2015
Marcel lee why do you need validation for nonbelief…or no GOD…hummm
I think in some cases religion is like a pacifier, it soothes your anxieties. Adults don’t need pacifiers, only infants do. I’m not saying this is all religion is, I’m just saying it may be one aspect of it for some people.
how do you know what they wrote down is true in the first place
Scientists don’t have faith in the ones before them. They trust they followed a known set of steps with the scientific method. If they didn’t any results would have been discredited by other scientists testing the conclusion. Also they can replicate the experiments if they need to verify it.
Black holes consume. Consumption is not maddening, it just is. Beyond the devouring hole is an inevitable pile of dung. We know that life fills every niche that it can, at any cost. Live, eat, defecate, reproduce, die. These are true for the whole universe, why the vanity of forever is a no secret too. Life is a fleeting journey & the only destination is a sojourn as mulch during recycling. No thing is still & everlasting. All is in motion; the rock of ages is an asteroid, JhVh is Jupiter the planet. King of the wandering ””Gotts”’. Farmers almanacs (scriptures) sure ran amok with humanity in the wrong hands.
You couldn’t find somewhere quiet to have this discussion?
The argument that it’s okay (not a mental illness) for a person to believe in invisible beings, as long as it doesn’t interfere with their day to day lives, is a valid point. At face value, it would add to the flavor and richness of society and human experience. We call this eccentricity, or personal fantasies. For that individual, it undoubtedly fulfills some psychological need, as in game playing, they require to balance life’s normal stresses, for instance. One problem with this particular type of believing, however, is that it’s not altogether simply a personal eccentricity, but that it is more often than not derived from a systematic teaching by an established and well-organized religion external to that individual. More often than not, when examined for its real effects on individuals as well as society, that religion has inescapable negative consequences. The teachings have permanent commandments for those adopting the whole shebang to step outside of their private fantasies in order to manipulate society itself to force it to conform to those fantasies, thus imposing not only that aspect of the belief system, but the many other included ludicrous rules, restrictions, unjustified punishments, scapegoating, and disenfranchisement upon everyone else.
If the belief were indeed strictly of that person’s own making, that would be fine. It would just be one’s personal art form. But it almost never is just that. Society is not the purely natural environment of rational, functional day to day business devoid of delusion. Society, at least in the U.S., has been deliberately modified to make private delusions the public norm, and it often punishes or ostracizes those who do not conform or accept the now public invisible being hypothesis.
LMFAO Marcel Lee uses the “argument from hiddenness”every time he makes a video. The fact that it’s the only logical argument atheism has to go for it is why so many people reject it. After someone tells them they are wrong they spam the comment section crying “God of the Gaps” and “Scientist dont have faith or use faith”.
Look I’m sure everyone here has purchased products (any goods or services) without testing under a microscope every single time. You don’t go buy a bottle of Tynelol and test its chemical everytime to verify the product. You don’t test every drink you’re going to consume or food you are going to eat. In science, it’s the same. There are assumptions everyone makes and that includes science!
I also tend to see many atheists who make this objection don’t understand how we advance technologically and they believe things like the industrial revolution is because of science! NO!
Technology is a collection of techniques, methods or processes used in the production of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives. This CAN be for science or motivated by the scientific expansion of our knowledge but most of the time it’s motivated by consumer demands. For the majority of human history, technological improvements were achieved by chance, trial and error, or spontaneous inspiration.
Example: The Wright brothers who invented the airplane were not scientists.
10:20 uh oh. I don’t care about his other crap but to say that scientists need faith to believe prior research and theories is BULLSHIT!!!! The scientific method intrinsically required the exercise of scepticism. This “I don’t have enough faith to believe in science” crap is the most bogus, idiotic double speak I think I have ever heard. It is a disgusting insult to our dignity as reasoning people.
😡To give him his due he was plausible at the end about what kind of personality might be more drawn to religion. It is consistent with few elite scientists being religious and the number of religious scientists falling more quickly than the general population.
In that closing section he says “unknown known” but I’m pretty sure “known unknown” is what he meant.
What is it with Americans and verbal diarrhoea?
Dr.Mordecai Cassius Marcellus Jones :
This guy is crazy .
He was a smart guy, probably a very good teacher, I didn’t like his use of the word faith though. He’s confusing religious faith (belief without evidence) with the colloquial definition of faith which just means trust in people or things. I guess I have faith in this chair that I’m sitting in will hold my weight and not fall apart while I’m sitting in it, but I’d rather just use the word trust.
tl;dr – God of the Gaps; therefore religion is reasonable.
lolno
An argument can be made that religion has no negative impact on the individual, but in general, the population at large is inevitably negatively affected; for example, core beliefs (those that one identifies with) will influence their vote. So there are always larger scale consequences to irrational beliefs.
Mistakes he makes include: saying beliefs are a matter of choice; there’s an element of faith in science; I don’t know is a rational fear. Fallacies include special pleading; god of the gaps; argument from incredulity…
urr COMPUTER SAYS NO!
nice interview .(with or with out the train noises )
i would classify religion as a philosophy and the founder is the profits or founder of that particular religion and representors of the idea of a particular creator. the religion itself is the philosophy. a specific way of living that would uphold a certain evolutionary advantage. example: in the past homosexuality would be bad and is bad because it stops reproduction and in some way can spread disease because its not hygienic. so, to stop the Freddy mercury disease, the people of those times made god that condemning it. Also taking the idea of the bible in the story of Sodom. god destroyed a great city that got corrupted. it got so corrupted that children and pedophilia was excepted and this could have been a cause of having a free and open love. society would end up that way. specially if you look at the gay pride parade when parents take their children and sexualize them by exposing them to gay people doing a mocking of sexual acts.
The person being interviewed has a more healthy argument than the interviewer. The interviewer, to me seems to be biased. I am an atheist, that tries to not judge others for their beliefs unless they are indeed bat-shit crazy. I base my knowledge on the scientific method and for the most part, the Period of Enlightenment.
No it’s not possible that the argument against God is that what created him. Thats a really dumb questions since the definition of God is something eternal.
MrVegas :
The possibility of a god existing is probable.
Why in the world would this clown go to Autism when asked if religious belief is a psychological disorder?
When a clear example of religious belief being a psychological disorder is Delusional Disorder!“Delusional disorder, previously called paranoid disorder, is a type of serious mental illness called a “psychosis” in which a person cannot tell what is real from what is imagined. The main feature of this disorder is the presence of delusions, unshakable beliefs in something untrue or not based on reality. People with delusional disorder generally experience non-bizarre delusions, which involve situations that could occur in real life, such as being followed, poisoned, deceived, conspired against, or loved from a distance. These delusions usually involve the misinterpretation of perceptions or experiences. In reality, however, the situations are either not true at all or highly exaggerated.” This fits religious belief!
To claim religion shares the ideology of wanting to substantiate a claim then adding because they are more faith based. This proves to me he either doesn’t grasp what he is saying or he is a fucking idiot!
to Substantiate is to Prove which is the oppose of Faith!
Notice when asked do you believe he tried to dance with what is Known! Which is not the question!
Belief is a Yes or No!
Knowledge is a different issue!
heckle9 :
Your example of exchanging ‘god’ with an imaginary friend.This guy says if it doesn’t affect one’s life personally then it is not a problem. But what was not discussed is if it affects people other than the believer. If someone’s belief is in an imaginary friend and this imaginary friend tells the believer that the believer’s child(or anyone) is bad (for whatever reason) and needs to be punished then this is a BAD affect on a person that is unnecessary.In my opinion, this guy sounds like a “closet believer”. He knows it doesn’t make sense but really wishes he could find a way to explain a credible reason to believe.
Ben Todd :
This is much better content than those of the “I’m, idk why I believe, i just do/ I believe in God because of my subjective experiences” crowd that it seems you so often run into.
loki2240 :
Ugh, that vague use of faith. It’s generally fine in casual conversation. But when when talking about science and religion, obviously reliance upon the scientific method isn’t comparable to religious faith.