Hi, I'm Alex O'Connor, host of the Within Reason Podcast. For the curious. New episodes every Sunday from the likes of Richard Dawkins, William Lane Craig, Bishop Robert Barron, Peter Singer, and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Even this Atheist bought and paid for by the jews to proclaim there innocent as the real contribution to Jesus death
@howardrobinson493822 сағат бұрын
Don't be so surprised by all of this, people. Look...if nothing else, Jordan Peterson's inner and outer worlds are consistent. He dresses up...both with his wardrobe and his language.
@fomo-ducats193122 сағат бұрын
The way you "want the world to look" IS based on emotion.
@scoozilife22 сағат бұрын
I like Ben but he got smoked lol
@benstrasdat632822 сағат бұрын
That makes zero sense. You think he's talking shit? JP? That's a pathetic excuse. JP has so much more verbal intelligence than Richard I doubt Richard is capable of following so he calls it bullshit.
@JhonVaca-zn1st22 сағат бұрын
That book was written by man to control man but there is a god there's a certain race of people that didn't want to lose power its like what's happening in Washington
@walterhoughton458622 сағат бұрын
The event you're referring to is recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 26:65, in the New Testament of the Bible. The Jewish leader who tore his clothes in response to Jesus's claim, which he deemed blasphemous, was the high priest named Caiaphas. During Jesus's trial before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish council, Jesus indirectly affirmed the high priest’s question about whether He was the Messiah, the Son of God. In response to Jesus’s affirmation, Caiaphas tore his robes and accused Jesus of blasphemy, which under Jewish law was a crime punishable by death. However, because the Jewish leadership did not have the authority to execute someone under Roman rule, they brought Jesus to the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, accusing him of claiming to be "King of the Jews" and thus challenging Roman authority. This pivotal moment led to Jesus’s crucifixion, a cornerstone event for Christian faith, symbolizing the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of humanity. The accusation and subsequent handover to the Romans underscore the complex interplay of religious and political tensions present in Jesus’s time.
@JhonVaca-zn1st22 сағат бұрын
Could hilter have been shown the future
@jonasfermefors22 сағат бұрын
I'm not sure what has happened to Sam Harris. This is way too convoluted. Just own up to the basis of your view on morality like you have in the past: You believe there can be objective morals but to do that you require a consensus about the goal, so if we set the goal as "human flourishing" then you claim we theoretically could know what is objectively moral if we knew everything. I don't believe that is a very useful model and one that is hard to prove, but it is a model that Harris used to support rather clearly.
@walterhoughton458622 сағат бұрын
I couldn't stand it anymore and had to step away. Here's the thing: when discussing whether Jesus declared his divinity, which many preachers suggest, it's not enough to simply dismiss these claims by saying Jesus never explicitly stated he was God. That approach feels a bit lazy, almost immature. There's an important nuance here. If Jesus had openly declared himself as God from the start, he wouldn't have fulfilled many prophecies. His mission would have been cut short, as he would have been arrested and crucified much earlier. Remember that moment in one of the Gospels - Mark, Luke, or John - where, during a hearing, a Jewish leader accused Jesus of blasphemy and tore his clothes in outrage? That moment underscores that they fully understood Jesus to be claiming divinity, affirming he was the Messiah. Jewish law didn't permit them to carry out a death sentence themselves. So, they framed Jesus's claim to be the Messiah, essentially positioning it as a political threat to Rome, as a claim to be "King of the Jews." This was the angle that led to Rome's decision to crucify him. You might not agree with this interpretation, but it's crucial not to simply wave it off. Saying Jesus never made such claims ignores these complex dynamics. And then there's Paul. Dismissing his accounts because they came later misses the point. Paul insisted that his teachings were directly from Jesus, a claim that, if rejected, would call into question the entire foundation of Christian doctrine as communicated by Paul. So, it's not just about waving away what Paul or others have said about Jesus's divinity. To do so undermines a significant portion of Christian teachings. It's more about engaging with these claims thoughtfully and considering the broader implications.
@walterhoughton458622 сағат бұрын
Recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 26:65, in the New Testament of the Bible. The Jewish leader who tore his clothes in response to Jesus's claim, which he deemed blasphemous, was the high priest named Caiaphas. During Jesus's trial before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish council, Jesus indirectly affirmed the high priest’s question about whether He was the Messiah, the Son of God. In response to Jesus’s affirmation, Caiaphas tore his robes and accused Jesus of blasphemy, which under Jewish law was a crime punishable by death. However, because the Jewish leadership did not have the authority to execute someone under Roman rule, they brought Jesus to the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, accusing him of claiming to be "King of the Jews" and thus challenging Roman authority. This pivotal moment led to Jesus’s crucifixion, a cornerstone event for Christian faith, symbolizing the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of humanity. The accusation and subsequent handover to the Romans underscore the complex interplay of religious and political tensions present in Jesus’s time.
@design-dwg578522 сағат бұрын
"We are addicted to a sense of crisis". Having something to fight against is how progress/change has always occurred. This is just history repeated itself because we're all biologically just creatures of habit.
@benstrasdat632822 сағат бұрын
False. If you have a robber downstairs you will most definitely act as if it's loaded whether it is or not. If you think you can load it last minute you will be found lacking.
@leoyoman22 сағат бұрын
you could just not confront the robber
@Games4Kidz722 сағат бұрын
leave it to the Pharisees to tell you who Jesus is 😂
@ambientjohnny22 сағат бұрын
For years now I have found Sam's arrogance and inability to properly engage with criticism astounding, as well as the fact that he is so blind to his own biases etc. whilst supposedly being so accomplished at meditation and introspection (clearly not!) - something is just not clicking for him and his "well actually" attitude while running away from most criticism is such bs.
@waffelganger704522 сағат бұрын
Brevity is a sign if wit....
@malighus22 сағат бұрын
He's missing a button!
@marcokonst414422 сағат бұрын
People are confusing what hes saying the innocent person is presumably near dead or injured or something. If ur gonna go around kidnapping and killing people to harvest organs for other people who u could happen to kidnapped and kill for their organs after having saved them u end up with a stupid loop in logic where ur killing people giving their organs to other people then stealing those other people's organs that u just transplanted into them to give to someone else to repeat the cycle. Ur basically playing with a smaller infinity used to save a bigger infinity but the smaller infinity is still infinite so u end up killing everyone to save everyone. Ur all missing the point u dont just grab someone from the street, u have a dying patient with perfectly good organs that has no hope of living and whose organs are going to waste. Ur basically doing; 1 saves 5, kidnap those 5 to save 25, kidnap thise 25 to save 125 and it goes one until u kidnap 1.6 billion people to save 8billion and then u kidnap and kill 8billion people to save 40 billions people. Its dumb to say hedonic calculus doesnt work just because u think what is being said is any normal unsuspecting civilian can just be kidnapped and murdered for the sake of ethics
@Amrichu22 сағат бұрын
So far all of the questions he’s asked are really good but so far every single one of them can be debunked in Islam
@davidchavez8122 сағат бұрын
More words = win. He's got an Yngwie Malmsteen of a mouth.
@jordanhernandez429222 сағат бұрын
You miss the entire point. The reason that treating the gun as it is always loaded works is because it reveals a deeper truth. That truth is that you are falible and make mistakes. Human cognition and rational thought is insufficient to achieve necessary outcomes. Therefore, something deeper is necessary. It is like using opening books in chess.
@user-ld9cb8qy9o23 сағат бұрын
Dude is aging and dying and probably going to hell and still thinks his Ego and intelligence will save him thinking education is the answer. You can bring someone to the water, but you can't force them to drink....Good luck Dawkins
@zviko435123 сағат бұрын
Is context ever important?
@keshanchetty425923 сағат бұрын
So does Alex "care" (meaning emotionally) about anyone else or anything else or even himself? And does he engage with the "rest of us" based purely on scientific calculations that only equal positive outcomes (for him mainly)? It's almost like he has become bored with the English language and is trying to redefine/reinvent a way to communicate. It's almost like he feels trapped by the language he has to use - purely because he did not get to define it. The same language that he has mastered in ways most people can only dream of - and is now bored (or day I say embarrassed) But I guess that's the Philosophers curse.
@HowardNichols-gx7tl23 сағат бұрын
Dude literally says nothing. Atheist are so funny there whole world view is built on envy.
@MrLbott23 сағат бұрын
You got so close to a full stop... 😂😂😂😂
@BernWag23 сағат бұрын
Morality, like everything else relating to life on earth, had to evolve, from nothing to something. From language to religion, from culture to skin color, from economy to morality, it all had to evolve from nothing, to something. It's actually pretty amazing that we've gotten this far. Don't judge people who lived 10,000 years ago for not living up to your standards, they are part of the story of how your standards evolved. In a few thousands years, everything you are doing now may be judged as foul and evil by future people. Judge not lest ye be judged yourself.
@micahvandervaart293023 сағат бұрын
I’ve listened to hundreds if not thousands of hours of Sam Harris. I’ve always felt, and heard from other intellectuals, that his thesis is missing something. I think Alex pinpoints every aspect, and does a phenomenal job challenging Sams points. Hats off to you!
@FrettingProductions23 сағат бұрын
I'm an atheist and I think of god the same way, that which we collectively aim for but fall short and are better for in the reaching.
@davidhunt31323 сағат бұрын
It was fairly shocking to me when I discovered at the age of 57 that I have been *_autistic_* since conception... and that, try as I might, I could not choose to no longer be _autistic._ Being a congenital asshole, a white, nigga' Elephant Man is no one's preferred state of being?!
@spliter8823 сағат бұрын
One argument against using the pew research on this as an argument to believe in god/follow a religion is that while we had institutions, traditions and communities around religion for millenia, we don't have the same for atheism/secular people, because they have been systematically dismantled by the religious majority. All of historical achievements of a country are inescapably painted in a religious light regardless of the actual belief system of the people doing those achievements. Atheists are pretty systematically isolated and don't get the same state and community support that religions do. If we did have atheist institutions, communities and traditions and did not have any religious institutoins, communities or traditions I'm betting a lot of those advantages of religious would disappear. I checked the pew research paper mentioned here and the only country where the majority is non-religious is china, but china is also missing from the data for happiness and community engagement. Another thing missing from the research paper is separation into dominant and non-dominant religious groups. Eg: Do muslims fare better in happiness than atheists in countries where there are no mosques and the population doesn't make any concessions to accomodate muslim faith?
@shanejohnson103423 сағат бұрын
If there is original sin it’s that humans are easily programmed. It is said that we are all born atheists, which makes sense. But then the programming begins. However, can anyone truly argue that change is not constant? We are meant to change, also.
@birchtree198823 сағат бұрын
38:35 “… Chicago is a catastrophe …”
@TheMarkTheory23 сағат бұрын
If they mocked Jesus by putting the banner “King Of the Jews” above his head, would they allow a proper burial with that anger?
@jennapecor186523 сағат бұрын
15:09 you’re not taking him seriously. “They’re still happening” is a reflection that the word of God is a living word, that both recounts historical events and serves as a lesson to learned by every generation to come after it, because humans repeat the same cycles of behavior that cause their own destruction over and over and over. He not only believes the events happened, but that they are the basis for all events to come after it. He believes that the Bible is the greatest psychological and anthropological book ever written because it was inspired by the creator of men, who used the actual events of history to teach lessons to future generations forever.
@InnuendoXP23 сағат бұрын
37:30 - it feels like Rory would have a lot to say with regards to the new urbanist movement, because those statements are kind-of coming at both sides of the discussion - both unfettered YIMBYism/reckless short-sighted redevelopment, and obstructive myopic equally shortsighted NIMBYism. It's exactly that line which is trying to be walked, and of course American cities/suburbs have only managed the worst of both worlds in making motor vehicles the priority rather than simply one option of many.
@nickmaddalena98523 сағат бұрын
Not quite true. You can be unsure or undecided and then make your mind up under pressure. People do I fact has epifenies and start or stop believing for whatever internal reason they have.
@Goettel23 сағат бұрын
Antinatalism is so obviously retarded.
@jennapecor186523 сағат бұрын
He’s not wrong, especially about what God means. Many people believe in God, but don’t believe in Jesus, and Christians would use those words interchangeably. If you’re Jewish, you believe in the God of Moses, if you’re Muslim you believe in the God of Abraham, because of their descendants. If you’re atheist, you say God but you don’t really know what you mean. Some say “God” but they mean “spirit of the universe.” Jordan actually says “I act as though I believe in God,” because acting shows belief whereas words don’t. As a Christian, the Bible says that if you believe in Jesus, people will know by your actions, not by your words. He says this repeatedly.
@Iroko_Ugo23 сағат бұрын
If we want to know whether something is true we must apply 3 tests 1). Is it logically consistent. 2). Is it empirically adequate or sufficient historical evidence. 3). Experientially is it relevant. Christianity but nore precisely Jesus has passed this metrics. So it begs the question why don’t you believe the truth of Jesus? Truly must be introspective and ask why
@lorcan840723 сағат бұрын
This is your best vid i've seen Alex. I hope it does some good out there
@malgremor8523 сағат бұрын
When I was younger, I used to say that if I ever go bald, I'll join one of those religions that make you wear a hat all the time. Here I am at 65, still have all my hair & am still an atheist, thank God...
@olbeef25023 сағат бұрын
ben saying judo christian.....vomit
@richardoldfield671423 сағат бұрын
I would say that the key issue of our time in the UK (and elsewhere in the Western world) is declining public faith in democracy and its supporting institutions. There are many reasons for this - some with available remedies (given wise political leadership), some less so. The problem with many of the single issue obsessions that Rory Stewart refers to is that, in the face of this rising existential threat to democracy, they amount to fiddling whilst Rome burns. Behind the threats to democracy lies declining *trust* in the quest for political and social truth in relation to any given set of issues in any given era (a never-ending quest that is crucial to the survival and maintenance of democracy and its freedoms). This survival of this quest requires a degree of trust - e.g. trust in the information provided by institutions (e.g. academia, the BBC, Parliament) and trust that politicians, along with judges, journalists, and relevant scientific and academic experts are acting in good faith. But this trust ebbs away when (for instance) people think that large sections of academia are less interested in truth and more interested in pushing 'progressive' ideologies. It ebbs away further when people see that many politicians (e.g. Boris Johnson) are less interested in truth and more interested in career advancement and their ego-centred public profile.
@strafeson23 сағат бұрын
Just because it's efficient doesn't mean that it's always right or desirable.
@kh2716Күн бұрын
These kids who have no job, no experience, no nothing talking like they have all the answers is hilarious
@wendykelling7738Күн бұрын
I have to comment re the monarchy. I'm a New Zealander. We still have the monarchy. Talk of dropping it surface from time to time but not particularly alive right now. For myself, and certainly not only me, I much prefer to know that we have the monarchy 'way over there' doing us no harm at all, than decide to be a republic and find ourselves with the nightmare of American style presidents. How can that possibly be a good thing? So a request to the British - please look after our monarchy
@lm58142Күн бұрын
I think you and Harris fundamentally disagree when it comes to the scope of ethics. You are arguing that ethics is entirely in the realm of philosophy, whereas Harris argues that the intersection between ethics and science is not an empty set. You interpret 'objective' in philosophical terms, whereas Harris interprets it scientifically. To say that he is wrong that morality is objective presuposes that he intended to make a philosophical argument for the objectivity of morality, which is not necessarily the case here. It is like a mathematician saying that an engineer cannot build an objectively safe bridge because of the finite measurement errors and incompleteness issues at the mathematcal foundations. That's fine except that engineers never intended to define safety at that level in the first place.
@godlessandlovingitКүн бұрын
by using the argument "at the time it was moral" is admitting that morality comes from society and does NOT come from a deity.
@AtaraxiA0001Күн бұрын
Timeline justification is invalid. It was still permitted by your so called moral book.
Пікірлер
Even this Atheist bought and paid for by the jews to proclaim there innocent as the real contribution to Jesus death
Don't be so surprised by all of this, people. Look...if nothing else, Jordan Peterson's inner and outer worlds are consistent. He dresses up...both with his wardrobe and his language.
The way you "want the world to look" IS based on emotion.
I like Ben but he got smoked lol
That makes zero sense. You think he's talking shit? JP? That's a pathetic excuse. JP has so much more verbal intelligence than Richard I doubt Richard is capable of following so he calls it bullshit.
That book was written by man to control man but there is a god there's a certain race of people that didn't want to lose power its like what's happening in Washington
The event you're referring to is recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 26:65, in the New Testament of the Bible. The Jewish leader who tore his clothes in response to Jesus's claim, which he deemed blasphemous, was the high priest named Caiaphas. During Jesus's trial before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish council, Jesus indirectly affirmed the high priest’s question about whether He was the Messiah, the Son of God. In response to Jesus’s affirmation, Caiaphas tore his robes and accused Jesus of blasphemy, which under Jewish law was a crime punishable by death. However, because the Jewish leadership did not have the authority to execute someone under Roman rule, they brought Jesus to the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, accusing him of claiming to be "King of the Jews" and thus challenging Roman authority. This pivotal moment led to Jesus’s crucifixion, a cornerstone event for Christian faith, symbolizing the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of humanity. The accusation and subsequent handover to the Romans underscore the complex interplay of religious and political tensions present in Jesus’s time.
Could hilter have been shown the future
I'm not sure what has happened to Sam Harris. This is way too convoluted. Just own up to the basis of your view on morality like you have in the past: You believe there can be objective morals but to do that you require a consensus about the goal, so if we set the goal as "human flourishing" then you claim we theoretically could know what is objectively moral if we knew everything. I don't believe that is a very useful model and one that is hard to prove, but it is a model that Harris used to support rather clearly.
I couldn't stand it anymore and had to step away. Here's the thing: when discussing whether Jesus declared his divinity, which many preachers suggest, it's not enough to simply dismiss these claims by saying Jesus never explicitly stated he was God. That approach feels a bit lazy, almost immature. There's an important nuance here. If Jesus had openly declared himself as God from the start, he wouldn't have fulfilled many prophecies. His mission would have been cut short, as he would have been arrested and crucified much earlier. Remember that moment in one of the Gospels - Mark, Luke, or John - where, during a hearing, a Jewish leader accused Jesus of blasphemy and tore his clothes in outrage? That moment underscores that they fully understood Jesus to be claiming divinity, affirming he was the Messiah. Jewish law didn't permit them to carry out a death sentence themselves. So, they framed Jesus's claim to be the Messiah, essentially positioning it as a political threat to Rome, as a claim to be "King of the Jews." This was the angle that led to Rome's decision to crucify him. You might not agree with this interpretation, but it's crucial not to simply wave it off. Saying Jesus never made such claims ignores these complex dynamics. And then there's Paul. Dismissing his accounts because they came later misses the point. Paul insisted that his teachings were directly from Jesus, a claim that, if rejected, would call into question the entire foundation of Christian doctrine as communicated by Paul. So, it's not just about waving away what Paul or others have said about Jesus's divinity. To do so undermines a significant portion of Christian teachings. It's more about engaging with these claims thoughtfully and considering the broader implications.
Recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 26:65, in the New Testament of the Bible. The Jewish leader who tore his clothes in response to Jesus's claim, which he deemed blasphemous, was the high priest named Caiaphas. During Jesus's trial before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish council, Jesus indirectly affirmed the high priest’s question about whether He was the Messiah, the Son of God. In response to Jesus’s affirmation, Caiaphas tore his robes and accused Jesus of blasphemy, which under Jewish law was a crime punishable by death. However, because the Jewish leadership did not have the authority to execute someone under Roman rule, they brought Jesus to the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, accusing him of claiming to be "King of the Jews" and thus challenging Roman authority. This pivotal moment led to Jesus’s crucifixion, a cornerstone event for Christian faith, symbolizing the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of humanity. The accusation and subsequent handover to the Romans underscore the complex interplay of religious and political tensions present in Jesus’s time.
"We are addicted to a sense of crisis". Having something to fight against is how progress/change has always occurred. This is just history repeated itself because we're all biologically just creatures of habit.
False. If you have a robber downstairs you will most definitely act as if it's loaded whether it is or not. If you think you can load it last minute you will be found lacking.
you could just not confront the robber
leave it to the Pharisees to tell you who Jesus is 😂
For years now I have found Sam's arrogance and inability to properly engage with criticism astounding, as well as the fact that he is so blind to his own biases etc. whilst supposedly being so accomplished at meditation and introspection (clearly not!) - something is just not clicking for him and his "well actually" attitude while running away from most criticism is such bs.
Brevity is a sign if wit....
He's missing a button!
People are confusing what hes saying the innocent person is presumably near dead or injured or something. If ur gonna go around kidnapping and killing people to harvest organs for other people who u could happen to kidnapped and kill for their organs after having saved them u end up with a stupid loop in logic where ur killing people giving their organs to other people then stealing those other people's organs that u just transplanted into them to give to someone else to repeat the cycle. Ur basically playing with a smaller infinity used to save a bigger infinity but the smaller infinity is still infinite so u end up killing everyone to save everyone. Ur all missing the point u dont just grab someone from the street, u have a dying patient with perfectly good organs that has no hope of living and whose organs are going to waste. Ur basically doing; 1 saves 5, kidnap those 5 to save 25, kidnap thise 25 to save 125 and it goes one until u kidnap 1.6 billion people to save 8billion and then u kidnap and kill 8billion people to save 40 billions people. Its dumb to say hedonic calculus doesnt work just because u think what is being said is any normal unsuspecting civilian can just be kidnapped and murdered for the sake of ethics
So far all of the questions he’s asked are really good but so far every single one of them can be debunked in Islam
More words = win. He's got an Yngwie Malmsteen of a mouth.
You miss the entire point. The reason that treating the gun as it is always loaded works is because it reveals a deeper truth. That truth is that you are falible and make mistakes. Human cognition and rational thought is insufficient to achieve necessary outcomes. Therefore, something deeper is necessary. It is like using opening books in chess.
Dude is aging and dying and probably going to hell and still thinks his Ego and intelligence will save him thinking education is the answer. You can bring someone to the water, but you can't force them to drink....Good luck Dawkins
Is context ever important?
So does Alex "care" (meaning emotionally) about anyone else or anything else or even himself? And does he engage with the "rest of us" based purely on scientific calculations that only equal positive outcomes (for him mainly)? It's almost like he has become bored with the English language and is trying to redefine/reinvent a way to communicate. It's almost like he feels trapped by the language he has to use - purely because he did not get to define it. The same language that he has mastered in ways most people can only dream of - and is now bored (or day I say embarrassed) But I guess that's the Philosophers curse.
Dude literally says nothing. Atheist are so funny there whole world view is built on envy.
You got so close to a full stop... 😂😂😂😂
Morality, like everything else relating to life on earth, had to evolve, from nothing to something. From language to religion, from culture to skin color, from economy to morality, it all had to evolve from nothing, to something. It's actually pretty amazing that we've gotten this far. Don't judge people who lived 10,000 years ago for not living up to your standards, they are part of the story of how your standards evolved. In a few thousands years, everything you are doing now may be judged as foul and evil by future people. Judge not lest ye be judged yourself.
I’ve listened to hundreds if not thousands of hours of Sam Harris. I’ve always felt, and heard from other intellectuals, that his thesis is missing something. I think Alex pinpoints every aspect, and does a phenomenal job challenging Sams points. Hats off to you!
I'm an atheist and I think of god the same way, that which we collectively aim for but fall short and are better for in the reaching.
It was fairly shocking to me when I discovered at the age of 57 that I have been *_autistic_* since conception... and that, try as I might, I could not choose to no longer be _autistic._ Being a congenital asshole, a white, nigga' Elephant Man is no one's preferred state of being?!
One argument against using the pew research on this as an argument to believe in god/follow a religion is that while we had institutions, traditions and communities around religion for millenia, we don't have the same for atheism/secular people, because they have been systematically dismantled by the religious majority. All of historical achievements of a country are inescapably painted in a religious light regardless of the actual belief system of the people doing those achievements. Atheists are pretty systematically isolated and don't get the same state and community support that religions do. If we did have atheist institutions, communities and traditions and did not have any religious institutoins, communities or traditions I'm betting a lot of those advantages of religious would disappear. I checked the pew research paper mentioned here and the only country where the majority is non-religious is china, but china is also missing from the data for happiness and community engagement. Another thing missing from the research paper is separation into dominant and non-dominant religious groups. Eg: Do muslims fare better in happiness than atheists in countries where there are no mosques and the population doesn't make any concessions to accomodate muslim faith?
If there is original sin it’s that humans are easily programmed. It is said that we are all born atheists, which makes sense. But then the programming begins. However, can anyone truly argue that change is not constant? We are meant to change, also.
38:35 “… Chicago is a catastrophe …”
If they mocked Jesus by putting the banner “King Of the Jews” above his head, would they allow a proper burial with that anger?
15:09 you’re not taking him seriously. “They’re still happening” is a reflection that the word of God is a living word, that both recounts historical events and serves as a lesson to learned by every generation to come after it, because humans repeat the same cycles of behavior that cause their own destruction over and over and over. He not only believes the events happened, but that they are the basis for all events to come after it. He believes that the Bible is the greatest psychological and anthropological book ever written because it was inspired by the creator of men, who used the actual events of history to teach lessons to future generations forever.
37:30 - it feels like Rory would have a lot to say with regards to the new urbanist movement, because those statements are kind-of coming at both sides of the discussion - both unfettered YIMBYism/reckless short-sighted redevelopment, and obstructive myopic equally shortsighted NIMBYism. It's exactly that line which is trying to be walked, and of course American cities/suburbs have only managed the worst of both worlds in making motor vehicles the priority rather than simply one option of many.
Not quite true. You can be unsure or undecided and then make your mind up under pressure. People do I fact has epifenies and start or stop believing for whatever internal reason they have.
Antinatalism is so obviously retarded.
He’s not wrong, especially about what God means. Many people believe in God, but don’t believe in Jesus, and Christians would use those words interchangeably. If you’re Jewish, you believe in the God of Moses, if you’re Muslim you believe in the God of Abraham, because of their descendants. If you’re atheist, you say God but you don’t really know what you mean. Some say “God” but they mean “spirit of the universe.” Jordan actually says “I act as though I believe in God,” because acting shows belief whereas words don’t. As a Christian, the Bible says that if you believe in Jesus, people will know by your actions, not by your words. He says this repeatedly.
If we want to know whether something is true we must apply 3 tests 1). Is it logically consistent. 2). Is it empirically adequate or sufficient historical evidence. 3). Experientially is it relevant. Christianity but nore precisely Jesus has passed this metrics. So it begs the question why don’t you believe the truth of Jesus? Truly must be introspective and ask why
This is your best vid i've seen Alex. I hope it does some good out there
When I was younger, I used to say that if I ever go bald, I'll join one of those religions that make you wear a hat all the time. Here I am at 65, still have all my hair & am still an atheist, thank God...
ben saying judo christian.....vomit
I would say that the key issue of our time in the UK (and elsewhere in the Western world) is declining public faith in democracy and its supporting institutions. There are many reasons for this - some with available remedies (given wise political leadership), some less so. The problem with many of the single issue obsessions that Rory Stewart refers to is that, in the face of this rising existential threat to democracy, they amount to fiddling whilst Rome burns. Behind the threats to democracy lies declining *trust* in the quest for political and social truth in relation to any given set of issues in any given era (a never-ending quest that is crucial to the survival and maintenance of democracy and its freedoms). This survival of this quest requires a degree of trust - e.g. trust in the information provided by institutions (e.g. academia, the BBC, Parliament) and trust that politicians, along with judges, journalists, and relevant scientific and academic experts are acting in good faith. But this trust ebbs away when (for instance) people think that large sections of academia are less interested in truth and more interested in pushing 'progressive' ideologies. It ebbs away further when people see that many politicians (e.g. Boris Johnson) are less interested in truth and more interested in career advancement and their ego-centred public profile.
Just because it's efficient doesn't mean that it's always right or desirable.
These kids who have no job, no experience, no nothing talking like they have all the answers is hilarious
I have to comment re the monarchy. I'm a New Zealander. We still have the monarchy. Talk of dropping it surface from time to time but not particularly alive right now. For myself, and certainly not only me, I much prefer to know that we have the monarchy 'way over there' doing us no harm at all, than decide to be a republic and find ourselves with the nightmare of American style presidents. How can that possibly be a good thing? So a request to the British - please look after our monarchy
I think you and Harris fundamentally disagree when it comes to the scope of ethics. You are arguing that ethics is entirely in the realm of philosophy, whereas Harris argues that the intersection between ethics and science is not an empty set. You interpret 'objective' in philosophical terms, whereas Harris interprets it scientifically. To say that he is wrong that morality is objective presuposes that he intended to make a philosophical argument for the objectivity of morality, which is not necessarily the case here. It is like a mathematician saying that an engineer cannot build an objectively safe bridge because of the finite measurement errors and incompleteness issues at the mathematcal foundations. That's fine except that engineers never intended to define safety at that level in the first place.
by using the argument "at the time it was moral" is admitting that morality comes from society and does NOT come from a deity.
Timeline justification is invalid. It was still permitted by your so called moral book.
I love lsd shrooms and dmt