As different as he is, I'm glad people like Bret Weinstein aren't afraid to articulate their religious (or ireligious) views and talk to smart religious people about it.
I absolutely disagree with him . He’s talking about the fear of God . That’s what someone who is wet behind the ears about God believes but as we grow up and nature we understand Gods love a lot better than that . Brett is unfortunately very young in his understanding of god Source : me: former atheist that came to theism through science , reason and logic
@@angelbrother1238 interesting; I have two questions for you, if you don't mind. first; does being a former atheist give you more or less sympathy for current atheists?, in your estimate. second; I've always struggled with feeling emotions, positive or negative, and so to that I've partly attributed my inability to believe in or feel the presence of God or the supernatural, so when you name logic, reasoning, and science as primary in your conversion, I'm wondering if you'd be able to lay out what that looked like?
Fun fact. The writer of the Purge movies was hired by the WHO to help guide the media "narrative" of COVID, according to Whitney Webb, who is a goddess even if she isn't always 100% correct.
Hi Justin, I just want to say that I am inspired by the way you communicate in general but it's very impressive how you articulate yourself during topics with alot of controversy. I have been desperately struggling to repair my reputation and find strength in myself while battling with severe mental health issues due to my past mostly. I am having a hard time finding strength and having faith in Jesus and also believing the storyline. I appreciate your effort in explaining why you are convinced of Christianity being the most logical explanation of good in the world. I feel like this may be the only way forward for me to find forgiveness from myself and others but it also seems like a desperate way to find meaning and reason why I deserve it , rather than being able to do this without Jesus. Being slightly optimistic while being strongly pessimistic about humanity has helped me continue while I'm healing or finding strength again. The idea of being saved and living a condemnation free life from now on sounds very appealing as well. Sometimes I wish I never thought about any of this and just lived , but that is exactly why I ended up in the situation I find myself in today. What was the most convincing evidence for you that Jesus was a real man who died and then resurrected? To me it seems like faith has to be had to.believe the story and there is no clear evidence. Thank you
Hey brother. I hope you're doing ok. These are my main causes for belief. 1. Empirical evidence. Moments of divine connection in life, with the divine force, when I have needed it. 2. The willingness of the apostles to be killed for their beliefs after the resurrection. No one would allow themselves to be killed unless they were ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE of what lay beyond. 3. The testimony of other people. 4. I just do. Sending you light and love my friend ❤🙏
My faith in God, specifically Jesus, helped me overcome my gambling addiction. Now I loved gambling and even after years of GA, I could not in of myself overcome it. I gave it up not out of fear of judgement, but because it was the right thing to do when you realize it’s the right thing to do when you have a loving relationship with a loving God!!
frank whelan :I won’t discount strength of will with some people, but having been a counselor, I’ve seen that when they give up one addiction they pick up another in the process. We are all born with a hole in our heart that we often try to fill with money, sex, drugs etc. But only our connection with God can adequately fill. That’s just my opinion.
@Holmes245 Things that people BELIEVE exists but (probably) don't , but when things that they wish to happen happens (overcoming illness/ addiction, getting a job etc,)they give thanks to it . even though the same rate of good (or bad) luck is experienced by non believers.
@Skitalets " Yeah, but let's see at the other side of this, because for me, when people bring this up, it looks obviously like a class thing. Non-believers who achieve or overcome problems are overwhelmingly middle and upper class. " That's dishonest, class has nothing to do with mental capacity. "They have education, they have a trade, they have wealth, they have a network of people who can help them. " Except this isn't always true, and a lot of people who leave religious organizations find themselves alone, assuming they were even in one. I'm not sure why you keep painting this "us vs them" mentality. "The raw existence without any relationships attached is cruel and torturous." Is this what your pastor told you, because that does sound awfully like a threat used to keep people roped into religion. Are you saying that a non-believer isn't capable of relationships? " There are no atheists in foxholes" Fuck you. "when you're all alone in a difficult situation, faith in God can be as real as any other relationship and bring about miraculous changes" About as real as a relationship with an imaginary friend that's responsible for leviticus 20. " So why does some smart ass always have to come out of the woodwork and tell a fella that his God doesn't exist?" Same reason someone like you has to come out of the woodwork with a victim complex and accuse those who evaluates what they believe of being "upper class". Does it at all bother you that the so called "holy men" of religious institutions are some of the richest?
I think he gets it from social interactions in a pragmatic sense, where you will get some sort of retaliation from other individuals; All social animals have these wrong/right intuitions from their evolutionary background. For example in the wolf pack where it is "absolute wrong" for a low-ranking wolf to eat before the alpha-wolf. Or why it is "absolute wrong" for most social species to eat their children (hey, it's an easy source of nutrition right?). The God of Wolves forbidding it? Or because if it was another way the group will go extinct? The main difference with us is that we are far better articulating and rationalizing the reason behind what we already "know".
Stealing is virtuous if it's something like embezzling from corrupt organizations like government & corporations, or especially the Church. Believe me, they can afford it, and they acquired it through immoral means. When a thief robs a thief, no crime has been committed. Rip off a drug dealer and pat yourself on the back. Make men who hate women pay for sex. In a corrupt world, some crime can be virtuous.
You don't really wonder, because you actually already know where he gets it from: pragmatism, social Solidarity, conscious beings with free will deciding to make agreements about make agreements about what they mutually value , and this is far better than a fictional belief in a sky God
Those of us who truly do _know_ the Lord look at all of these intelligent, articulate fools wondering how in the world they can’t see Him. But they don’t want to. Or else they would.
He wants God to be a 'hack' because it ultimately means no moral responsibility to the real God. And this is always the ulterior motive. It's one more of the myriad excuses on the atheist's list of preferred unbelief.
Religion is not the source of morals. As most moral in religious book are seen as immoral by modern standards. The bible tell you how best to own slaves. That is immoral. I’m glad we no longer follow the moral of thousands of years ago. We have improved since then.
@@ManicPandaz I said he needs God not to be real because he hates the idea of being ultimately _accountable_ for moral wrongdoing, beyond any human institution.
@@nichoudha Of course you are. If someone murders a chap, he still has to serve his time in prison even if he's forgiven in eternity through true repentance and reception of Christ crucified for sin. Criminal justice is not the same as God's justice, which is higher, and is why many of these atheists want to make out God isnt real. They hate being accountable to the ultimate moral authority.
1. Why did you put an non-quote in quotes? 2. What are you referring to by "it"? (maybe belief or god)? 3. What are you referring to by "foundations"? (foundations of what)? 4. I can't identify where he implies either is important for foundations of...), will you please help locate the time in the clip?
I don't think God is a hack. I have experimented with both sides of belief. I generally try to live from a sense of self, by my own strength and wisdom and can do without God. But I have noticed when I clean up my life and stop doing those things that are hindering my potential, all of a sudden I am making room for God and feel a sort of relationship with a "controlling factor" (God or whatever you call it). So, basically what I am saying is the inverse of Weinstein is probably true. Humanity by doing moral has felt in line with their destiny, sensed an approval by God.
A LOT of people just behave well anyway because they've got innate integrity not because of some infantile idea. I think it's denigrating to believers to suggest they are the stupid people who need external threats in order to behave well. In my experience of life it's the people who don't believe and especially those who consume alcohol and drugs who behave badly and have no morals or ethics.
Religion doesn’t teach moral understanding, religion teaches obedience. Simple obedience to rules is a limited moral system. To understand moral systems and act accordingly no matter if someone else is watching is actually being a moral person.
What, this is confusing. Plenty of people of faith abuse substances. Where were you raised, las vegas? Cause i grew up in the church hearing so many people say stuff like, if x or y isnt true why does anything matter, why not just kill or do whatever we want. A lot of people out here are good because theyve been promised an afterlife insurance policy. Our experiences have been widly different. Cause i deal with toxic religious stuff all the time and im of faith, but i have experienced plenty of people who need external threats to remind them not to be a dick
Well,I guess I'm just bloody lucky then because all my life including now all the people I've encountered and had to deal with have been are nice good people. I've met and now know so many extraordinary people of goodness and virtue,both believers and non-believers. Lucky for me the evil fuckers keep their distance from me which suits me just fine.
@@nicolab2075 nobody bloody well cares what I think. I'm not interested in the subject. As someone who God has chosen to create unshaggable,so coarse and vulgar,oops I'm not getting any so I never think about other people.
Reading the comments. I find it interesting, if not disturbing, that most believers need an absolute moral giver to say what is right or wrong. Plenty of people would take the money and plenty wouldn't. Considering that ALL gods are created by humans in past societies for a power/control system, they say nothing about any divine authoritative being right or wrong about anything. It has always been human subjectivity and human laws that put things in context. Never a reward or punishment from a external being. Sorry, but god is metaphorical internal and not remotely literal.
Reading your comments I find it very alarming that nonbelievers in God talk about a created god. It shows that they don't understand what God the creator means. Nobody in the right mind could possibly believe that God was created. Created gods are called idols. They are man made. The God of the bible is the creator of energy, matter, space and time. Therefore He is outside of the universe and has to be eternal and not natural but supernatural. If ever there was nothing then there would always be nothing, therefore there must always be something and that is the God of the bible. How do I know this is the truth? The bible told us that the universe had a beginning, has fixed laws of physics, is expanding, gets colder as it gets older and what is detectable i. e. Energy, matter, space and time, is made from that which is undetectable. Now what has science (which is the biblical method: put everything to the test and hold fast to that which is good) helped scientists to discover? All the above but thousands of years later! So some people take the money and some don't. Who is right and who is wrong? Who is in the position to decide right from wrong if there is no ultimate truth there cannot be right or wrong and we wouldn't have moral law. But the creator God gave us the moral law also. Created gods give you nothing and that is what the scientists say we came from: NOTHING. Who put the information into DNA? INFORMATION ONLY COME FROM ONE SOURCE AND THAT IS INTELLIGENT MIND! Now what exactly to you believe we came from? I'd be interested to know.
Without God, objective morality cannot exist. If God does not exist then morality doesn’t exist outside of human subjectivity. Murder, rape, theft are just actions that you don’t like, but you wouldn’t be able to argue with me if I told you that those things weren’t wrong to do. Saying those things are morally wrong would just be your opinion and nothing more.
I practice Ethical Nihilistic Absurdism: Life is stupid, meaningless, cruel, and absurd, but we should still strive to be decent people and do good things instead of bad whenever we can, because being nice is just better, and because we don't want to be assholes (or maybe some of us do, but it doesn't really matter, because nothing really matters).
I don't think it's that hard a concept to convey to a kid that they shouldn't take the money because it's someone else's money. You don't need the threat of an always-watching supernatural inevident deity to do it. I think Weistein over-estimates the value of religious tradition.
The cashier gets caught because he's repeating the act in the place at the same time eventually some one will notice the missing funds, not mention potential cameras or witnesses . What if you replace the cashier who commits the same crime repeatedly every now and then to some one who commits stranger r*pe and then kills them all in different random untraceable ways he won't get caught like jack the ripper .
It's easier to just get a girlfriend than to through all this trouble. The population of people who end up behaving this way is increasingly small and also not going to be deterred much by religion anyway. He is more likely to use the church as cover for his sick actions than read the bible and be deterred.
The foundation of traditional moral laws can not be reversed. The programming i think all humans have is from genetic cell memory over the course of thousands of years. Not to mention oral & written traditional programming. The end of tradition is the beginning of madness. but what do i know right? Good topic! Thank you!
Nah. Because god is imaginary, the "enforcement" is also imaginary. The God Delusion isost often used to justify tremendous evil & oppression, and that's not imaginary. The suffering caused by people who are doing evil in the name of God is very very real.
Jesus either was or was not resurrected. Too many secular scientists believe in His existence to deny it. The question comes down to whether you believe your need for a Savior. If not, good luck with your good deed hypothesis when you stand before a judge for your crimes.
Why would secular scientists believing that Jesus existed, be a reason to believe in a resurrection? The question comes down to whether you believe that a god should not be afraid of critical examination. If a god deems it a crime to disbelieve fantastic claims without good evidence, then that god is an immoral thug.
Biological Engine of Love God gives you your entire life to accept or reject Him There is plenty of evidence supporting His existence. I didn’t believe for almost 40 years mainly because I was too close minded (proud) to even search for Him. I hope you find the curiosity to seek Him.
@@rickknight5872 Sure, there is loads of anecdotal evidence, but that's not good evidence. If there was good evidence, everyone would believe the same god.
@@biologicalengineoflove6851 "If there was good evidence, everyone would believe the same god." It is recorded that there were those who witnessed Jesus resurrection who chose not to believe. There are those who believe the earth is flat.
@@thisslightlysweetlife3402 That would make sense, because even if one were to witness a resurrection, it would still be more likely that the witness was somehow deceived. And while there are people who believe the earth is flat despite good evidence, it does appear pretty flat to a layman on the ground. If there was good evidence for a somehow supernatural being, it would mean that being wanted us to have the evidence. If a god wanted us to have evidence, it would be incontrovertible. If a god expected worship without good evidence, that god would be an asshole, an immoral thug not worth worshiping anyway. But I don't find that likely either.
If God is a hack to get people to behave then it aint a good one cos if it was we would be living in the best possible world ever so God hasn't hacked anyone which I think we can all agree. As for stopping people stealing then I would consider the Tao de Jing which says to hold nothing of more value than the other because as soon as you place value on something you create a thief.
Yeah, and it's not news, people with half a brain figure it out very young. Morons & moral milquetoasts continue debating it well into old age, as if it matters.
And ‘He took them through the scriptures all the things concerning Himself’. ‘The vine of the book testifies of me’ Listen to Chuck misslers ‘message from the edge of eternity ‘ and explain to me the phenomenon of prophecy and the supernatural nature of the bible; and I have great respect for Bret Weinstein, but disagree with him on this.
@Sticky Steve The problem is there is no way to convey objective morality without God. It can't exist. So if you convince people that God does not exist you untether our moral code to anything outside of ourselves. Everything then becomes subjective and there is not such thing as right or wrong outside of our constructs. All that is good becomes a matter of opinion. Is slavery objectively wrong? Is intolerance of homosexuality objectively wrong? Is torturing a baby for fun objectively wrong outside of our opinions? If anything is true for everyone then God exists. The difference is that we are either pursuing truth because we are pursuing God or there is no truth and nothing to pursue.
@Sticky Steve Objective means that which is true outside of human experience and opinion. If we have evolved to believe that empathy is morally good, that only means that this is conducive to survival so it was passed on genetically. In this philosophy that which is not conducive to survival is bad. So you should be careful about claiming that that which is conducive to survival is good itself. You'd be trapped logically into claiming that homosexuality is bad, for example, or that surrendering your own life to save another is bad.
@Sticky Steve "No, I wouldn't be trapped, my example of animal behavior is to illustrate it's natural and not exclusive to humans." This doesn't seem to have any bearing on whether or not it's subjective. There are two options for morality, it exists as something we strive for as a standard outside of ourselves, or it exists subjectively as that which comes from our experiences and opinions (be that genetically determined or not). It may help you to know that many theists are totally ok with the idea that evolution has lead us toward the objective standard. It makes a lot of sense that, if God is that standard, he would build it into the system such that we would freely seek Him.
@Sticky Steve You're covering a lot of ground in your comments which is counterproductive to moving forward from one point to the next. So I'm trying to keep us focused on this one idea first before we jump into other ideas that logically lead from it. The topic at the moment is the foundation of morality. It can only be subjective or objective. We are either striving toward a standard (improving) or the standards can change as we change. Would you say you believe morality is objective or subjective?
Attack someone personally over the internet, i don't care, but please proceed to explain why they are a blabbering fool. He sure ignited something in you. If you knew how to explain why Bret is wrong, you would.
