The cool thing about this is that it shows how smart Ptolemy and the others were. Although they were wrong that the Sun orbits the Earth, they did produce a near-perfect model with a coordinate transform between the Earth and Sun. Although the motion is a near-perfect model. There is a difference, however, as Ptolemy's model requires fictitious forces to move to planets in their epicycles and the planets would be subject to acceleration in the epicycles. Living on the planets would be like stop-and-go traffic, constantly accelerating and decelerating (there are actually carnival rides that do this exact motion). It is incorrect in the same manner that the "centrifugal" force is not real. Ptolemy's model and the centrifugal force are incorrect because they are not centered in an inertial reference frame. This video is great, but most of the commenters seem to be flat Earthers. I can't tell if that was the audience you wanted or not. Either way, it's pretty funny that they are mad because you showed the Ptolemaic model, not the flat Earth model that Ptolemy would laugh at.
It’s great that you gave The Almagest some attention. Ive spent years studying it line by line. But it would have been better to take it on its own terms rather than constantly reframing it from a heliocentric perspective.
We don't live in this European matrix that the Greeks were first to anything, their civilizations were not anywhere near the greatness of Afrikan civilizations hence their envy caused for them to invade likes Kemet. The Greeks never built a single pyramid, we have thousands in Afrika and the America's (long before Columbus the crook was born). Stop feeding people these Euro-centric lies because it fuels the racist rhetoric that those who came from the caves of Europe are superior when we know they are very late to the party. At least that way the racist bigots out there will know the truth (which is inevitable) and the truth shall set them free from the superiority complex which is born from ignorance and a low self esteem.
Today atheists disprove the Bible and the other Abrahamic religions but not Afrikan Spiritual systems because this is where the truth is found. Zeus never existed just like the gods of the Abrahamic religions /cults so you can't restrict philosophy to the late comers aka Europeans.
Afrikan Spiritual systems and civilizations preceded the Greeks by millenia, go visit Nubia, Kush and Kemetic civilizations to name a few, to get true knowledge.
The Greeks and Romans came to Afrika to study so let's not lie to ourselves. The beginning of any sort of educational systems are traced back to the Mother Land. They couldn't have been atheists before they were given a concept of the Devine. Thank God for truth because we are otherwise taught to glorify these liars and thieves.
Lol, show me all the great African works of philosophy from that era then... I'll wait. You ever think maybe the Greeks taught the Africans, instead of the other way around? No, if course you would never allow such a thought in your head.
This is not a good thing, if you understood the Bible you wouldn’t want Africa to be the teacher of the Greeks,the greeks were the first adopt something that had not been in existence since the tower of babel, humanism, romans adopted it from the Greeks, Rome fell and became western civilization who went on to conquer the world spreading it everywhere.
The Greeks were not the first philosophers or scientists, they were the first Europeans to get an education in Afrika so their knowledge of any spiritual philosophy and mythology came from Afrikan before they added their own crooked ideas to this knowledge.
Oh yeah? Then where are all the great philosophical works by Africans that predate Greek philosophy? Yeah, that's what I thought. The REALITY is that the Greeks influenced the Africans, not the other way around.
There are always people who will deny what they cannot perceive directly. But most of them will claim they do perceive what others call gods but not them. For the learned, gods were principles of action. So everything you can perceive has a principle, otherwise it would not be intelligible. It's that idea that most atheists refuse, either because they deny you can know the principle, so out of ignorance they will claim there are no gods or more often than not, they simply confuse the result with the cause. That's why you get some people who "see" global warming for instance, or they "see" gravity. But what they actually see is the result which they assume is what other people mean when they say this, but they usually mean something else. They mean the principle, the order that makes them able to predict in advance what the atheist sees. That's the real issue usually and the Dunning Kruger effect is in full force. Critique of religion is different and does not implies the former since it is clearly a human invention. So it can be critiqued just like any other art form. Today people confuse the two and not just atheists. Most believers are functional atheists because they don't even know what a god is, and some of those critiques you describe are in that same vein. So it's interesting the atheists would get upset from being called on it. Of course there are social reasons for it but it shows how confused the discourses end up being. In those days, saying you are an atheist would be the same as saying you are a criminal, because you reject society, it's tradition, it's laws and customs. I did not know Epicurus was an atomist. I guess we learn some new things every day.
Be careful you are confusing slaves and serfs, servus in Latin. Unlike the slave the serf cannot be sold it is not a movable good but rather real estate, to summarize it is a sharecropper attached to a landed estate who owes a part of his harvest to his lord but can only leave his land with the agreement of his lord. The difference is subtle but what must be remembered is that the serf cannot be sold like merchandise, he has rights and can take legal action if the decisions of his lord are contrary to his survival and that of his family. (Royal and ecclesiastical justice).
The Greeks were not the first peoples who believed in a universe without the supernatural. The Hindus for example. The greek play writers were strong believers in their gods.
Wrong. There is no evidence is Hindu atheism that predates Greek atheism. The only works in India that might be older than ancient Greek literature is the Vedas, but those are definitely theist works, not atheist.
I like the imperfect Persifal far more than the always perfect Galahad . Anyways this reminds me of the story of the cup of Jamshid in Persian mythology. And like the holy grail this item is a mystical cup holding magical powers connected to the legendary/religious figure call Jamshid . Also fun fact the Nazi SS officer heinrich Himmler once had a room constructed and dedicated to containing the holy grail . Since he believed that it wasn't just out there but its power can also be harnessed and used by the special room he built.
Oh yes and I forgot that in some Arthurian legends there is a special item called the siege perilous . Which was a specific empty throne at the round table at Arthur's court. That was always kept vacant since it was reserved to be only for the knight that successfully acquired the holy grail .And in some other stories the siege perilous also had the power to kill any one that willingly sat in it if they didn't found the grail.
The ancient Greeks used Gods to describe forces. Today mundane literal terms are used for forces. Like Native Americans they also believed in a supreme force: a great spirit.
Hello😊 Super interesting content, even for a french person very much into history. The sequence from J. Bodin onward was very well-known to me but the earlier part was pretty much new, so thanks. The bit on Napoleon is a bit disappointing though. Your facts are straight but Napoleon’s relation with and thoughts on slavery are so much more complex. The Code civil abolished feudal privileges and established equality before the law and he took it with him in his many conquests, including in Italy and Germany. Let’s not forget that he was a child - and a brilliant general - of the French Revolution. Long story short, it’s not a matter you can evacuate with two bullet points. At a formal level, I believe your video is well done. Your tone and speech pace are perfect, writing is on - and straight to the - point. However you could probably improve it with a few more documents and graphic pieces. It’s a video, not an audio podcast, so bringing more visual stuff might enrich the viewer’s experience. Cheers😉
Yeah, but if you read what the Charvakas were saying about it, compared to what the Greeks were saying at the same time... the Charvakas barely scratch the surface. One famous bit of writing from the Charvakas only has a student debating his teacher about whether there is awareness after death. The Greeks are all out saying there are no gods in the heaven, and that if cows and horses could write and draw they were each write and draw about cow gods and horse gods, etc.
There was an Australian philosopher who died several decades ago who argued that human beings were evolving towards the status of gods because of natural evolutionary processes and also through technological advancements -brain implants and things like that. I think his book was called "The death of forever." or a similar title.
Christ said to his followers: Ye are gods. So that concept did not start with an Australian philosopher. Consciousness today is the ‘hard problem’ for philosophy. The definition of God has been: Consciousness; Existence; Bliss. In so far as we share in God consciousness or Cosmic consciousness we too are gods. Being gods is not being God; we share in Cosmic consciousness; we are not Cosmic consciousness. As humans we are fine as we are; our brains are fine as they are, we can expand consciously to Christ or Cosmic Consciousness without any interference with our brains. Saints have done it and have had direct communion with God. No to trans humanism or any of that nonsense; we don’t need it.
@@ALavin-en1kr Darryl Reanney was not talking about the supernatural - he was arguing that natural human evolution would continue until we reached the stage of being what ancient peoples regarded as gods .Why would human evolution stop when it has reached so far?" After all if a person who lived about 150 years ago were to come back he would think that things like the internet, space flight, modern medicine etcetera were evidence that we had become gods.
We are approaching a quantum age and there are still people who believe in one dimension only rather than three. It is a material age and it is hard for some people as they just don’t get it.
@@Stephans_History_of_the_World Wrong. Nobody knows what those grotesque woman-esque statuettes were about. Every dumb mindless clone keeps repeating the same weak idea, as if they know something. Women = fertility and that's why we carve a woman nobody wants to screw. Totally wrong. She was food to get through the hard times, late winter/early spring. She was a sacrifice, who was fattened up to eat. This is before they had dogs, which replaced her as emergency rations. That's why she doesn't have a face. It's not about who she is, it's about what she is, face doesn't matter, better not to even know her. There are no cave paintings of women, was my point. The reason?
Impious = ασεβής atheist = άθεος , the word atheist is formed from greek parts: a [negating] + theos . Now what exactly do you mean? That in the original texts, Διαγορας was not mentioned as "άθεος ʽ by the other ancient Greeks/Hellenes? And he was only mentioned as "ασεβής" ?
0:37 Atheism was likely rampant in Greece...but claims of Kingship required "Divinely given Right" and atheism was essentially considered a question of law and order as handed down by those with a death grip on power. As a result of this, you would expect ALL writings and ALL comments by atheists to be rapidly exterminated, along with the atheists themselves. So, what survives are the writings of theists. You see this over and over again in history with these claims of Divine Right to rule. It's why people get it in their heads everything is politics and everything is religion. Atheists are the unheard voices of the world. Mostly because of greedy malicious snowflake bastards who would rather kill others because they don't want to be seen as having their shit stinking just like any other person's shit stinks. Egalitarianism and merticracies are an afront to all those who wish to profit on the suffering of others and to those who claim birthrights: AKA land owners with chattel slavery and first-born sons who have designs on inherriting the majority of wealth from the father.
You mention some of the major quotes - like Zenophanes. I'm forgetting(already) the Greek who said "if there were Gods, then they must not care." But, you point it out. I can think of some more. Morris Kline has a great Greek poet quote at the beginning of his "Mathematics: the Loss of Certainty." I"d have to dig the book out. But, you miss one major Greek quote about the Gods. In "the Sacred Disease", Hippocrates of Kos(of Hippocratic Oath fame) explicitly states that the gods are an algebraic X for our ignorance, and that god's work in mysterious ways. Well, Hippocrates states that if, by some miracle, the patient gets better, they say their gods are true, but, if the patient dies, then "the gods work in mysterious ways." It also shows the relation between magic and the gods. Sir James Frazer suggests that before there were gods, there was a period of magic. I find that Robert Graves "The Greek Myths" proves "The Golden Bough." I've also found proof of magic in the Old Testament. They were trying to erase the magic past with their new god. Anyways, Hippocrates "The Sacred Disease" proves everything you need to know about the Gods.
They had a similar law in England, although it came a few hundred years later. There was a court case concerning an escaped slave, and the judge ruled that anyone who breathed English air was made free by doing so
Nope, no, and bullshit. A deist will pray. A deist will pray with people who have other views. A diest will look to the sky and beg for help. An atheist will be looking at his surroundings trying to save himself, or an atheist might sacrifice himself for others because the atheist is more collective thinking or loves his family that much that he would risk his life for them. An atheist in the foxhole is busy shooting back. A Deist is looking around scared senseless and hoping that some higher power will save him. An atheist isn't going to waste his time with that. He will be fighting the whole damned time. If I had a choice between a Theist, a Deist, and an Atheist being in a foxhole with me, I would choose the most rational of the three...that atheist because he knows the only way out is to fight his way out. The other people are too busy hesitating and stopping to do some magical thinking. A Deist might look at all religions and think they are praying to different manifestations of his own Deity. THAT is the difference. A Deist recongnizes that believing with no reason to believe is all fine and good. An atheist finds this uncomfortable and immediately might distrust all such claims or the people who make them. Deists might get along with all religious people. Atheists might be thinking or saying, "WTAF. Why?" There are always ulterior motives. A Deist is a religious person's ally or is going to bhe the religious person's mark to prosyletize to, and can be converted. Atheists are a much much more difficult person to convince. You have to show them something supernatural ever happened. This is why pundits tend to be Deists, and Scientists are often atheists. So no, you're wrong. What can be said about both though is that neither Deists nor Atheists ascribe to people's fairytales.
religions are early ignorance codified cleverly by politically elite into political fiction that they are, under an alias of religion, that is meant to make it special.
14:36 *WRONG* That's not "De-Facto Atheism", that's a form of Deism similar to Jainism or Buddhism, where the gods are akin to Shinto Kami (creations within the universe which had a start and are limited when compared to the Abrahamic concept of God)
Deism is defacto atheism too. A Deist sees God as nothing more than laws of nature, with no personal connection to human beings. They deny revelation, divine intervention etc. So -- in practice (that is what de facto means) -- they have almost complete overlap with atheists.
@@Stephans_History_of_the_World Nope. Deism is more on the Theist side of the spectrum, it believes in a God, but is agnostic on religion, (the prime mover/ necessary being contacting creation or having any interest in it) Agnosticism and Atheism on the other hand purport the lack of a god, hence on the "is there a god?" question atheism is diametrically opposite of Deism. even the first guy you mentioned doesn't belong here, his position was monotheistic ( i.e. a theist, or at the most agnostic deist) ----- What you mischaracterized as a Deist is actually called a Pantheist or Panentheist, depending on whether you think the universe is made up of God, or a part of God (they're slightly different) and he doesn't claim to hold neither Pantheistic beliefs nor Panentheistic beliefs... i.e. he neither believes that the Universe = God, nor does he believe that God is omnipresent withing the universe and that the universe is made up of God's essence/substance. He is a pure Deist, and monotheist (by default) who simply affirms that "A god exists... but that God doesn't affect the universe". noway can that be classified to be the same as: "I don't know... hence cannot affirm anything" - Agnosticism or "There is no God... " followed by some explanation for how the world came to be, most often using the deity of "chance/Randomness" - Atheism The spectrum is: Atheism - Agnosticism - Deism - Theism Theism on its own also has a spectrum, based on the a) amounts of things you're willing to worship and title as "god" and b) How many deities you genuinely believe to be the Prime Mover [eg. Shinto has many Kami, but most of them are just spirits or people who are revered and worshipped and given the title of God] if you're Pagan, stating that your Gods are just famous people or inventors of a thing and hence mere mortals, doesn't necesarily make you an atheist or apostate either, since many pagan faiths like even in hinduism who do Puja, recognise that the use of the title of "God" differs between the Pagan faiths and the Abrahamic/Monotheistic faiths. in Pagan faiths, Polytheism and Henotheism is often fine and accepted and not all the gods are even considered the prime mover, let alone any of them (eg. Jainism where the Gods are mere creatures like us, this would gel with the idea of the gods being made of Atoms) I would only classify one or two people whom you mentioned, who viciously ridiculed the Pagan Greek Religion as potential atheists, but that too isn't fully certain, because they might've just been attacking the religion around them (been an apostate) rather than being a full blown atheist. A "God" in pagan faiths is anything that you worship or revere, so it can even be your own parents, or Eminem - the Rap God, or a family heirloom or your ancestors...\ it is different from What people understand to be the supreme deity in the west due to Christian upbringing. so even after abandoning Christianity, it is hard to abandon the lay christian understanding ( of the father or a unitary concept ) of "God" calling it the "Sky Daddy" is the closest as many average atheists get to abandoning the abrahamic concept even if they've apostated and no longer believe...
@@PuffleGlurp Obligatory mention that Atheism and Agnosticism are on different spectral axes altogether. They're measured based on different criteria -- it's in their name. Gnostic relates to *knowing* while theism relates to believing. So really you get a sort of punnet square of Gnostic Theist, Gnostic A-Theist, A-gnostic A-Theist, A-gnostic Theist [dashes are my emphasis]. These combine into statements like "I believe and know there's a god" or "I do not believe there is a god but don't know it if it's accurate" or "I do not believe in a god and I know it is accurate" (which surely can be broke down into finer gradations of belief and knowledge -- tho some people think belief is binary). Honestly, I don't find its inclusion all that helpful as a descriptor since, truly, we all don't "know for sure" anything, even if we experience wild sensations that convince us of it. I imagine others agree that its inclusion isn't helpful, which is why I suppose it's morphed so ubiquitously into that linear definition as you show it.
@@Kowzorz enhh... I guess sorta' in a way You're right about Agnosticism in general meaning ignorance, but it is also a theistic position, or else you'd have to kick atheism out as well. Atheism is a hard belief that there is no God at all Agnosticism (apart from the generic meaning) is also a position of being on the fence, but generally manifests in action no different than atheism. _____ Then come the God believers ____ Deism & Theism (With the GOD in question being akin to the "father" in Christianity, or Allah in Islam... basically the thing argued for in the contingency argument) I'd 1st put all 4 of these on the X axis. now the Y axis: I'd rank religions on how intertwined they think GOD is with the universe. the typical Abrahamic concept of God being seperate form creation to GOD making the universe out of himself, to the Universe being the entirety of GOD you can also classify religions based on if they believe in re-incarnation ( they ALL believe in 'Karma') Religions can be atheist also, strangely enough, or agnostic. Buddhism & Jainism are agnostic, they do not have any mention of the Supreme Being, even though they have the concept of celestial creatures with superpowers( like Galactus from Marvel), and personified concepts (like Darkseid and the New Gods from DC comics) and even lesser creatures (Superhero level beings) that all exist WITHIN the cycle of re-incarnation Hinduism is Deistic and Agnostic or even Atheistic, depending on your particular cult/sect/school. They are also Henotheistic or Polytheistic. eg. ISKON (Hare krishnas) are Deistic, they also believe in Celestial beings like Vishnu, Brahma etc. but believe that Krishna is the Supreme Being (GOD) and all the other creatures (whom they also call god/ like kami ) are Panentheistically a part of krishna. since they think the Universe is simply krishna experiencing himself in various forms... i.e. we are all a part of Krishna/the Universe. including the mechanistic brahma who has to create new universes in a deterministic fashion. There are sects who are full on Atheists, and believe that there is NO God(s), and all the "gods" are mere fables for morality's sake or important people that are to be revered. There are also those who think that the universe is all that there is, and that the universe itself is GOD. Pantheists, everything IS GOD. Most however, like your typical Roman pleb are Polytheistic, worshipping the Trimurti ( A Trinity of Gods who they believe is the GOD) or are Henotheists, worshipping Ganesha who is either merely a concept, or an actual creature who isn't GOD but instead a kami (god / comic superhero or even a celestial being , functionary in "Heaven" if we use the Chinese concept ) who like a govt. official can help you out if you pray to him. - hindus believe in reincarnation. All religions with Reincarnation also have dimensions called Hell and Heaven, where you get rewarded or cleansed of bad karma through Torture. Those without re-incarnation tend to have permanent locations or the Void. in the Deistic Chinese Faith, "Heaven" is synonymous with GOD, and there are functionaries, like the Jade Emperor, who is a celestial being like Indra or Zeus, in charge of running the Cosmos. Hell and Heaven are there, but if you're really bad, you get obliterated in the Void Shinto is also effectively Agnostic, or Deistic if you believe in "the Kami at the center of the Universe", like all polytheistic/Pagan faiths, Shinto worships a myriad of beings who are not necessarily GOD, but things that can help you if you pray to them, requesting intercession. The Main Shinto gods are like DC Superheroes, but other local gods are like low tier Marvel heroes, as is the same for all Pagan faiths. If you are good you re-incarnate, if you are bad, you get obliterated in the Void. All reincarnation faiths have the end goal of Moksha, which is not exactly heaven/ but simply a place where there is no more re-incarnation. Sikhism is Panentheistic, they believe GOD created the universe within himself/out of himself and hence the universe is a Part of God. They Have a temporary Hell and Heaven too like most other re-incarnation faiths. Judaism is Monotheistic and believes there is a seperation between GOD and the Universe. they are agnostic on Hell and heaven, but believe in a Purgatory like the Greeks and Romans Catholics, they beleive in Purgatory as a temporary hell and also Hell and Heaven as permanant destinations Protestants don't have Purgatory Muslims have hell and heaven, but hell can be temporary. Greeks and Romans had Purgatory and Heaven, where all dead people go to Purgatory ( the land of the dead) but very good people get rewarded with Paradise. ------------------------------ In the end of my rant... I think we can probably plot religions/beliefs based on three axis 1) How strongly you believe in GOD 2) How much interaction/control you think GOD has on the universe 3) How entangled GOD is with the universe. All religions fall on different coordinated on this 3D x,y,z axis. Naturalist Materialist Atheists like the "New Atheists" Fall -1 on x and have the same co-ordinates as Buddhism and Jainism, both of whom are Atheistic in regards to GOD, even though they may believe in gods/kami. so I guess we can also add a 4th axis of Belief in the Supernatural. since New Atheist afterlife is simply the Void, and there are no superpowered beings, even if you worship the Supreme leader, in Atheistic faith/nationalism like DPRK's Juchi? or revere the ideals of communism in the CCP or give kami status to Lenon, Stalin, Mao or Marx. Religion is ever present, even if you call yourself an atheist, you follow a faith and are plotted on the 4D religion graph.
@@Stephans_History_of_the_World NO it is not. Absurd. Deists pray and that is the difference, unless they don't. Deists will still point at the sky and claim there is a god, but also believe the idea that nobody can really know anything about this god. It's not a formalized religion but it is a form of belief and a view of the divine as an abstract entity. Atheism is a bit stricter. Atheists are at the position of "I don't believe your claim" and I am not going to accept "Because Bob says so." Deists would be more inclined to say that miracles are possible. And we are getting into the no-true scotsman fallacy because it is the same line of argument of calling people not a Christian because...example example example, and hence lying and claiming to being a Christian although really they are an Atheist. Questioning the testimony on their beliefs. To make a long response shorter, if you asked a Deist during the early days of the Age of Enlightenment (which we are still in, by the way) the most likely response of the Deist would be, "Yes, I believe in God....I just don't believe you know or I know the first thing about God." And you cant discount what somebody believes so easily as you are not privy to what goes on in their head. You do not have a magic window in order to do that. Your argument is a defacto "No true Scotsman" argument. I am an atheist myself. I used to be much more of a Deist, and further questioning has led me more resolute in my atheism. That's how I would know that I am no longer a Deist. Overlap? Sure. From your point of view. But we are getting into semantics and getting into the weeds. IN other words: that is YOUR opinion and can't be substantiated between one atheist or deist and another. Let me make it clear: A Deist holds the view: "I'm still waiting...." And an atheist holds the view: "Yeah and you will be waiting until the day you die and you still won't have your evidence." All because Bob had a claim about a SkyBlob. 'Nuff said.
Essentially all ancient traditions have a god from the Pleiades, which is the radiant of The Taurid Meteor Stream, they have been absorbed by the inner planets by accretion over 20ka. The Greeks said that The First Fire From Heaven came from this star cluster.
Essentially, no, you are wrong. And here is why. It depends on how ancient you want to go. From what we understand, the first people to develop a religion were in the stone age. They didn't have magical superbeings on the walls of their structures. They had magical animals. Everybody liked animals even then. Those bigger, faster, stronger animals. Old men (or women) sitting around a campfire and entertaining younger people with fantistical story of the redeeming white buffalo, or the heroes... Much like watching a superhero movie today. And then people learned from each other and got more advanced and the fight for survival wasn't as harsh. It was THEN that people began to imagine that their old heroes were even greater than before. Good old tall tales like Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill. It's all the same theme. And 20 thousand years ago? A meteor stream? Apparently you don't know much about Greek history but might have watched Ancient Aliens a bit too much. That is another gibberish fairytale.
@@Summalogicae Well, I gave one good example for OceanusHelios, but it is now gone. Y'all are suppose to bring something to the table, ya know. OH believes it is just made up and you don't like what is presented, that isn't an augment, where's the beef? I compiled a 144,000 word compendium of evidence such as the Mesoamericans sacrificing people to the Feathered Serpent, from the Pleiades, to not take the Sun away, once again, for long periods of time and the Japanese Sun Goddess who's warrior brother, from the Pleiades, kills her horse that pulls her chariot across the sky and she hide in a mountain. Compare the Blinding Bright White Light of the ablating 2013 Superbolide footage, from below, followed by Two counter-rotating smoking vortices to the Two Chinese New Year Dragons that chase a Bright White Pearl, accompanied with Fireworks.
@@Summalogicaedont tell me youre one those guys when they find a 20000 year carving of a woman and you say ' they worshiped a goddess' You dont know that, it could be a toy, it could be a image of a wife, it could be anything
"[Diagoras] was often called 'the first atheist' (...) he had lost his belief in the gods when a poet plagiarized his work, swore an oath that he had not done so, but was not punished by the gods." Wouldn't this make the plagiarist poet an even earlier atheist than Diagoras?
There's no such thing as first atheist. First ever homosapiens never thought about God, dinosaurs never did, no first life forms did. The idea of God is taught, not comes built in.
All atoms are gods! It makes sense, especially as they do have basic conscience in their interactions (although I'm rather thinking of fundamental particles than what we now call atoms).
Haha, but they had it other way around. They believed gods were made of atoms, like our own bodies. Strangely, it took a long time for humanity to envision gods as more abstract than matter. Even Saint Augustine in the fourth century still believed in the early years of his career that the Christian God was made of matter like ourselves.
@@Stephans_History_of_the_World - I don't know: there were other religions than Indoeuropean/Semitic/Sumerian/Egyptian polytheisms (they seem pretty much the same to me). What about Zoroastrianism? What about Hinduism? What about the issue of Yin-Yang and how it parallels in more "human" forms in the West and India? The Christian "god" was made of matter like ourselves: that's a tenet of Christianity, he could not have been crucified otherwise (although he wasn't and was actually killed by artillery shot but regardless). However that ambiguity is older than Christianity and it's actually very Greek: from Dionysos to Hercules, going through the partial victory of Demeter, defeating Death (ressurrecting or getting someone else ressurrected) was the mark of a true god. This was also part of the Egyptian beliefs, at least in the case of Isis. Anyway, my point was that "atoms", fundamental particles, partake of the same attributes of what we traditionally call the human soul: consciousness. Else the electron would not know it's close to another electron and has to try to react to that by running away, etc. Consciousness is just building on such "fundamental consciousness" of the subatomic world (via light, electricty and chemistry in essence, all them directly made by electrons in their dance or also by other fundamental particles if you want to get quantum-nuanced). The only thing that may work in different ways is space-time but we don't know enough yet. In any case, call them gods, call them fairies, call them atoms or call them particles... what's in a name? They are what make us not just like bricks make a building but much more dynamically and underlay our own more complex consciousness or intelligence that allows us to philosophize and sciencize, and even believe in seven impossible things before breakfast like the mad hatter. Pantheism = Atheism? Yeah, but not exactly: less negative, more affirmative and it leaves all the dogmatics speechless, when not angry because I'm occupying their precious god spot by going to the root of the issue.
The claim at 17:21 that those elaborately buried children imply a social hierarchy is false. We would expect to have much more evidence of such a hierarchical society, not just none isolated case. My understanding is that the prevailing view is that they were regarded as special individuals for some reason, not that they were princes or similar.
Yeah, I should have been more precise. At least the society is no longer egalotarian if some people are singled out for such a lavish burial, associated with many hours of manpower + material wealth.
@@Stephans_History_of_the_World No, that doesn't follow at all. For one thing, this might have only been the case after death, not something that happened in daily life. But more importantly, it's only not egalitarian if it is imposed, the subordinates having no choice but to submit to extraction. There are too many possible alternative explanations for that to be assumed to be present here. For example, riffing on some Egyptian beliefs, those kids might have been buried in leather suits in a manner similar to us dressing astronauts in space suits. That it was functional gear rather than a symbol of status. These burials are so old, there is just too little evidence to make the claim you made. And it amounts to an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence, because it is the opposite of what we think was going on generally in that period.
@@Stephans_History_of_the_World no that's not true. An egalitarian society can still have a lottery. As long as nobody is extorting others, it's all fair.
Hahaha that would make a capitalist system with free trade egalitarian. This is getting a bit silly. When we say small tribes are generally egalitarian, we mean all members are treated about the same. This is generally true for hunter gatherers - with not much difference in wealth, political status, and ceremonial status, before or after death. But not for Sungir and some other cases. And in a way the pharoah of Egypt was picked by (genetic) lottery.
The French revolution abolished slavery in 1794. Napoleon reinstated it in 1802 along with the Caribbean slave trade. He also reinstated the catholic church as the state religion. What it says in the history books.
The ancient neo-Pythagorean astronomer Heraclides of Pontus has the correct model of the solar system. The Earth rotates and revolves; but it is not heliocentric, geocentric, nor geoheliocentric (Tychonian). The Earth is a planet on the innermost concentric revolution. Mercury is the satellite of the Sun. Venus does NOT orbit the SUN. Venus occupies the second concentric revolution. The Sun (with Mercury) occupies the third concentric revolution. Mars occupies the fourth revolution.
Fair point. They did. Its a matter of definition, but beyond rudimentary astronomy you need writing to record observations precisely over long time periids
Despite its waffle about "all men being created equal" the US only abolished slavery during its Civil War and its Supreme Court only declared Apartheid laws unconstitutional in the 1960's. Of course many of its Founding Fathers were slave owners.
The audio is a bit muffled when listening on headphone, check other RU-vidrs and see the difference in terms of quality. Their sound is sharp and clear; yours is a bit muffled. Specially if I’m focused only in your voice as if it’s a podcast or audiobook. I love the content though; but I’m so used of clear professional sound that I noticed the difference immediately.
