinion on a subject instead of telling us how to do something

Wow. I've never really liked this man, or many of his ideas-particularly his attacks on anything in the psychic field, and UFOs. But I must say, I found this piece quite illuminating. There's an actual brain working in there, which I now respect. I'm glad he made the effort to record this piece, even though we are miles apart on many issues. He has integrity.

@WorstTimelineInhabitant

10 жыл бұрын

I know right!

@ScottR10

10 жыл бұрын

He's guessing! Lets ask a question here, ok? Who are we in relation to god? Anyone?

@tiffsaver

10 жыл бұрын

Scott R. Here's my take, and I'm not saying it to convince anyone of anything. That's strictly an individual's right. For me, God didn't make us "in HIS image," it is we who made God in OUR image. In other words, I don't believe that God is an old guy with a white beard, sitting on a golden throne on high like he's depicted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. That a lot of religious hooey. God has no body, he does not get arthritis, nor does he have temper tantrums as described in the Bible, which are merely scare tactics to keep the dumb and ignorant in line. Fear can control people, and no one knows it better than The Church. God is a totally spiritual entity (if there even is one) and has no use whatsoever of a body, anymore than a fish needs a bicycle. That is strictly a human contrivance to give us something to paint and look at, just as white men always show Jesus with brown hair and green eyes, which is a completely Caucasian construct and has nothing at all to do with the fact that he was a Semitic man with black hair and brown eyes and probably didn't look so much like Mel Gibson. Christians believe that Jesus was "the son of God." But I only believe that term to the extent that I believe that we are ALL sons and daughters of God, and therefore part of God, one and indivisible.

@MrCharles7994

10 жыл бұрын

Scott R. We are authors. God is the character we wrote. Questions?

@crahs8

10 жыл бұрын

Robert Martin How's god a dick?? last i checked god was forgiving and friendly to everyone.

Tolerance walks a fine line between acceptance and ignoring. You may tolerate your that your friend has a different religious belief because you care about the friend, but you don't want any part in his beliefs or even want him to express them around you. Acceptance is saying we may not agree on these religious beliefs but i love you as a friend an this is a major part of your life so feel free to let me in.

I like Penn. He just seems like a great, genuine dude who loves creative thought.

You can count on luck but the point is not about believe but about understanding because not everyone who want to be tolerated deserve respect, so there is no point in trying to understand something that is pointless.

@briandonovan1584

8 жыл бұрын

Wow ... Well played and well put, Your Highness.

@MrRumit12

7 жыл бұрын

Roger Gillion I could give you my trust if you earn my respect, but this concept may probably work dependently of situation in both ways.

@MrRumit12

7 жыл бұрын

Roger Gillion The whole issue was more specifically about people who simply expect foolish tolerance those days instead of earn deserved respect, however you made some good point there.

Man, this is the first thing I've heard Penn say that I disagree with.

@fluffynator6222

3 жыл бұрын

Why? It's completely logical.

@marcar9marcar972

3 жыл бұрын

@@fluffynator6222 It’s a complex issues with a lot of rights and wrongs plus it covers such a variety of stuff it’s hard to get it right.

@python-pr8vk

3 жыл бұрын

Two wrongs don`t make a right. But three lefts do! 👍

This guy is amazing!

You are a true truth seeker, Mr. Jillette, and you have my most profound respect.

I wonder if Penn believes that he has a freewill simply because he believes in it?

@therealawakener7

8 жыл бұрын

Sach966 So all we need to find is the first cause. I wonder who set things in motion at the very beginning?

@therealawakener7

8 жыл бұрын

Sach966 Let's hope we don't.

@therealawakener7

8 жыл бұрын

Sach966 "A chemical reaction in your mind causes you to react a certain way, and that was programmed by previou events in your life, as well as your genetic makeup. We are essentially just a very complicated program that believes it runs itself." If you are right in your assertion above, then forget the moral implications of that for a moment and let's just grasp what you are essentially saying and you can correct me if I'm wrong, lol. You are saying that we're all complicated programs (I agree), programs however need a programer, operator. There still has to be a primal, sentient, causator. If conversely you are saying that we're all just molecules in motion randomly ping ponging around with no actual batsman at the crease, then that to me needs far more of a magical, fairytale, life, belief and faith, system than actually believing in a supreme causator.

@therealawakener7

8 жыл бұрын

Sach966 "This is like saying "The universe is like a clock winding down, so someone must have wound it up" (real example)." No! No... it's not like saying that at all. When you wind up a clock the clock is already there, the universe didn't exist before it's creation, it wasn't wound up it was created to do God's will. "What we do know, however, is that the fundamental bits of life can arise spontaneously, like amino acids and phospholipid bilayers. We don't know how that all comes together to form a cell, but we get closer to the answer every day." Cell membranes amphipathic molecules can be hydrophobic or hydrophilic which can be comparatively like negative and positive charges are towards electricity, one is more soluble or positive in water than the other. Yes it's somewhat true to say that phospholipids spontaneously form bilayers in aqueous solutions to form the cell membranes but that spontaneity isn't out of nothing it's out of molecules within the cells that contain fatty acids and amino acids. Things don't spontaneously pop into something from nothing. "In regards to a supreme causator, to me it seems you're injecting a needless cause. How do you know that the universe created itself, or always existed? How do you know that universes don't arise from dead universes, much like the fabled phoenix? How do you know that the theory of a multiverse is false? We can't assert that any of these are true any more than you can that a supreme causator exists. The difference is that we observe a universe, so we know that they somehow exist. We don't observe a supreme causator though." You may think that God is pointless but I think that without God everything is pretty damn pointless. What I know is that if you think it's logical to theories about multiverses, etc, then it must also be fair to add God to those theories as a logical deduction. What if the universe is God??? I'm not asserting God as true, I'm merely suggesting that if all the other theories are relevant and to be taken into account, then so to must the God hypothesis. If God is the universe and the universe as you say clearly exists then we could have been looking at God all the time. :-).

@therealawakener7

8 жыл бұрын

Sach966 "I apologize if I was unclear. The example of the clock winding down is (obviously) a bad metaphor. I was using it as a comparison to your metaphor, showing how taking it too far makes the point fall apart. Much like the clock example goes one too far in requiring a 'winder', your example goes too far in requiring a 'programmer.' " No apology is necessary bro we're just two guys sharing differing opinions, that's all. As for a program needing a programmer that is not a stretch too far it is actually an intuitive logical deduction based on repetitive, experiencial, observations, made by mankind over millennia. The primal law of 'Cause & effect' is not contradicted by things SUPPOSEDLY popping out of nothing. This notion is a red-herring. The universe is a constant something anything popping into it came from it. "Actually, they do. Mulkidjanian demonstrated that phospholipids can spontaneously form, and then conform into bilayers. Urey and Miller famously demonstrated spontaneous amino acid formation, and though their experiment had it's flaws, the results have been repeated in improved experiments, such as in Bernal's work. Sidney Fox took it one step further, demonstrating spontaneous protein formation. " As stated above things don't pop into something from nowhere they're just forming extremely quickly from the matter in the already existing universe in which we exist. Natural events can cause matter to for very quickly and therefore sub-atomic particles can for seemingly instantly, i.e., they appear to POP into existence. Cells have part to them that seem to appear instantly but they are actually forming rapidly, so rapidly that they POP into human sight. Hows that for an instant theory? lol. "I never suggested this. If a god does exist, then there probably is a point to the universe (though not necessarily). I don't very much care what the implications of the truth are. I just want the truth, or as close to it as we can achieve. I also do not believe that a universe without a god is pointless. What I believe is that with no inherent point to life, we are free to find meaning for ourselves, and I think that's even more beautiful than a creator." Are you seriously, honestly, suggesting that God would create the universe, mankind, kill His only begotten spirit Son Jesus, prepare heaven for mankind, etc, with no point to it all? Don't make me laugh, ho! Ho!. That God Almighty would do such a thing without NECESSARILY doing it to a great end! You do care about the implications of absolute truth otherwise you wouldn't be debating me now would you? Self-honesty is important in finding truth. What meaning have you found to life so far then 'Sach' without God? We are not free to find meaning in life ourselves, we are caused to react by circumstances that we do not control, that is not freedom. Free Will does not exist, the will of God controls mankind absolutely. We all merely make choices but that is not a will that is free from causality. Freewill is just another false doctrine sadly one that is perpetuated greatly by Christendom and billions of people believers and non-believers alike fall for hook line and sinker 24/7. "I've not said that the multiverse theory is true, just that it is a possible explanation. You too are free to suggest that a god is a possible, but neither of us can claim that these are definitively valid." Ummm... let's see where you go with this seeming equality that you appear to be giving to my point, lol. "Also, note that the multiverse theory is different from the speculation of a god. We have observed a universe, so it's not a stretch to assume that this is not the only one. We've not observed a god, so it's a large leap of faith to speculate on one at all." Doh!!!! I knew it...no equality afterall, you just think that your multiverse pisses all over my God hypothesis because you want to frame it so. If you look at yourself 'Sach' do you honestly think that there are multiple exact 'YOU'S' all over wherever simply because you can observe you or do you think that you are indeed unique??? It is one ginormous stretch to think that there are multiple universes everywhere, what evidence is there for such theories? The 'dark flow', 'string theory', the 'Boltzmann brain', etc, that we are typical and therefore there must be more typical examples of the universe everywhere else with us all in them perhaps. Multiple Jesus' on a cross maybe or maybe not or not yet or never was. This is all what I would call a stretch too far 'Sach'. "You're just shifting the goalpost. Define what a god is to you, and we can move forward. If you want to define a god as 'the universe' then why even use the term 'god'?" I didn't define God as the universe, I merely stated that God could be the universe. What I do define about God is that there is no other, that there is only ONE God Almighty (no trinity bullshit) and that this God had always been. God is as far as our finite brains can go. Personally I do not believe that God is the universe as God made the universe but it is now part of Him as are we all. "You can suggest that a god can exist as a hypothesis, but you cannot go further than that. It would be a weak hypothesis at best, with no supporting evidence, and thus there would be no good reason to believe in it. When I talk about the multiverse theory, I say that I like it, but I openly admit that I have no way of knowing it is right, and I probably never will. Most theists never say the same about their 'god hypothesis.'" If the God hypothesis is so weak then why are you debating it with me? Why hasn't it been kicked into touch millenia ago? There are lots of evidences for God and theories, models, etc, to make logical deductions that God may exist. Most people on earth believe in a god never mind God (YHWH) to them there must be legitimate reasons and evidences, personal experiences, etc, as to why they do. You say that your multiverse theory may have no way of proving that it's right but you are sure that is more right than a God hypothesis. I'm a Christian and I can't categorically prove even to myself that God exists, all I have is my minds experiences and the faith I've come to gain from that. So I guess that I'm not most theists, lol. I have however had many spiritual experiences, that is to say something happening to me that I felt was God's doing in me because I couldn't emphatically explain it any other satisfactory way. What's wrong with there being a creator 'Sach' one that through His love is teaching us to be perfect via our life experiences? One who is making us perfect through Christ's example and sacrifice which ultimately is going to save all of mankind (1 Tim 2:3-6) from not existing after death? What's wrong with 'all being made alive' (1 Cor 15:22). What's wrong with being saved from all our sinful selves so that we can spend the ages of the ages to come with God as mature children walking with their Father? What's wrong with a happy ending for all creation??? (1 Acts 3:19-21). God be with you as you search yourself for the truth. Amen:-).

But I agree with on the mindless tolerance thing.

Thankyou sir

It is more noble (or respectful) to disagree outright than to tolerate that which you find disagreeable.

I really respect Penn. He is right.

@richsackett3423

2 жыл бұрын

Do you respect him when you disagree with him?

I'll tolerate Penn's viewpoint. :p

@jimzheng4912

8 жыл бұрын

+Stofnun He'll feel so angry because of what you said :P

@marcar9marcar972

3 жыл бұрын

@@jimzheng4912 it’s alright, this is a KZread comment section

@python-pr8vk

3 жыл бұрын

@@marcar9marcar972 I like commenting on 4+ year old threads, too.

I see a big difference between believing "a higher power" is there and knowing what it wants from you.

Well said.

Many other factors besides religion can cause a good person to do bad things. Money is a major one. Good People may resort to robbery if that's what they feel is the only option to provide for his/her family.That is a fact, we can review cases where this has happened. That's just one of many circumstances that could make a good person act badly. The statement that "It takes religion to make a good person do bad" is false and you can throw it in the garbage.

@bzd1983

9 жыл бұрын

All I'm saying is that people can be brainwashed and influenced by many things. Without religion you could still have a travesty like 9/11 happen. I don't believe for a second that if religion were removed from society that we'd have less violence, we may even have more. People will find reasons to do bad things with or without a belief in god. John Hinckley watched Taxi Driver then decided to shoot president Reagan. Certain types of people can be persuaded into evil for countless reasons. Human violence is as natural as love, good morals are what's essential.

@bzd1983

9 жыл бұрын

animaljp3 There are people who don't follow the bible that hate homosexuals, I'll bet there are Atheists out there who hate Homosexuals. There are Atheist murderers, thief's, pedophiles, etc. Humans can be evil with or with out religion. You ignore the many positives of religion and choose to embrace only the negatives to fuel you're own Atheist agenda. Being an Atheist is just as silly and potentially dangerous as being religious. I'm not religious and I'm no Atheist.

@animaljp3

9 жыл бұрын

Joe Blow religion makes people evil whether they are or arnt. Besides, I made this CLEAR whenI said killings will still happen after religion, just LESS of them. Do you want LESS or the same amount of murders? ever heard of holy war?

@TheKarret

9 жыл бұрын

animaljp3 Or for that matter, the Salem Witch Trials, the Spanish Inquisition, the fact that in Africa even NOW people are being burned at the stakes for being witches....Also, the Manifest Destiny, which was propagated by the idea that God willed the settlers of America to take over "from sea to shining sea" which ultimately led to horrific violence against Native Americans [resulting in... how much of their population has been destroyed? And they're still being treated pretty terribly] - although I'll grant that one's a bit more tangential, but still unmistakably influenced and spurred on with the help of religion. If I'm not mistaken, it was also the religious puritanical folks who got the prohibition to happen, which only succeeded in a new era of organized crime, which was responsible for how many deaths do you think? And hell, I can go much earlier to when the Greek/Roman mythology was the big dog on campus and treated Jews, Pagans, Druids and Christians ruthlessly for their beliefs which interfered with the Romans', raiding their temples and making literal martyrs out of Christians. I believe people should have the right to choose what, if anything they want to believe in, if it helps them come to terms with the world around them and their main passion in life is not to understand the complexities of nature/life itself, so long as it doesn't interfere with the rights and happiness of others. However, people get so... intense... about religions that really, sometimes I really do think we'd be better off without them, or just acknowledging them as fun stories with interesting themes about morality, honor, whatever else instead of as reality.

@bzd1983

9 жыл бұрын

animaljp3 How would you know that less murders would happen and not more? Humans go to war with out the need for it to be "Holy."Some NUTS go to war because they believe it's gods will. Take religion away from those same nuts and maybe they'll go to war because there's no god to stop them. As I said before, unfortunately violence is natural in human society and it's impossible to remove. People who are psychotic and use religion as an excuse to do evil things will not become good people by simply removing their religion. Should we remove science from society because it can and is being used to make weapons such as nuclear bombs? Of course not because science is also capable of enriching our lives. Should we remove religion because a small percentage of psychopaths decide to use it as an excuse to do evil? You'd say yes, I'd say no because for Billions of religious people it enriches their lives and helps them to be better people.

i am often busted, and rarely am i right. You legend

Very good.

Couldn't agree more!

that makes no sense at all! who says Manson can't "say / believe the Beatles want him to kill joeblow"? ? Who said jihadist can't say or believe they should kill infidels? just like a christian can say and believe that God is real. now if Manson ACTS ON HIS THOUGHTS .. ......THAT'S DIFFERENT! Saying I believe something and saying I'm going to DO something are very different!!

@blakemartin2785

8 жыл бұрын

+American by Birth Southern by the Grace of GOD Penn didn't literally mean "say", as in just speaking it aloud; acting upon what is said was implied. You can determine this by considering the analogous situation that he is referring to, specifically the situation in which a Christian (or anyone else) justifies their actions (in politics, school curriculum reform, etc.) solely on a feeling they have in their heart. I can all but guarantee that Penn would not be for controlling free speech and other people's thoughts :)

Benedictine Monk and Buddhist Scholar, Willigus Jaeger in his book "The Search for the Meaning of Life" described the "many paths to enlightenment" model. Penn saying he's more comfortable debating a fundamentalist who will say "you are wrong" is a simplistic way to avoid having to have a respectable debate. In one sentence Penn has taken intellect out of the debate and copped out to emotionalism which he completely neglected to address.

@a-blivvy-yus

8 жыл бұрын

+Jon Jacoby As much as "there are many paths" can be a valid position in itself, there are a lot of people who use that same phrase as a cop-out instead of an opening for the kind of debate you're talking about. There are people who truly believe there is a "right way" to live, and that they're following it. There are people who believe there are multiple such "right ways", and they're following one. There are people who believe that following anything BUT their specific "right" path is objectively wrong, and will tell you so. There are people who believe that following a path that diverges too significantly from theirs is wrong, and will tell you so. But then, there are people who will see/hear/talk to you and realise you're doing something they view as wrong, but instead of being willing to explain what they see as wrong about it, they'll lie to you - and themselves - and say "there are many paths to truth" and convince themselves (but not you) that you're simply going through a child-like phase of rebelling against what's right, and will miraculously get over it without any guidance.

@MrDogonjon

8 жыл бұрын

+blivvy You can also look at it like there is one source and one conclusion. We experience a spectrum of life and find our way through a confusing maze of illusions and intentional deception, Which is how Penn makes his living, intentionally deceiving audiences and amazing them with their own stupidity. Religion does the much the same thing but not for pure entertainment and they make way more money at it than Penn does. If you don't follow the righteous path of religion you are destine to hell regardless of your actions being pure and following the life Christ demonstrated, loving your neighbors as your self. Christianity though is built on self loathing and guilt so you must pay tithes your entire life to gain salvation so you can bribe St Peter to pass through the pearly gates. As much as this is just common sense it's not how salvation works. Forgiveness is a personal act much like living like Christ is and the act it's self is what gives life it's meaning and when it's all over you can finally rest in peace either enjoying a wonder after life which soon becomes boring or a great nothing at all depending on how well you cope with boredom. If you deal well with boredom you'll do good in the after life. That's the beauty, irony and ultimate truth of religion... it's learning to cope with boredom because the after life devastatingly boring so religion and church services condition us to accept boredom as a holy thing. That's why Church is so boring.

This is a great argument.

Amen, brother

What about with Deists/Deism[and offshoots like PanDeism for example}. Our belief in 'God"call it whtever you like; basically just the claim that there is a 'divine mind" and that it birthed cosmos and is imminent in cosmos; not ain a personal and anthropomorphic/centric sense, but a impersonal or transpersonal sense}. We base out view that there is or was such on reason and evidence. It is not proven by classical materialist logic, but we reasonably interpret mountains of suggestive evvidence that at least divine minds existance is probable, like scientists can'nt prove many theories yet and have'nt yet..but they have enough evidence and logic to suport their conclusions based on the evidence; say the "big bang", that's not been objectively and absolutely proven, but it is a workuing theoretical model that is absed on evidence and logic. The same is teue for the hypothesis that there is or was a divine mind and that the cosmos has principles built into that inherently push thew cosmos towards life and mind and reason and conciousness{as Physicist Paul Davies suggests in his writings, check him out, he;'s brilliant! Like purpose and meaning are inherently built into cosmos}. Big bang has'nt been conclusively proven, but we all refer to it as a fact based on it being a workable theory backed up by mountains of evidence and sound reasoning. The theory that divine mind{God; or call it what ye will; Stephen Hawkins recently refered to it as PHI and that PhI is a 'self-collapsing wave function", the mathematical trancendent or irrational number; Hawkings colleage in science, physicst and mathmatician has postulated that 'self collapsing wave functions" are "minds"; therefore PHi would literally be a mind, in fact MIND itself and mind the basic core nature and core law of the universe..the source of it; there's alot of complex logic and mathematics and physics..especially quantum physics that give the case for "God" as valid; to complicated t get into here, I can only reccomend you check out Davies books- especially "cosmic jackpot" "mind of god: the scientific case for a rational world" and 'God and the new physics"; also comic "Dilbert" creator Scott Adams has a illuminating book out there called 'Gods Debris: a thought experiment" which I also highly reccomend, as well as "There is a God: how the worlds most notorious atheist changed his mind" by Antony Flew with Roy Abraham Varghese} Keep thinking...and happy hunting. ;)

@masterchaos9770

8 жыл бұрын

+Will Baker What "logic" and evidence do you have that a God exists?

@masterchaos9770

8 жыл бұрын

***** Yes, he does, because I am that scientist. You're talking to Einstein 2.0 and you think, you're going to tell me what is or isn't the case with science? HA

@masterchaos9770

8 жыл бұрын

***** There is evidence, it's literally in every high school science class so. You can just, go back and get educated correctly instead of failing this time, kthnx.

@masterchaos9770

8 жыл бұрын

***** Lmao, science IS how I rely on myself. Watch Rick and Morty, scientists are the only true Gods of this world.

@masterchaos9770

8 жыл бұрын

***** You're the punk, can't adapt. Stagnant.

When I stopped looking for God, and started to look for bits of God in me, I found great things. The Scottish Taco

@fluffynator6222

3 жыл бұрын

You found a taco?

@python-pr8vk

3 жыл бұрын

What`s a Scottish Taco? Is it yum? 🌮

He seems like a real nice guy. He is thoughtful too. I give him a big like.

I think there are many paths to truth, and especially when it comes to spirituality, IF there is in fact some sort of divine being or beings (as I am enclined to believe), our human conciousness cannot possibly hope to understand it or them. The point behind belief isn't simply having one, it's the decisions you make based on that belief. Are you compassionate? Do you show others kindness? Are you projecting positive energy? Or do you condemn and judge others, or worse, injure or kill them? Saying I believe in a higher power doesn't justify someone else saying they believe their spiritual mission in life is to kill the mailman.

I can't believe in this day and age people still believe in god

I can't see nor prove Love, should I then not believe in it in order to be fair? People will always have emotional and psychological experiences that will give the impression of knowledge. Afterwards it is the process of surival of the fittest idea that determines which ones remain and which die.

@NoIfsAndsOrButtsCA

8 жыл бұрын

+El. Mejor Love is testable, measurable and demonstrable, it's the neurochemical oxytocin and is well understood. ALL emotions are neurochemicals, ALL can be measured, studied, observed, tested and demonstrated, NOT ONE mystical claim can be, not gods, not ghosts, not goblins, NONE.

@elcapitanian

8 жыл бұрын

NoIfsAndsOrButtsCA Hmm show me where anyone has equated a subjective experience to a chemichal. No doubt some scientists have seen a correlation between the experience of love and the presence of a chemical. But show me where the chemical stands solely for the subjective experience. Not one study has ever been able to establish a causation linkage between oxytocin and the experience of love. 

@NeverMakingVideos

8 жыл бұрын

+El. Mejor that's because it's far more complicated than oxytocin. It involves a number of hormones and different chemical interactions I know nothing about as biochemistry isn't my field

@kirk10p99

8 жыл бұрын

+NoIfsAndsOrButtsCA You're looking at the mechanics of the brain and body and not the issue of meaning. While drugs can induce emotional states, abstract things are capable of doing it too so clearly there is a meaning component to emotion that is beyond an empirical analysis. Same can be said of the faculty of reason. Premise-logic-conclusion is abstract, whereas the electrical signals in the brain are physical. There is a correlation between the two but they are yet fundamentally different. Does no one distinguish between empiricism and rationalism anymore?

@malky2583

8 жыл бұрын

+El. Mejor You can find the signs of someone in love in brain waves. FMRI scans can pinpoint what parts of the brain are stimulated by the various types of love so yea its a tangible thing you can prove exists. That is why heart ache can occur. The chemicals in your body, mainly your brain combine with your conscious thoughts to form your emotional state. I'm sure they can track the differences as well between say a 50th anniversary couple and newlyweds. You can also prove is from an evolutionary standpoint as something that would have been advantageous to man over the course of our development into modern humans; the more intense the pair bonding system the less likely for things like infanticide by rival males, better odds for the child surviving to adulthood with actual strength rather then being week. I mean that is basically what love is, a chemical reaction that induces pair bonding among members of that species.

Sir I am a Christian you are wrong! And I gave you a big thumbs up because through exchanges of ideals flow facts and knowledge. Keep up the good work, there are too many people in the world who can't even talk to their opposites without some sort of hate.