Sam Harris - Respecting Religious Beliefs 

Christopher Hitchens was quoting Carl Sagan. Such a truthful quote.

@@gluttonousmachina2961 The Mountain from GoT?

@Natty Fatty it does not require evidence to dismiss religious claims without evidence backing them up. The assertion here is not founding a theology rather a logical way to handle irrational claims.

What about when some arab has sword to the back of your neck demanding you believe in his god. religion is extinction.

@@ossiedunstan4419 i think you missed the point

@@analoguedragon7438 I mean, not for lack of trying lol

Exactly.

Wrong ….please remove that maybe …

@@jgage2344 Huh?

It's a Shame. God is simply the Existence of Love. Everybody Believes Love exists. Atheists Unnecessarily Overcomplicate it. Its Unfortunate.

beliefs do not exist apart from a person who holds them what a person believes defines the person you are dancing around the issue, the problem IS the person who has chosen to base their life on things that are not real

@@kenwittlief255 Respecting people's rights to have beliefs just means i'm not about to throw them into a gulag, it doesn't mean I lack desire for change.

@@gerryfromthevoid8986 the beliefs they hold give them the right to end your life if you do not share them and they did murder non believers for the last 3000 years or more they have no respect for YOUR rights, how do they deserve respect from you?

@@kenwittlief255 i don't respect religions, i simply stated i believe that people have the right to HAVE beliefs, if they are benign for example my grandmother who seems to just hope there is a god so she can see my father again in an afterlife, i don't sit around trying to slap sense into her

@@kenwittlief255 While i agree we tend to act as if beliefs can’t be separated from ourselves, i think it’s important that we view ourselves moreso as the consciousness which houses certain beliefs. This opens the door to more critical thinking and willingness to change those beliefs in favor of better evidence. A belief may inform your habits and therefore a behavior, but taking an extra second to consider whether it’s a worthy belief to act out in the first place is something i see as a virtue. This is why i actively try to reinforce in people i know that they are not their thoughts.

Hitchens explained it similarly. We see religious folks who don't hurt people, and don't hate and don't try and take over our society. And we point out they're such good people they're barely religious at all. If less religion is better, as it seems to be, then zero religion would be best.

That is SOMETIMES true. But you can't tell me that the fundamentalists (usually) are experts on text analysis of thoughts and language originating thousands of years ago. Many of them read the bible as if it's a member of their family telling the story NOW ... hell, some of them think the bible is written in english

In my experience this is largely not true. I went to the UCC which was a very liberal progressive non-literal Christianity. I thought that other religions especially those with private education would be more educated. What I found was a complete ignorance of Biblical and Christian Historical knowledge. How can any one believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, when you understand that there were 60 different contradictory Gospels in early Christianity all written in ancient foreign languages, not to mention hundreds of apostolic texts thrown away. And hundreds of early interpretations and thousands upon thousands of interpretations since then. As far as inerrancy in the actual Bible, there are actual a „thousand“ more recorded errors than there are words in the Bible. Refer to Bart Erhman for the exact number. And the multiple meanings in Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin, Coptic, Greek and modern language. How is it even morally justifiable to claim the canonical text is the only legitimate text which came about by continually burning heretics and their books resulting in a book endorsed by the Roman Empire after which they committed a Genocide against the Manichaeans (who believed Mani, Christ, Buddha, Zoroaster as prophets). I do think there are great aspects of the canonical texts. And deeply admire certain ancient writers like Origen and modern writers like Tillich. But I found a profound ignorance of the Bible, doctrine, history from fundamentalists. What really is happening is a completely selective reading based on their own prejudices and calling it the ultimate Truth. The more moderate church’s certainly have selective reading, but without the claim of absolute truth.

@@matthewkopp2391 Yeah, I think it is more a sentimental and childish wish for "simple answers" than a thorough reading of the text that leads them to fundamentalism ...

@@robertjsmith Being that Jesus did not write anything we can’t say for certain. I think the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, and Luke show dualism and determinism. The Gospel of John is more non-dual it presents Jesus as the Logos. The most striking example of non-dualism is the Gospel of Thomas. Which is non-canonical. It has 80% parallel with canon text but says things slightly differently: Jesus said, "It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'Here it is' or 'There it is. ' Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it." And there are certain traditions that are non-dual like Origen of Alexandria which is very interesting to read. Early Neo-Platonist and Neo-Pythagorean Christian traditions focus on mystical union with God or henosis which is union with what is fundamental in reality.

You have faith in science?

@@Nat88123 he says on the internet

@@Nat88123 we don't have FAITH in Science. Science works and has the best explanation and basis of our current understanding of basically almost everything. Science has evidence, religion and faith does not.

@@Nat88123 Science is not a belief that requires faith. It’s a process by which you can determine what is verifiable and works. Belief is not part of the process. In fact, belief would be considered a bias that would alter the scientific results. You acknowledge the efficiency of science, you don’t have faith in it.

@@Nat88123 Nobody needs faith in science. Science works regardless of belief. We understand science. Do you understand science?

Very… very well said 😊

religion is dying in america anyway.

@@damarideadass8305 Not before time.

You are not alone. Fight fire with fire. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more.

These guys are the precisely the reason why I have a hard time reconciling being atheist. The reason why atheism has no following is because the leaders ie. The three you mention are dicks. literal assholes who are not likeable to the point people will get behind them.

That, by the way, applies to leftist dogmatists every bit as much as religious dogmatists. Maybe more, recently, considering the number of murders committed by communists in the 20th century exceeded 100 million.

Respect is earned not demanded.

and there is no logic in religious belief

Why would I want to respect other people's beliefs? Being interested on an academic level in people's beliefs doesn't lead me to respecting them. Crap is crap even when it doesn't have an odor.

I’ll respect religious beliefs when believers respect my non-beliefs. But I think it is pretty fucking arrogant of them to knock on my door at dinner time, to tell me I’m living my life all wrong, that I need to “repent” and fork over 10% of my income (or however much more they think they can extract) and all the other fuckery that goes with being a part of their cult that they want to subject me to

In Brazil is the same. I'm an atheist and is hard to be an open atheist. Here most of the people are catholics and not believe im God is considered a sin. It's not like Iraq that you might be killed (althought it may hapen), but is going to be very hard to be accepted. You might be kicked out of your house and be disinherited. I'm a teenager and not have the power to say anything about it sucks. (Sorry if something is mispelled)

It's the same everywhere, even holland, as an ex-muslim. Religion poisons everything.

As a 59 year old American living in the Bible belt, I understand. If I shared this stuff with my wife and family I expect I would be shunned. I'm not ready for that yet, but hopefully someday

Stay strong my friend.

Not believing in religion, and going about life as if religion interferes with my existence, then I cannot have strong beliefs in religion.

Since when militant atheism is free thinking?

@@analoguedragon7438 by definition a free thinker is one who rejects accepted opinions, especially those concerning religious belief. You come across as an ignorant, garden variety religious crackpot of which there are many here on RU-vid, sadly.

@@zentravel1515 Exactly, well said. I am an atheist but I am also extremely open minded. Give me evidence of ANY god, strong evidence, and I will most likely believe. Strangely that seems impossible. "but, but, there is a book!" I'm going to guess that any christian person who watches the documentary on scientology would laugh at the end, it's crazy how similar it is to their own religion though.

@@Dennis-66 the flying spaghetti monster is real. Evidence? Spaghetti exists therefore he exists. I'm waiting for you to convert now 😂

@@proculusjulius7035 lol, let me go cook some spaghetti, if I throw it and it flies across the room I'm 100% on board! Talk to you in about 20 minutes!

You mean religion?

I agree with you, but how do we decide what's good and what's evil? Consensus doesn't seem right, but right and wrong is something created by man.

At least in the West, the influence of religion has waned to the extent that we no longer put people on the Judas chair for heresy. Which does represent progress, albeit much slower progress than one might wish for

Well, Socrates was the teacher of many of the 30 tyrants which were enforced upon Athens by the Spartans, when the Athenians lost the Peloponnesean war. His trial was a political one against the atrocities of oligarchs over democrats. He was accused of instilling "new daemons" spartan ones against the city. It was never about religion.

Socrates was not killed due to ignorance but because he challanged state authority which was seen as disruptive. Amcient Athens was far more dictorial than any modern democracy.

Not smart. Thinks all muslims are extremists and then says respect religion. Lol, atheists are so confused.

@@Nat88123 he doesn’t say that at all

@@1982craigyboy he doesn't say what?

Too simply and clearly, if you ask me. If only things were as simple as his mind perceives them to be.

@@whitneystreethouse Things should be

terencelaoshi On the contrary, he's very emotion-driven and is putting on a pseudo-intellectual front. They all do that, and people like you slobber all over them like untrained dogs. The man is a certified fool. See Psalm 14:1, Psalm 53:1. The point bears repeating.

@@marcusonesimus3400 *On the contrary, he's very emotion-driven and is putting on a pseudo-intellectual front* That's just a baseless claim - substantiate it or retract it. *They all do that, and people like you slobber all over them like untrained dogs* Personal insults and vitriol won't win you any brownie points in an intellectual debate *The man is a certified fool* Is he? Then you won't mind citing the formal psychological assessment that came to this conclusion right? *See Psalm 14:1, Psalm 53:1. The point bears repeating* Who cares what's written in the bible when no theist can present a single shred of demonstrable evidence any of its supernatural claims are true? Of course, Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1 simply employs some of the most basic reverse psychology, a tool often used by religious scribes in an attempt to protect religious claims. More accurately, only a fool would be credulous and gullible enough to believe the wholly unsubstantiated claims an ancient book makes.

@@marcusonesimus3400 LOL

@@marcusonesimus3400 Quoting Bible yourself while calling someone stupid? ...Nice. I came here to laugh at you too. 😂😂😂

@@marcusonesimus3400 People like you urgently need to further your education. Ignorance is not entertaining. Come back when you have a grasp on the actual meanings of the words you use.

The value of unsubstantiated beliefs is readily noted when you observe, the well known fact, that you can't exceed 30mph in a locomotive because, as everyone knows, you can't exceed that speed because all the air would be ejected from the carriage causing the death of all passengers not equipped with breathing apparatus.

Exactly, that is such a dead end, one can only say they are agnostic and that every action, individual or mass level, should have reason to back it, not some belief which can't be proven right or wrong.

The diamond is invisible, without form, nor can it be detected by any instrument - just like gods

A teapot circles at the edge of the universe. It can't be proven wrong, so it's true. Unfortunately for you, the claim is your's and so naturally the burden of proof is yours too, not ours.

He parted the sea of faces for him.

Lol fr. I skipped the intro so I really thought he was starting off with talking about something Moses of the bah-ble had said 😅

That is not a very revealing and thus an otiose statement.

@@maxxkarma It is a very straightforward statement. It informs the people reading it that I place belief in astrology, belief in reincarnation and religious beliefs as being equally valid & as such I accord each of those beliefs an equal amount of respect. ( Hint: that amount of respect is zero)

Zero respect is a problem. Zero respect for religious or any other kind of extremism I can understand, but zero respect for the majority of people that find solace in their faith is an issue. But we can disagree on that. I think lack of tolerance(what an odd word/concept though) is problematic and on both sides there are guilty parties.

@@maxxkarma he said he doesn’t respect religious beliefs, not that he does not respect those who hold religious beliefs. It’s an important difference. I agree with him. Many religious beliefs are ridiculous and literally worthy of ridicule, and many are totally backwards and counter to societal betterment. I can respect a person yet not respect their beliefs, though I may certainly respect them less for holding that belief. The problem is because beliefs inform our actions and our actions have real consequences.

reincarnation is a fundamental religious belief of several world religions lol, i get the astrology example but not really the reincarnation one, you’re just comparing a religious belief to another religious belief. either way i get what you’re saying lol and i agree with it

You should do a youtube presentation because you are just repeating this one quite nicely.

Go Biden.

@@Acoustic-Rabbit-Hole who

That match often comes way too close to the powder kegs, too.

Uday Shastri You are completely deceived by a fraudulent poseur and a fraudulent movement. Harris the 'missionary' has convinced himself that he matters greatly, when what really matters is his repentance. (1st Timothy 2:5) 'For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.' These atheist types love to pin their hopes on Science, but are remarkably ignorant in historical matters. Historical facts matter.

@@marcusonesimus3400 How can you be so sure. Sam never forces anything, he is putting things logically. In fact I will urge you to listen to him with open mind and see what effect it has on you.

@@IdiotEarthworm I am sure because I have experienced the transforming power of Christ in my own life and seen it in others. This is not a matter of self-hypnosis, brainwashing, or psychological manipulation. I have a fairly good idea of what those things look like. I also know what it is like to be outside the faith. From the outside, the inside looks strange and bewildering. it is tempting to mock what one does not understand. Therefore Sam Harris speaks and acts just as one would expect him to speak and act. People who wish to stay away from Christ may find his message comforting and reassuring. Christ, by demanding that one 'die to oneself'. can be a very disruptive force in a person's life. I wonder whether Sam senses this instinctively. Surely no human being is ALL cold logic, without an iota of intuitive or emotional capacity. Such a person would be little more than a living robot after all.

@@marcusonesimus3400 I respect what you are saying but would like to point out that belief by nature has a tremendous healing power regardless of the object of belief. That is the reason when new drugs are released, randomised trials always include Placebo where patient is told that he or she is given new drug to fix the problem but actually given a blank. Because patient believes that it is a drug which would cure him, there is an effect on home to cure himself. The trial needs to correct for that effect to really see how the new drug is performing. Having a belief provides comfort and solace. That is just how human nature is. But if we want truth, we need to be cold and logical.

Indians and level headed respect. No wonder they worship anyone, anything and everything

You haven't encountered people of different political and philosophical convictions that have tried to "convert" you? There are secular ideologies that are deeply dogmatic and much worse than many religions. Say Jainism, as Sam Harris brought us here.

I've said that many times to people who think atheists are "militant". I don't knock on doors and say, "Have you heard the good news about Christopher Hitchens?"

@@Marc010 The "militant atheist" thing is blatantly deceptive propaganda anyway. In _every_ other case, the qualifier "militant" brings actual aspects of physical violence with it (AK-47-swinging Muslims, bombed abortion clinics, ...), but when it comes to "militant atheists", all they can point to are people who "dare to" argue and question.

Unless religious fundamentalists run your nation.

@@gluttonousmachina2961 close enough ... I live in a way more democratic country than the freakin’ USA ... I live in Canada.

Canada doesn't have free speech

@@smallstudiodesign Where our national anthem contains the line "God keep our land". If you don't think Christianity dominates our culture too, you're not paying attention. It's not as bad as the States but it's here too.

Sorry but it was the increasing size of populations' that lead to the formation of first some 10,000 years ago priests, then came religions. The oldest living civilisation and culture on earth dated at 65,000 + years, Genocide rape and taking next doors shit cause of god, Never existed in the oldest living civilisation and culture on earth. 65,000 years with out 1 middle eastern death cult diety. Your a racist fucking imbecile which means you are god botherer and in denial about reality

@@ossiedunstan4419 ....... Hardly, religions evolved from the earliest wishful thinking, from 'spirits' of the wind and the rain, as human evolution progressed and humans became aware of what and who they were. Earliest human groups were always small, because of hunting and gathering restrictions and the inability of feeding more than a limited number. You're guessing........ You wish there was a god and that he'll save your sorry ass....... save your insults for yourself, idiot........

@@ossiedunstan4419 I didn't see Charles mention anything about race mate. please read the comment you reply to.

@@ossiedunstan4419 Pleased you are sorry.

Well said Charles.

Slowly disappearing

I recently had someone demonstrate God's power by asking if I can make an animal and bring it to life. She was genuinely surprised with my response, "Yes. Give me a partner and 9 months, but yes."

Then you will be disappointed

No, you can _tolerate_ or _accept_ their beliefs. If you actually _respected_ them, you would admire them so much that you would do your best to adopt them yourself. It's in the very definition of "respect". Seeing actually "strong" terms like this used for such "weak" concepts drives me crazy. It's like christian "love" (even ignoring the cases where it's actually tribalism-fueled hatred) - it's practically never actually _love,_ but something far "weaker".

@@Wolf-ln1ml And I personally have no plans to respect or tolerate beliefs which look upon me as a dirty lesser-than simply for not allowing their mind virus into my life.

@@mememan2344 Oh, that too, yep.

That's a good philosophy. The US Constitution says that even the government should not be immune from critique.

Except for maybe the kinda 'critiques' just seeking an excuse to impose their _own_ wack-a-doodle 'beliefs' (aka, 'ideology').

@@matonmongo I'm not sure those fit the definition of genuine critiques so those don't count.

I agree, unfortunately very few religions are truly benign. (For example hindering stem cell research, as mentioned in vid.) If we are satisfied with the wrong answers, looking for the right ones makes you evil and devious according to them. This slows/stops progress.

@@ctdieselnut I agree, and I will never respect beliefs that keep people dumb, or slow medical and scientific advancements which most religions are guilty of doing.

Thanks for letting us know! We have made it public. Share away! :)

You're wlecome :) And thanks, it is great!

@@ideacity No wonder the views are so low lol, more people need to see this - especially superstitious religious gremlins.

@@FactStorm watched it and doesn't change a thing.

People love the wrong things

Nonsense. At best it just indicates that there are more believers than non believers.

@@maxxkarma So what? You think numbers equals truth? Lmao..that's a bandwagon fallacy..but I don't expect any less of apologists: ya'll have been employing the same logical fallacies for centuries and the only reason you never learn is due to indoctrination, generation-after-generation.

@@FactStorm It does not imply truth, it implies reality. And who are y’all? I think you made an incorrect assumption and with that you kind of prove my other point.

@@maxxkarma Ok, if it doesn't determine truth then wth are we doing? Does truth not matter? Only truth matters when discussing religion - not utility.

Awwwww....did Dr. Harris hurt her feelings? Then I sincerely hope someone gave a cup of warm milk and a place to lie down after his talk.😂🙄🙄😂

Or she's just remembered that she forgot to send an important e-mail

It also _should_ actually get that journalist's career to skyrocket... if only media outlets weren't so damn afraid of stepping out of line and even just _risking_ losing views/subscribers/...

I believe he is saying “balkanized”

@@Brisippus Okay awesome! That makes sense now. Thanks!

You don't have to respect someone's religious beliefs or any other kind of believe. I like what Richard Dawkins said"I don't care what people believe, I only care what they can prove"

@@davidsheriff9274 I don't, but there is general behavior resulting from a request to respect religious beliefs. Isked the question in the hope that someone who does, will explain it.

This is more of what same talks about often, where people claim that these individuals don't actually believe this stuff. They say they do, but they don't actually believe it. In what way would you expect these people to act if they actually believed that jesus was coming back in 50 years. They don't know when it's going to happen, they don't have a specific date, and 50 years for many if these people is equal to or greater than the rest of their remaining life expectancy. So they continue working, they continue praying. When people think there is a specific date (this has happened several times), then there are plenty of instances where people drop their entire life savings cause they think they won't need it anymore. So again, how would you expect for these people to act differently. I live in a heavily secular area where most people are not super religious, so I forgot how they can tend to think. But then my boss, who is otherwise a smart and rational man, will say something like, "I can't support a 2-state solution in israel, the jews need to have total control of the land before jesus can come back." And when given the hypothetical scenario of voting for someone who has radically different political opinions than him but is christian vs someone who has exactly the same political opinions but is atheist, has said he would vote for the christian, cause at least he has morals. Let's say that he didn't really believe those things, not really, what does that matter when he thinks he believes those things and votes in accordance to those beliefs. Are we hoping that he's voting for someone who also doesn't really believe those things?

So everyone knows God of the bible exists. Some only say they dont, but belief is not just what you think you know about what you think but its rather how you act, and everybody acts as if God of the bible exists

@@fredarroyo7429 no, we don't. Because we don't kill people for nonsensical reasons or decrees. The bible is also vastly inaccurate and filled with historical errors - not to mention 3rd hand accounts by anonymous authors of people who lived hundreds of years before, if at all. I'm sorry you haven't the time to research a book you base your life on. It's sad, but even more sad is that it's not totally uncommon. Yet.

@@gixelz Back up your unsubstantied claims 1. Name me one historical error in bible. 2. One peice of evidence that any gospel is 3rd hand peice of evidence by anonymous author. No, dont get mad at people who dont accept random claims backed up by ZERO evidence to be true like the claims you just made. You might be an uncritical thinker and accept claims with no evidence, but that would actually correlate to the fact that you know the bible is true and you have to resort to espouse anti critical thinking to suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Its not gonna work. Put up or shut up

It's a Shame. God is simply the Existence of Love. Everybody Believes Love exists. Atheists Unnecessarily Overcomplicate it. Its Unfortunate.

Princess vespa!

I don’t disagree, it is confusing, but also once you’ve had a profound spiritual experience, it’s extremely difficult thing to dismiss as a “mind trick”. It reframes your view of the world, and can show you the things we consider “Objective” are actually subjective interpretations made by our mind. The world as we experience isn’t even 1% of the whole picture. If you’ve ever done psychedelics and had a profoundly spiritual experience, you probably understand. Spiritual experiences SHOULD be validated as what they are: what someone experienced. But then we need to be objective how they bring those experiences into the world

“Spiritual” in the sense Sam uses it is in reference to the connection one feels to natural phenomenon and to others. Has nothing to do with actual spirits. It’s meant in the same context that Zen Buddhists are “spiritual”.

The Christchurch terrorist believed otherwise

You have to remember that the cross was the Roman empire's instrument of torture, execution, and sending a message to those who would dare defy its authority. Coincidence that Christianity adopted it as its universally recognized symbol? I think not

Why is it wrong to kill people

@@shawntalks2414 Because no one wants to be killed

@@devilsadvocacy who give af about feelings and a lot people especially atheists most of them nihilistic so again what’s wrong with killing as a atheist you should be consistent sir

Terrible. Sam is a commie

Your comment is like a small therapeutic session.

@@siobhansteisa9996 👍🏼💜

what type of religion is that?

@@kelixrblx7762all of them!

Education is not knowledge

Fear of the Lord is the Beginning of Knowledge

UC Love What does it inspire you to do? It probably reinforces your pre-existing prejudices. Nothing accomplished. The man is a windbag, who would maximize the population of hell through his 'missionary' efforts. These so-called 'new atheists' present nothing more than a rehash of 19th-century rationalism and positivism. It's OLD HAT, colorless, boring, and hopelessly NAIVE. We need a more REALISTIC message for the 21st century, starting with a better assessment of human nature: (Jeremiah 17:9) 'The heart is deceitful beyond all else, and is desperately sick; who can understand it?' Not Mr. Harris. (Romans 3:23) 'For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.'

@@marcusonesimus3400 lol stick to uttering your nonsense to the flock u cling to. I care not. But I ask you how come when Noahs flood happened china never even noticed.... 🤣🤣🤣 you are more lost than you'll ever let yourself know. It inspires me to be myself and love everything equally and to move pass nonsense mantras and dogmatic thinking. I was raised believing.... you know nothing of me to be able to judge. The only windbag is your local conman preacher. Go pay your tithing and serve other men.

@@marcusonesimus3400 indulge me - which part in particular don't you agree with? Emphasising words in capitals doesn't grant them extra weight. Neither does quoting an old book help make your point.

@@howieb4217 So the more recent the text, the more it is to be trusted? By that standard, the authority of my statements can only increase as time goes on. Perhaps arguments 'ad novitatem' ought to be discarded as utterly foolish. Yet you seem awfully prone to make that sort of argument. How typical of your religious tribe, of which Sam Harris is a renowned prophet and missionary. No, capitalization does not grant words weight. Truthful content does. Some do use capitalization for emphasis, and as it turned out, in the case which I am thinking about, that was not the case at all. The person in question kindly corrected me. Your attempt at 'correction' has nothing to do with kindness, only with revealing your own mind.

@@marcusonesimus3400 I think the age of a text should be taken into account, for sure. If only because it's easier to verify more recent events. That and historical data often being vague, incorrect, biased, written by the victors etc. Ofc there's truths and real value to be found too, but much comes down to interpretation and best guessing. I picked you up on the capitals simply because it seemed odd. But yeah, maybe it was a bit of an unnecessary dig and apologies. I stand by the old book part and don't see Sam Harris as any kind of prophet or missionary (although I do feel that suits some people's agenda). Do you feel the same when he speaks about AI or neuroscience? Because, for me, this is just more of that - someone talking about a topic that's important to them in a sensible way.

I am a muslim but I know santa and tooth fairy is not from Bible.

@@sajitmohammad9168 There's no reason to accept any holy book as authority, in any case. We cannot use the bible or quran, to disprove other myths....lol

You eat tooth fairies?

@@sajitmohammad9168 Logically speaking, all are equivalent and rest on the same plane. Santa Claus and the tooth fairy are no more (or less) based on objectively verifiable, empirical evidence than talking snakes, burning bushes, parting seas, seven-headed dragons, and so on. Same goes for any other religious dogma, regardless of its source

oh, do you really believe that? haha you believe that belief never deserves respect. wow

@@jmac6973 he meant belief in false prophets arnt worth respecting. the world would be chaos if you held your take of respecting others beliefs on everything outside the field of religion. Say a person 100% believes 2+2=5, says they are a better person for it, their people have believed this for thousands of years, and they don't want to live in a world where this isn't a truth. Are you also going to defend that belief? Why or why not? Dont tell me it's not comparable because religion isn't falsifiable or testable because that just makes the whole point moot. There's good reason why you should be innocent until proven guilty, and why scientific research hypotheses don't start from a place of belief. If you haven't figured out the motivations that brought us religions yet, my comment probably won't change your thoughts much.

@@ctdieselnut umm, pretty sure I agree with you. Maybe you meant to respond to @peterbartley? I was just pointing out that it is a contradictory statement to say that they believe that beliefs don’t deserve respect since that is also a belief. Lol

@@jmac6973 of course that’s common sense.

@@jmac6973 no that’s not a belief. There is no truth claim. It’s just a opinion that is just common sense

What I also find rather disturbing is this watering down of the word "respect" itself. As far as I can tell, there are basically three "levels" of how to deal with anything like viewpoints/beliefs or behaviour (in a "positive" manner): There is tolerance, which is basically, "I don't like this at all, but I won't do anything to stop it" (which may extend to not even criticizing it, openly or not). Then there is acceptance, which is more, "I may or may not actually like this, but I'm at least willing to go along with it" (which definitely means not criticizing it). And lastly, there is respect, which is, "I admire this view/belief/behaviour very much" - which _automatically_ includes either a begrudging acceptance that one _can't_ for whatever reason hold the same view/belief or behave the same way, or will actively strive to do so. When people demand to "respect their beliefs", they aren't actually demanding that we admire their beliefs and strive to hold them, too (with some obvious exceptions, but I'm talking about the "average person") - they are demanding that we don't criticize their beliefs, i.e that we accept (or at least tolerate) them. It's the same watering down of language as with religious "love", and it just drives me _crazy..._

So you believe people with religious beliefs should be legally allowed to be discriminated against? For say jobs etc?

@@4jgarner Yes. An intrinsic part of religious belief is the belief that they have the right and moral duty to act on and spread the teachings of their religion in the public domain, and to disregard other people's (including childrens) right to not adhere to the teachings of their religion. So yes, it should absolutely be legal to discriminate against religious people in areas such as employment - or any other area where they can get an opportunity to force their beliefs onto others or onto society - as it should be legal to discriminate against anyone else who's indoctrinated into beliefs that are false, abhorrent, and dangerous, and who believes they have a right and a duty to force those beliefs on others.

@@sibanought so how are religious people forcing their religious beliefs on others by being a Christian or Muslim or Buddhist in their workplace? Talking about it is not forcing it on them and most don't even do that. And as far as I'm aware actually forcing it on people is illegal and will lose you your job and quickly. But i welcome an example of a time when forcing your religious beliefs on people in the workplace is currently legal.

Being religious shows you're gullible and can't use your own thoughts to come to conclusions on your own.

@@4jgarner There are a lot of cryptofascists in this comments section.

Having been raised in a liberal church that does not believe in inerrancy or literalism, we are considered heretics by fundamentalists. What can be done? There is overwhelming evidence against inerrancy. And literalism contradicts basic science, and early Church Interpretations. Genesis for example in the early Christian Church around 180ad was believed to be allegorical today fundamentalists create creationist theme parks.

Do something about it...Like hosting talks discussing the absurdity of religious beliefs? Check.

@@cnussbau or countering the religions by actively lobbying at every level.

This from someone with the post-war organisation of states that has assumed the 12 stars of the Virgin Mary on an azure background as its flag.

@@jamessayers1428 good thing I don't worship (inconsequential or otherwise) imagery then.

I live in Scotland and I literally don't know any heavily religious people, we don't force that fictional bs on our kids.

I would encourage you to take a trip to the Southern or Midwest states of the U.S. if you want to see how religious otherwise good people can be. It’s pretty terrifying.

@@loganleatherman7647 true, they are terrifying, but isn't being terrifying the very definition of not being religious? I mean if you really believed in an afterlife and a hell, you wouldn't dare be an asshole would you?

Apart from the whole Bible / New ‘TESTAMENT’ 🤣

‘TESTAMENT’ = ‘something that serves as a sign or evidence of a specified fact, event, or quality.’ There’s more I could say but if you don’t WANT to believe then that acts as a barrier to further understanding/ engagement and it would be a waste.. & perhaps what I have already said is already wasted but just you just need to test the waters sometimes... 😬😉

There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus, most existing sources for the historical Jesus are Christian writings, gospels, letters of the apostles. All sources that mention Jesus were written after his death. Other sources outside Christianity include Josephus, Tacitus, Mara bar Serapion (syria 70AD) and Lucian. On the whole he is one of the most written about persons in the ancient world after only 30 - 70 years after his death. There is also zero record in ancient time denying Jesus existence. Lucian the satirist called Jesus “that crucified Sophist”. A satirist with doubt of a historical Jesus would likely say “Jesus that imaginary Prophet” instead he compares him to the often corrupt traveling sophist tradition. I think the idea that Jesus is not a historical person is laughable.

well there is a world of diversity on that one, but the thing to bear in mind is - no one comes back from death and no one, or everyone, is related to any god.

@@matthewkopp2391 Thank you for those sources, Matthew, I wasn’t even very aware of these & I have now looked them up (& shall tell others!) thank you for your reply...! 🌈🤗

same

@@michellequiapo6559 it was esp how to respect religeons

@@justyourlocalyandere268 same too😀

@@michellequiapo6559 wow we got common things

@@justyourlocalyandere268 yeah...

Who cares what you think. Jesus is God

Science simply cannot accept anecdotes or testimony as evidence, esp. in the case where other evidence is absent. Schools should teach the Scientific Method more specifically, so everyone can understand why this has to be. The general population should have a better understanding of how science advances and avoids falling into 'belief traps'.

@@fredarroyo7429 A childish theist. I'm shocked....lol

@@kenalls3518 thanks for your opinion. Science is great but it isnt the only source of knowledge about reality

@@fredarroyo7429 lol Which only means you don't even understand the meaning of the word, itself. A lament of the uneducated superstitious, when simple logic destroys their silly air castles.

Probably cry seeing how ridiculous he looks and sounds on video.

How did this not age well. History and biology (and every science, for that matter) is rooted in fact.

@@reubenmanzo2054 Certainly, but today it is far from unlikely to be accosted by flat earthers, holocaust deniers and wild uneducated speculation about alternate medicine, abortion and homosexuality. To say nothing of the conspiracy theories and madness that shatters families and civil discourse.

@@reubenmanzo2054 My guess would be the extremism in the "(gender) identity politics", which gets asserted to be _based on_ biology... (just to clarify - I do mean the extremes here; the majority of gender issues is definitely based on biology, neurology etc., but there are all too common extreme views that have zero basis in science)

It is a interesting thought, but Darwin actually based his claims on evidence. He didn't ask someone to just believe what he said, he proved he was right

@@filipe.sm31 Can u send me or point me in the direction of the "evidence". Darwin himself in his own words was skeptical of his own findings. Secondly try to tell any authority in school or academia that you are skeptical about it, lets see how far you will reach with that.

​@@vincyjoe4267 The fact that you say "Darwin himself was skeptical of his own findings," doesn't seem at all coherent with your claim that people worship Darwin as a 'prophet of evolution'. Jesus wasn't skeptical of God. Mohammad wasn't skeptical of God either. So, seeing as you seem to be saying that Darwin was skeptical of evolution, then what are you saying is the reason Darwin came up with evolution? Clearly he can't have come up with evolution as a 'God' (as your analogy seems to suggest he did) because he was skeptical of it, and prophets don't tend to be skeptical of their gods. So why did Darwin come up with evolution then? Are you saying he was simply mistaken or what? If he was mistaken, then how come his theory makes perfect sense and has been accepted by so many people? How come we can literally see evolution happening? Bacteria evolve - that is why antibiotics do not work forever. Domestication is a very similar process to evolution, only it is controlled by humans rather than left to natural selection. Do you not believe in domestication, then? Where do dogs come from? Cats? e.t.c. Sorry to come across as aggressive, but saying stuff like "Evolution is a God for atheists," is inevitably going to irritate a lot of people. And to add insult to injury, you then go on to attempt an argument from authority, by saying: "Try to tell any authority in school or academia that you are skeptical about it, lets see how far you will reach with that." It is absolutely ridiculous.

Maybe your credibility is shot to them. There is nothing worse than speaking with a person who claims they have a higher ability to know things by trusting their empirical senses when they cant even give a justification for those abilities

Ya, all religions are cults

I think you accidentally spoke the truth. Giving up belief without evidence will enable everyone to see the world as it actually is.

@@corsair321 you know what we Muslims are different in our approach to religion we don't just say to people have faith in God and don't ask questions

It’s simple. It’s VERY useful to the elites as a tool to distract from class inequality. As soon as its usefulness diminishes, it will be ridiculed for the nonsense it is (or simply ignored if the ridiculing doesn’t have any usefulness). You don’t think anyone in Congress REALLY believes votes were stolen, do you?!? This nonsense is promulgated entirely for its political usefulness. I personally am astonished it turns out to be useful, but I guess I’m just naive.