Some would try to point to this fact as if there is some truth in the existence of supernatural agents. The universality only points to commonality in our biology and psychology. Anyone trying to extrapolate this to the existence of supernatural agents has to explain that the claims made by believers are contradictory. You cannot be a Buddhist and a Christian at the same time.
Could just be because we primarily evolved to survive in a social setting we extrapolate the idea of intention beyond it’s scope. And maybe because neoteny played such a large role in our evolution we want to be looked after. Doesn’t mean it has to have an evolutionary advantage, might just be a side effect.
@@cyberswine That is a basic explanation, however, the more complex answer is how humans "interprete" so called "external" stimulis to begin with...Example: this video is just a collection of sounds & pixels, arranged in various overlapping diagrams (magick joke reference,....get it, cuz pentagrams ....anyway) , premised on the "bias" of experience & education....Example, the English language. Point: you see this video as an "entity" , not a person (like yourube itself ia literally a person, but i digress) , but an "entity" of data points "packaged" into a multifacetious communicative device on your...device ...which you "divine" as having anything remotely worth wanting to believe or feel or think or act from, to, by , for etc. Point: it got you to react by commenting. Point point: classification of "entities" for communication & abstraction is how humans function, example: a "river" technically only exists definitally in your mind, in reality, its just H20 , here, there, everywhere, nowhere, not for long anyway, long being relative, and transitorily based on ones own temporal, limited perception. Point: believing in supernatural beings is as logical as beliving in any noun, including yourself.... Oh, no, of course wait, dont believe you exist as an "agent" , if you wanna believe you are a clump of cells or atoms only.... Which, you might be, but why bother with "more"? Is it useful? Does it function anything? Depends on if you believe anything effects anything else. But remember, your thoughts will be limited if you allow them to be confined by definitions you were handed by someone elses experiences. 😂
Perversely, life is a lot less stressful when you accept that the universe doesn’t take you personally. Then you can get on with self creating yourself as you want to be.
Interesting how the commenters with belief seem to kindly share their experience, whereas those without belief seem to be inflating their consciousness and ego as if to prove themselves intelligent. It's unsettling how many seemingly try to achieve this by putting others down in the process.
Thence the need for charitable discussions, which comes more easily to religious people (not that the nonreligious can't be charitable, mind 😉). But speaking of the latter group, the major problem seems to be they put much too much stock on psychologizing people, rather than going out in the word and _finding out_ what's actually true by themselves; a trend that I saw disturbingly displayed all over in Feuerbach's _The Essence of Christianity_ , which functioned as a sort of founding text for modern secularism, IMO.
@@thstroyur Charitable discussions sound crucial. If for anything just to learn to healthfully agree to disagree and live and let live while working towards some level of symbiosis so we can stop competing. I can't imagine either side will have the energy to keep this up long term. Maybe if there were more dedicated spaces to commune in a civil manner for all faiths and non-faiths, we could achieve real growth.
@@terranovium Well, it has kept up for centuries, now - the so-called 'Enlightenment' in the West, I mean. It does seem to be running out of steam, but I'm not naïve enough to gloat over its corpse just yet. But as for a dedicated space to commune urbanely, I got good news - we _do_ have those - like this one! The Internet is an amazing tool for sharing knowledge - in spite of the fact we're often too busy using it to be toxic to others. But perhaps the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our optical cables and modems, but in ourselves - and therein is, perhaps, the beginning of true religion.
@@thstroyur I mean, if people keep this division up they'll be too busy fighting to have the energy required to achieve sustainable living. Sustainability is inherently the first key to ensuring our existence at all. I would say this affects more than just 'Western Enlightenment' though. Not gloating over a corpse, just striving for clear foresight. Regarding dedicated spaces, I specifically meant physical ones as they force a higher degree of accountability and mutual respect. That's not to say discussions couldn't be posted on RU-vid and other platforms to inspire and educate others. Also, Brutus comes from "Et tu, Brute?" - the words spoken by Julius Caesar when stabbed in the back by his best friend. Literally stabbed... I don't even know you, nor have I stabbed you in the back; I don't believe you're using that correctly. Unless there's some other intention you had with that. I'd still avoid using that in the future though, as one may easily take unintended offense.
@@terranovium "Sustainability is inherently the first key to ensuring our existence at all" You're thinking more on the lines of 'pacific coexistence', 'agree to disagree', etc., methinks. "I would say this affects more than just 'Western Enlightenment' though. Not gloating over a corpse, just striving for clear foresight." You miss the point of the remark: the Enlightenment made grandiose ethical, epistemic and metaphysical claims that not only it failed to deliver/provide evidence for, but also saw no qualms in turning society into its guinea pig, to the cost of many human lives and suffering. It's not about being on one team or the other, and coexist in a pluralistic setting (which is _de facto_ impossible, anyway) - it's about deciding what is objectively true, follow wherever it leads, and implement that. "Regarding dedicated spaces, I specifically meant physical ones as they force a higher degree of accountability and mutual respect" Oh, so I take it churches don't cut it? What about parks, college campuses - cafés? There's plenty of space to go, but apparently not much will to do so; besides, what do you expect - glass rooms like the ones for smokers in Europe? That'd make me feel like a caged animal in the zoo, more than anything. "Also, Brutus comes from "Et tu, Brute?" - the words spoken by Julius Caesar when stabbed in the back by his best friend." Brutus is a historical figure, he wasn't made up - and if you think me paraphrasing a very famous Shakespeare line has "some other intention" and may "easily offend", I'm afraid the problem is more within yourself than with a perceived shortage of free-speech 'safespaces' (and incidentally, that was the intended analogy). If you assume the worst of people, you only ever see it in them; it's a vicious cycle.
*It is no longer a story that the economy crisis keep rising, one needs to have different streams of income,as well as secure a profitable investment future.detailed diversified investment portfolio in the the financial markets is needed to survive...all thanks to Mrs Mary margaret Schimweg services*
HOW?!! I'm totally a newbie to trading and I've blewn up my account several times trying to trade on my own. Please I'd really appreciate if you could show me how to go about it.
After I got up to $300k trading with Mrs Mary margaret Schimweg i bought a new House and I'm now able to send my kids to a better school in the states thanks to her. When someone is straight forward with what he or she is doing people will always speak up for them.
@@Tatianabella45 I've accumulated generational wealth in two years trading with Mary Margeret schimweg's services. Her firm and brokerage is the best I have encountered in my life history of investing in stock and crypto market and other digital assets like real estate..
I went from Atheist to Antagonist some time ago. Based on how little we actually know from creation of the BigBang, to how proteins are built to our brain leaves me no room to firmly discard faith, even if Im a atheist at heart.
I think yours is a problem with definitions. AFAIK an atheist is someone who is 100% sure of the inexistence of supernatural beings, such as gods. As you correctly pointed out, we are not even near from getting a complete understanding of the nature of certain things in the universe (or the universe itself), thus you don't want to rule out the existence of supernatural beings, then you are a agnostic. You can't reject discarding faith and still call yourself an atheist at heart.
What you are describing is called "God of the gaps", just because there is gaps in our knowledge about the world, doesn't mean we can shove God in there. If our experience of the past is any indicator of the future, that tells us that there is probably a natural explanation for the things you've just described, we just need to find it.
I’m not maniac to religion, not even close. But I would recommend have a trip to Asia, meet a few good fortune teller. Let them walk you through the story happened to your life, I believe some answer about their existence will be slightly revealed.
an infinite* "god" is all loving and thus ambivalent in having no preference for "good" or "bad" .. this is why we put our faith in the finite* flesh and blood qualities of Christ as king.. only a finite man can establish a garden in spite of the infinite wilderness
the serpent $ells Eve as in the unconscious side of our brains on progress.. only Adam as in the conscious side says NO distinguishing right from wrong
@anywallsocket Well, how "nice" of you to take time out of your busy day to say something rude to a complete stranger. Since you asked, I am 59 and a retired university teacher of English Literature and Academic Writing. I have an MA and am ABD (all components completed but the dissertation) on a PhD in Nineteenth-Century British Literature that I chose not to complete when my husband, daughter, and I moved to Hawaii 13 years ago. Zero regrets. I am considered an expert on "the novel" as an art form. In my spare time, I enjoy quantum physics, philosophy, comedy, art, food, friendship, creativity, imagination, and humor. Einstein, Sagan, and Feynman are my science jams in no particular order. In the rap world, I like to kick it old school, so, you know, Snoop, Dre, Tupac, Biggie, 50 Cent, Eminem, and others, but Kendrick Lamar is also the S***. I would name my favorite philosophers right now, but I am bored. Aloha.
@anywallsocket Good grief. I am guessing that you are young, and youth is often wasted on the young. Young people can be especially attached to their illusions of freedom and control like, for example, the illusion that you are smarter than other people. In my experience, people who think that they are smarter than other people are rarely smarter than other people. Moreover, humans are social beings. Intellectual intelligence only matters as much as it does. I know some people with PhDs who are stupid. Ignorance just means not knowing. Stupidity, on the other hand, is almost always willful and self-serving. Take, for example, the former orange president of the United States who is probably going to be getting fitted for an orange jumpsuit pretty soon. He is a stupid idiot, and Karma is real. Emotional intelligence is the only intelligence that actually matters in this experience of being a human being on planet Earth. So you go ahead and enjoy your condescending, patronizing, hierarchically superior promontory on high as long as it lasts. Maybe read the Tao Te Cheng. "Those who know don't talk. Those who talk don't know." Humility is very freeing because it releases you from the burden of maintaining a false front, but the humility has to be real. Your utter lack of respect is appalling. Something will come along and teach you that at some point. Life has a way of doing that. I am bored again. Take care. Aloha.
Nobody knows whether those ancient civilizations worshiped supernatural entities or not. That’s what those pseudoscientific prestidigitators have inculcated in our minds the last 150 years, Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Fidel Castro, et caterva.
The ending was not clear. It was intended in this way to give a wrong impression. If they are not hallucinations, that we know of but other aort of brain activities which internally creates hallucinations. One should actually research all the possible causes of hallucinations to rest this case
No so fast if it was that easy all belief in the Gods would die out. You have to be open minded and consider there is more out there than one would think. Don't be so skeptical that you believe in nothing.
@@Gobbldeegoo1 "don’t be so desperate that you believe in everything." You think I believe in everything without know much about me. Funny aren't you the person that comment the world be better off if I was gone. Sounds a lot like WW!! Germany! Wanting one or more persons gone! Just for the recorded! I'm not a Christian or even a monotheist and if you thought I was arguing for Christianity you are dead wrong and know next to nothing about me!
@@amberhiggins6327 Just the opposite. God beliefs would be universal. And guess what, they are, or were. Until about 150 years ago. I'm not sure what will happen to the collective unconscious and the soul, if god thought instincts cease to be passed-on.
1 By those ˹angels˺ stripping out ˹evil souls˺ harshly, 2 and those pulling out ˹good souls˺ gently, 3 and those gliding ˹through heavens˺ swiftly, 4 and those taking the lead vigorously, 5 and those conducting affairs ˹obediently˺! 6 ˹Consider˺ the Day ˹when˺ the quaking Blast will come to pass,1 7 followed by a second Blast. 8 ˹The deniers’˺ hearts on that Day will be trembling ˹in horror˺, 9 with their eyes downcast. 10 ˹But now˺ they ask ˹mockingly˺, “Will we really be restored to our former state, 11 even after we have been reduced to decayed bones?” 12 Adding, “Then such a return would be a ˹total˺ loss ˹for us˺!” 13 But indeed, it will take only one ˹mighty˺ Blast, 14 and at once they will be above ground. 15 Has the story of Moses reached you ˹O Prophet˺? 16 His Lord called him in the sacred valley of Ṭuwa, 17 ˹commanding,˺ “Go to Pharaoh, for he has truly transgressed ˹all bounds˺. 18 And say, ‘Would you ˹be willing to˺ purify yourself, 19 and let me guide you to your Lord so that you will be in awe ˹of Him˺?’” 20 Then Moses showed him the great sign,1 21 but he denied and disobeyed ˹Allah˺, 22 then turned his back, striving ˹against the truth˺. 23 Then he summoned ˹his people˺ and called out, 24 saying, “I am your lord, the most high!” 25 So Allah overtook him, making him an example in this life and the next. 26 Surely in this is a lesson for whoever stands in awe of ˹Allah˺. 27 Which is harder to create: you or the sky?1 He built it, 28 raising it high and forming it flawlessly.
Don't be so skeptical that you believe in nothing. Have an open mind. To be a scientist one must start with an open mind. You started this topic with a closed mind and that takes you away from the scientific method
interesting how the question of 'is it true?' seems completely irrelevant. Shouldn't that be basic to any question of the supernatural? because if it's not real why are we wasting our life on it
We are entering the first days of the human experience where we don't ascribe the unknown to the supernatural. We don't need to protect our vulnerability with the idea of God. And if we've seen or learned anything in the last few years it's that religion brings out the worst. Between Iranian executions of women denying the hijab to American Evangelicals funneling money to Uganda for the creation of execution laws for LGBTQ every facet of religion is toxic. We are beyond this now. We can be better because we are better.
Religionists placed highest importance on individuality and form. Religionists cannot imagine mind or intelligence operating in any effective way other than through the medium of individual form. Because of this, religionists have created a mental image of a vast supreme being, having all the attributes, positive and negative, of a human being. Thus was it possible for religionists to believe in - and speak of - the anger of God, threats of punishments, visitations of sicknesses and plagues in response to human waywardness. But these mental images are myths. They do not exist. So you see, religion is just another complex system constructed on extreme materialistic concepts. Therefore, until religionists do realize the mythical foundations on which they have placed all their convictions, religionists will find it difficult to let go of cherished beliefs. Please understand that I am referring to "religion," to the "tenets of faith," to the "dogma" and "theology." I am not referring to those great spiritual souls who have sought - and continue to seek God and Truth beyond the dogma and beliefs. I know religionists have received the inspiration of God into their minds and hearts but are afraid to let go of cherished beliefs. Religionists are hampered by religious beliefs and practices. But the time has come for religionists to let them go and grow in spiritual wisdom (which are found is the Christ Letters, A Course In Miracles and A Course Of Love).
Thanks, Feuerbach, for the unsolicited psychoanalysis - but besides that, do you have any actual evidence of the incorrectness of any given religious claim - and if you do, why is it the case that that generalizes to _all_ religious claims? Or does the narrative you stick to precludes you from looking at it objectively?
You do not know when spiritual insight and progress is taking place in the minds of those who may appear to be very humble and of no account socially. Cease your criticism of the founders of each religion because you do not know the heights of spiritual knowledge, insight and enlightenment they have attained. Realize that you, yourself, are only as spiritually advanced as is your personal perception of Reality. If you have no perception of what lies beyond the veil of the material world - you may be a believer or a non-believer, but you do not have a spiritual consciousness. This is the true ideal, the true aspiration, the highest goal - to understand and experience the Reality behind and within all things giving them their individual being. You may call the Reality - "God," "Allah," "Jehovah," "Infinite Intelligence," "Divine Mind" or "Divine Consciousness," or the "Tao" - etc. All these names mean the SOURCE of BEING - the CREATIVE ORIGINS. YOU CAN HAVE NO HIGHER ASPIRATION THAN THIS - to understand and experience the Reality behind and within all things - giving, maintaining and sustaining all individual beings. This was the goal presented to us by Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Krishna, Confucius, Lao-Tzu, etc. They all shared the same vision, the same realization and the same understanding. Such teachers were held in high esteem, but most of their followers misunderstood what they were being taught. Each follower placed their own interpretation on the words of their teacher. Each interpretation arose out of the personal conditioning and bias of the follower.
@@edgarmorales4476 Well, as a Christian, I don't criticize Jesus Christ - not in the sense you seem to suggest, anyway. Alas, I don't find it surprising that many different cultures arrived at theologically similar concepts; metaphysically speaking, the word 'God' means, by definition, that which grounds reality - and of course that exists. We're all humans, we all have potential access to such knowledge by the lights of natural reason; the _difference_ lies in the _historical_ context of the different faith traditions, which further ground their idiosyncractic claims. For example, look at the history of Scientology or Mormonism, and tell me, objectively, they weren't essentially scams pulled off by con men; you can't, right? But what about Christianity - is it in the same boat? How do we approach it? These are objective questions we can ask, without completely dismissing the accomplishments of the ancients - or even some of those from the moderns.
Christianity, as it stands at this time, is only a hotchpotch of the muddled thinking of the disciples' selective recollections and Paul's worthy homilies and other early writings. Much later, when the impact of Christianity lacked the visual effect of the gods and goddesses of the Romans, Christianity was adorned with theatrical but expedient nonsense to impress those whom the Ecclesiastical Empire of Rome desired to draw into their fold. This empire later imposed monetary burdens on the gullible people even more iniquitous than the taxes demanded by the secular Roman Empire on conquered nations. Even Caesar did not demand payment for souls to gain entrance to heaven! Alternatively, ministers of Christianity, who willfully and egotistically continue to teach the dogma of the ancestors to save face and their stipends, will watch Christianity die a natural death and will be abandoned by their congregations who some are already sensing that the words of Christian ministers are only words - in which there is no spiritual life.
@@edgarmorales4476 It's spelled 'hodgepodge'. Anyway, not only your claims lack any historical substance to it (including sources), I see a lot that could be picked off any old anti-Catholic propaganda tract - hardly an objective critique. Christianity won't "die a natural death"*, because the diminished religiosity anybody with eyes can see in the West boils down to nominals abandoning their congregations, as well as the last dying throngs of the 'Enlightenment' making the rounds, akin to the Beast in John's Apocalypse. Ever wonder whence the wave of 'woke' garbage we've experienced the last few years? That is but a late stage of the cancerous tumor of secularism that has dominated intellectual life for the last coupla centuries; the writing was in the wall even before that, with the advent of the 'New Age' and earlier the 'New Thought' movements - but after the 'New Atheism' thing, it's become increasingly clear even to the most clueless folks that the reigning regime has nothing to offer, as it turns out humans do have spiritual needs and are not just soulless meat automata driven solely by evolutionary inbuilt drives. *Cf. G. K. Chesterton's _The Everlasting Man_ for an interesting take on the many 'deaths' of the Church.
ok, so having struggling through very conflicting information, about "supernatural agents" - the title is more "your brain ON DRUGS on the gods" - the gods - plural 🤔😶
@@amberhiggins6327 excuse me?!? - you do not KNOW ME Amber - you might have good intentions - but how would you feel if a stranger walked up to you in the street and said to you "Be more open minded in life and you will understand more!" oh and "Don't be so skeptical that you believe in nothing" - you have NO IDEA what I think, or feel, or believe or ... again - how would you feel if some random stranger said this to YOU this comment was the END of a long comment I made about this self contradictory 6 minutes of content that attempted to cover at least 3, maybe 4 - massive concepts - again, in 6 minutes what you said TO ME, *ABOUT ME* - had *NOTHING* to do with what I was actually thinking or feeling after watching this. again, I believe you had good intentions, but good grief - please consider how you convey those intentions - "Be more open minded in life and you will understand more!" - how rude, condensing, patronizing, oblivious, trite, - can't even say misinformed or ill-formed - no INFORMATION about _me_ to even begin to say this insulting comment.
@@juliaconnell Whats with all the anger? "oh and "Don't be so skeptical that you believe in nothing" - you have NO IDEA what I think, or feel, or believe or ... again - how would you feel if some random stranger said this to YOU" I wouldn't be as upset as you. Let go of you anger and have an open mind!
So listen to this, They were people apart of society just like us. They rose up to aid fellow humans and creatures. Their actions were remembered and the ultimate influence they had remains. Even the most evil of them are shown at the very least being the god that dealt with the "demons" that no one else would agree to work with to help rise to neutrality for the next step to rise to greatness to the next step to rise to godliness. The art shown as representation for them could be just a mere reflection of how the public reacted to them.
"One possibility is that supernatural agents are real" *proceeds to immediately dismiss that* The irony is that this reminds me of a paragraph from a recent article by Fiona Bowie: _A rather different approach to the origins of religion can be seen in the ontological anthropology that, since the late 1990s, has questioned the methodological and epistemological assumptions of post‐modern relativism. While promising to de‐center the grand narrative, the postmodern “it is true for them” stance can end up subtly reinforcing a hegemonic Western, rationalist approach to religion. Ontological anthropology allows for the possibility that what people say about their beliefs and practices, their view of the world, their experience with spirits or deities, might in fact be true. The exponents of ontological anthropology suggest that ethnographers should at least suspend judgment and accept that we actually know very little about the way the world works._ - The Wiley Blackwell Companion to the Study of Religion, 2021, p. 12. So it only took (what?) one or two centuries for academia to figure this out; don't beat yourself too hardly for not having gotten there yet, McNamara.
Whatever it is, it emerges in our consciousness of it. Whether the practical effects of it are desirable is up to you. So choose your beliefs carefully.
What if a lot of this is not only real, but it is based upon the same type of things we're seeing in the sky these days, the same things that even the US DoD has officially admitted to being both here and real?
What I took away from this video is one is more motivated towards a 'supernatural agent' rather than a 'control agent' therefore I see a psychological 'hack' to having some sort of credence towards the idea of the omnipotent, all-knowing other.
A 3rd option is to answer the question that arises from having two minds that are unrecognize and mysterious. See: Dual Brain Psychology. Also See: Left Temporal Lobe Epilepsy
I think too much entertainment is a bad thing. In the US at least, religious exemptions need to stop because a lot of people are devastating their children's lives. I don't even want to know what the ratio of homeschooled to public is these days, but I have a feeling that we are going to be crippled in a couple decades.
@@BicycleFunk I think Aristotle means "entertain an idea" - it is very difficult to understand any philosophical viewpoint without receptivity to the idea.
@@anonunknown7999 I'm aware, but you should entertain the idea to yourself in private or only in the company of skeptics. When people ask if I believe in god, am atheist, or agnostic. I respond that I am an an atheist just to be sure that no moron can take away the idea that their god *might be real. There is some chance we are in a simulation and you could call such a creator a god, but there is no doubt that the religions many subscribe to are fallacy.
You’re upset god destroyed your face so you want to destroy god. It’s karma comrade. That’s why y’all love masks. Don’t cry but if you still are deposit tears here 🥤 I’ve never seen a beautiful atheist. Maybe some prostitutes but they hate god for their own bad life decisions-more daddy issues. It’s why they loved the Covid masks. Atheists are mad at god for making them too ugly, poor, dull, or they just didn’t get enough ice cream for dessert-daddy issues. But that’s their ugly karma sorry comrades. Be good maybe next time your karma will be better. Many atheists have a complex about God because they have personal issues they blame God for-daddy issues to put it colloquially with all due respect. They think there must not be a God because their life or the world isn’t perfect but the theology or philosophy is all wrong. They don’t consider karma and past lives. Be pious and in your next birth you might get a better situation. Many atheists assume to know how or why God would do things from their parochial viewpoint not thinking maybe this world is meant to be both good and bad depending on our actions or karma. Most western atheists aren’t so cultured or sophisticated or philosophically trained so they focus on the Iron Age books of the Abrahamic followers as if only they had an idea of God. They focus also on comic book myth such as magic pond scum or evolution transforming into super computers or bears becoming whales after millions of years (same exact storyline to the X-men comic books). It’s not a position supported by evidence ie science. Quite the contrary, which is why you can’t debate a single point I’ve made and resort to ad hominems. It’s understandable why one would reject Abrahamic religions because there isn’t much philosophy and there are all sorts of inconsistencies and illogical statements. When you really study the human body, you soon realize that it is a machine - a biochemical robot, so cunningly designed that the vague speculations of the Darwinists cannot really account for it. Furthermore, the brain of this machine is a complex electrical computer, which can be programmed and reprogrammed by an outside force. Many scientists have abandoned the evolutionary concepts, grudgingly admitting that the more complex lifeforms on this planet seem to be the product of design, rather than some hit-or-miss natural process. The physical evolution of humans is a comic book hypothesis with all due respect. It’s not real science like physics or chemistry nor a bona fide theory like gravity or quantum mechanics. Despite what people read in glossy pop-sci magazines, no one has ever demonstrated a sequence of gradual beneficial mutations leading to new complex structures in organisms. To put the theory of evolution on firm ground, mathematical models of how genes translate into physical form are absolutely essential. Without such models there are only vague handwaving stories about evolution. These stories can’t provide any firm, testable predictions, and when they are applied after the fact to observations, they are so flexible that they can be adapted to any set of data imaginable. In contrast, a mathematical model gives definite predictions that can be compared with evidence and thus be proved or disproved. If such models did exist, it might be possible to use sufficiently powerful computers to determine what might happen when a specific set of genetic information is randomly modified in concert with certain selective rules. If these modifications predicted in the model actually resulted in physical changes that corresponded to observed relationships among species, then we could say that evolution had actually been raised to the level of a science. But this is not the case. As of yet there exist no models making definite predictions about evolution. In fact, the evolutionists are not at all certain about what they would like to predict. Contradictions abound. On one hand the student of evolution can find statements that the outcome of the process of evolution is completely a matter of chance. And on the other hand, there are statements saying the outcome is quite determined by physical processes involving natural selection. In human evolution, some authorities assert that the evolution of manlike beings is highly probable and would be likely to happen on any suitable planet in the universe. For instance, Dale Russell and Ron Sequin of Canada’s Museum of Natural Science have proposed that if dinosaurs had not become extinct, there is a good chance that they would have evolved into humanoid reptilian forms by now. Then there are those who assert that the appearance of human beings on earth is a chance occurrence. According to this view, at the beginning of the evolutionary process there would be no certainty that humanlike creatures would develop. Theodosius Dobzhansky, a leading evolutionary theorist, poses this question: imagine a highly competent biologist living 50-60 million years ago in the geological epoch called the Eocene. Could he have predicted that man would evolve from the primitive primates then in existence? Not very likely according to Dobzhansky, who says, "Man has at least 100,000 genes, and perhaps half of them (or more) have changed at least once since the Eocene. The probability is, to all intents and purposes, zero that the same 50,000 genes will change in the same ways and will be selected again in the same sequence as they were in man's evolutionary history." So here we have two completely contradictory viewpoints about evolution. They both cannot be right. One says evolution is determined: the other says it proceeds in a way that can never be duplicated. Therefore it would seem that evolutionary theory does not provide a very consistent framework for deciding even the most basic questions.
I grew up singing in the choir loving church and the almighty god. But as i got older I started independently reading the bible and was horrified to realize no supernatural deity had anything to do with it. Not wanting to give up a belief in a god i studied for years so many different religions. Eventually i realized that the probability of them all being man made was high. More surprising was how freeing it was not to be ruled by ancient men. What brought me the most peace was the famous quote by Marcus Aurelius: Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
You copied that Marcus Aurelius quote off the internet, you've never read his writings. The quote is fake, invented by atheists. Here's the real translation: "Since it is possible that thou mayest depart from life this very moment, regulate every act and thought accordingly. But to go away from among men, if there are gods, is not a thing to be afraid of, for the gods will not involve thee in evil; but if indeed they do not exist, or if they have no concern about human affairs, what is it to me to live in a universe devoid of gods or devoid of providence? But in truth they do exist, and they do care for human things, and they have put all the means in man’s power to enable him not to fall into real evils". Stoicism is a religion.
@@daveblack2602 Be careful pulling different translations and assuming they're accurate. I've looked into your quote before and translators found serious issues with it - including that time is a factor in translation regarding cultural norms. Further, it's obvious that whatever the origin of Pete's quote, that sentiment is his intent, not its exact author or authenticity.
@@LabGecko false. The atheist translation is intended to suggest that Aurelius and the other stoics were at least agnostic about the existence of gods. In reality there are dozens or hundreds of quotes proving that they absolutely believed the gods existed and were devoutly religious people. I've never met a single atheist who's actually read the stoics, they just like nice easy thought-free quotes.
@@redwatch. Yes, I believe in a singular supreme being which logically must have specific attributes - omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence, manifested in a personalised way. This is not a comfortable idea - if there is no God that's bad news but if there is one it's probably even worse. But it's the only one I find logically tenable.
”The religious myth is one of man’s greatest and most significant achievements, giving him the security and inner strength not to be crushed by the monstrousness of the universe.” - Carl Jung
You’re upset god destroyed your face so you want to destroy god. It’s karma comrade. That’s why y’all love masks. Don’t cry but if you still are deposit tears here 🥤 I’ve never seen a beautiful atheist. Maybe some prostitutes but they hate god for their own bad life decisions-more daddy issues. It’s why they loved the Covid masks. Atheists are mad at god for making them too ugly, poor, dull, or they just didn’t get enough ice cream for dessert-daddy issues. But that’s their ugly karma sorry comrades. Be good maybe next time your karma will be better. Many atheists have a complex about God because they have personal issues they blame God for-daddy issues to put it colloquially with all due respect. They think there must not be a God because their life or the world isn’t perfect but the theology or philosophy is all wrong. They don’t consider karma and past lives. Be pious and in your next birth you might get a better situation. Many atheists assume to know how or why God would do things from their parochial viewpoint not thinking maybe this world is meant to be both good and bad depending on our actions or karma. Most western atheists aren’t so cultured or sophisticated or philosophically trained so they focus on the Iron Age books of the Abrahamic followers as if only they had an idea of God. They focus also on comic book myth such as magic pond scum or evolution transforming into super computers or bears becoming whales after millions of years (same exact storyline to the X-men comic books). It’s not a position supported by evidence ie science. Quite the contrary, which is why you can’t debate a single point I’ve made and resort to ad hominems. It’s understandable why one would reject Abrahamic religions because there isn’t much philosophy and there are all sorts of inconsistencies and illogical statements. When you really study the human body, you soon realize that it is a machine - a biochemical robot, so cunningly designed that the vague speculations of the Darwinists cannot really account for it. Furthermore, the brain of this machine is a complex electrical computer, which can be programmed and reprogrammed by an outside force. Many scientists have abandoned the evolutionary concepts, grudgingly admitting that the more complex lifeforms on this planet seem to be the product of design, rather than some hit-or-miss natural process. The physical evolution of humans is a comic book hypothesis with all due respect. It’s not real science like physics or chemistry nor a bona fide theory like gravity or quantum mechanics. Despite what people read in glossy pop-sci magazines, no one has ever demonstrated a sequence of gradual beneficial mutations leading to new complex structures in organisms. To put the theory of evolution on firm ground, mathematical models of how genes translate into physical form are absolutely essential. Without such models there are only vague handwaving stories about evolution. These stories can’t provide any firm, testable predictions, and when they are applied after the fact to observations, they are so flexible that they can be adapted to any set of data imaginable. In contrast, a mathematical model gives definite predictions that can be compared with evidence and thus be proved or disproved. If such models did exist, it might be possible to use sufficiently powerful computers to determine what might happen when a specific set of genetic information is randomly modified in concert with certain selective rules. If these modifications predicted in the model actually resulted in physical changes that corresponded to observed relationships among species, then we could say that evolution had actually been raised to the level of a science. But this is not the case. As of yet there exist no models making definite predictions about evolution. In fact, the evolutionists are not at all certain about what they would like to predict. Contradictions abound. On one hand the student of evolution can find statements that the outcome of the process of evolution is completely a matter of chance. And on the other hand, there are statements saying the outcome is quite determined by physical processes involving natural selection. In human evolution, some authorities assert that the evolution of manlike beings is highly probable and would be likely to happen on any suitable planet in the universe. For instance, Dale Russell and Ron Sequin of Canada’s Museum of Natural Science have proposed that if dinosaurs had not become extinct, there is a good chance that they would have evolved into humanoid reptilian forms by now. Then there are those who assert that the appearance of human beings on earth is a chance occurrence. According to this view, at the beginning of the evolutionary process there would be no certainty that humanlike creatures would develop. Theodosius Dobzhansky, a leading evolutionary theorist, poses this question: imagine a highly competent biologist living 50-60 million years ago in the geological epoch called the Eocene. Could he have predicted that man would evolve from the primitive primates then in existence? Not very likely according to Dobzhansky, who says, "Man has at least 100,000 genes, and perhaps half of them (or more) have changed at least once since the Eocene. The probability is, to all intents and purposes, zero that the same 50,000 genes will change in the same ways and will be selected again in the same sequence as they were in man's evolutionary history." So here we have two completely contradictory viewpoints about evolution. They both cannot be right. One says evolution is determined: the other says it proceeds in a way that can never be duplicated. Therefore it would seem that evolutionary theory does not provide a very consistent framework for deciding even the most basic questions.
Can you guys turn the music down in the videos please, it's getting a little excessive and it's very distracting, just use ambient or something ? thanks for what you do.
I like the music and its composition with the talk. It often is your device's fault, maybe speakers, maybe headphones, maybe a cheap phone with already (ab)used playing system that boosts some frequencies or deletes/weakens others so you hear something ugly. I listened to it on studio monitor headphones and the balance wad brilliant. Professional work. So keep your music remarks for yourself or change devices or listen to it on a brand loud speaker of a larger size.
People don't want a God in their lives, because they are doing things they know a creator would not approve or give justice. They don't like the idea that God sees everything you do and think, because they want to follow their perverse wants, rather than what is good. "A tree is known by its fruit. A good tree gives good fruit, and bad tree bad fruit." This pretentious "science" based world view is just sad to follow as it's bringing slowly a living nightmare on this society of ours. May God save us, in Jesus name I pray.
I'm excited to know there are others who don't share the repugnant materialism world view. Humanity is not the authority and an ant has no quarrel with a boot.
Can anyone give an example of evolution producing the ability to perceive something which doesn't exist? Does light exist because we have eyes? Did sound appear because we evolved ears? Did social skills evolve because we imagined other people existed? Or do we evolve the ability to perceive things which actually exist?
I think religion and supernatural beings exist and have existed for so long because people needed something to hold onto in regards of life conditions and survival. Once people integrate that supernatural entities exist (and often at a young age since it’s so omnipresent in many countries), it gets solidified in their thinking. I would say it’s nothing bad but it’s fictional (most probably). A good option to stay grounded that I’ve noticed over the years is indifference. It helps with coping with life’s problems and makes you good at critical thinking. Also, finding a goal (a real one, not making money) helps a lot too since it gets you more in control of your life. If you can find a goal that drives you, you become more able to grasp tasks and get better at critical thinking (from my experience). I’d say the more in control of yourself you are, the more easily you can gauge your thoughts (including religion). Why religion is disappearing right now is because technology is helping us realizing ourselves and gives us a lot of information.
@@EviLPlayeR04 It was supposedly on the rise even before covid, but you are right in that conflict and problems tend to push people closer to religion. Covid probably helped a lot with that
@@xx_amongus_xx6987 at least in the US it seems we are going backwards, but I think a lot of new religious followers are in it for community rather than being true believers. The religious exemptions in the US is a major factor. Elsewhere in the world it does seem like Islam is on the rise in places where people face severe oppression. It gives people a sense of purpose where one cannot be found otherwise. These are my observations anyways. I'd love it if religion evaporated as people got smarter, but it certainly feels like we are in a depression.
I share thesame opinion but as a West African, supernatural powers or feats are a common thing. I know some may not believe until they see but there are people who are literally bulletproof walking around in certain areas. Personally, I find it hard to shun these beliefs considering what i saw from my own eyes. Certain things in this world are yet to be understood the physical world as well as that other side I ought not to believe in
What about mystical experiences that relate more to pantheism and that are not entity-based? What about experiences of oneness? What about experiences of "non-seperatedness" during the everyday, while in normal society? While I am absolutely confident that there are no supernatural entities, I do believe in the divine as being contained and containing the natural. And these questions are burning on my mind.
@@willleslie2745 Does that mean they are less divine or not worthy of accomplishing? I don't think it has to be supernatural to be magic. My point entirely! Look how amazing reality and experiencing it is! I just would love to know what is going on in the brain when we are experiencing these kinds of things in opposition to supposed entities.
I don't know exactly why people worship gods. But I think it's fun to have someone to do it with. I love how religion can give you a sense of community. It's a bummer that some of them are bigots though. Believe or don't believe whatever you want just don't be a jerk.
Which is weird because it's entirely an option to just have a community building and do all the same stuff without the god part. I really like the Grange Halls you see around the US. No gods, just a place to get together for functions.
Our lord Jesus Christ saves us from a just damnation, from a righteous God. Without Gods mercy we are lost sheep and need a savior. That's a reason I believe in Christ.
@@speggeri90 Jesus was a rebel and not a sheep. Christians are supposed to be Christ like. Yet most Christians follow doctrine like mindless sheep 🤷🏻♂️
I hate how religion keeps selling the idea that you have to have religion for community. If you teach your children God is real and you tell them they need the church for community, they are likely to say the same things to their kids, because it's the easy thing to do. Except now, much less so.
As much as most humans try to deny it, we are just smart animals, destroyers of even our own kind. To assuage our guilt, we imagine divine permission supports our every thought and action.
You’re upset god destroyed your face so you want to destroy god. It’s karma comrade. That’s why y’all love masks. Don’t cry but if you still are deposit tears here 🥤 I’ve never seen a beautiful atheist. Maybe some prostitutes but they hate god for their own bad life decisions-more daddy issues. It’s why they loved the Covid masks. Atheists are mad at god for making them too ugly, poor, dull, or they just didn’t get enough ice cream for dessert-daddy issues. But that’s their ugly karma sorry comrades. Be good maybe next time your karma will be better. Many atheists have a complex about God because they have personal issues they blame God for-daddy issues to put it colloquially with all due respect. They think there must not be a God because their life or the world isn’t perfect but the theology or philosophy is all wrong. They don’t consider karma and past lives. Be pious and in your next birth you might get a better situation. Many atheists assume to know how or why God would do things from their parochial viewpoint not thinking maybe this world is meant to be both good and bad depending on our actions or karma. Most western atheists aren’t so cultured or sophisticated or philosophically trained so they focus on the Iron Age books of the Abrahamic followers as if only they had an idea of God. They focus also on comic book myth such as magic pond scum or evolution transforming into super computers or bears becoming whales after millions of years (same exact storyline to the X-men comic books). It’s not a position supported by evidence ie science. Quite the contrary, which is why you can’t debate a single point I’ve made and resort to ad hominems. It’s understandable why one would reject Abrahamic religions because there isn’t much philosophy and there are all sorts of inconsistencies and illogical statements. When you really study the human body, you soon realize that it is a machine - a biochemical robot, so cunningly designed that the vague speculations of the Darwinists cannot really account for it. Furthermore, the brain of this machine is a complex electrical computer, which can be programmed and reprogrammed by an outside force. Many scientists have abandoned the evolutionary concepts, grudgingly admitting that the more complex lifeforms on this planet seem to be the product of design, rather than some hit-or-miss natural process. The physical evolution of humans is a comic book hypothesis with all due respect. It’s not real science like physics or chemistry nor a bona fide theory like gravity or quantum mechanics. Despite what people read in glossy pop-sci magazines, no one has ever demonstrated a sequence of gradual beneficial mutations leading to new complex structures in organisms. To put the theory of evolution on firm ground, mathematical models of how genes translate into physical form are absolutely essential. Without such models there are only vague handwaving stories about evolution. These stories can’t provide any firm, testable predictions, and when they are applied after the fact to observations, they are so flexible that they can be adapted to any set of data imaginable. In contrast, a mathematical model gives definite predictions that can be compared with evidence and thus be proved or disproved. If such models did exist, it might be possible to use sufficiently powerful computers to determine what might happen when a specific set of genetic information is randomly modified in concert with certain selective rules. If these modifications predicted in the model actually resulted in physical changes that corresponded to observed relationships among species, then we could say that evolution had actually been raised to the level of a science. But this is not the case. As of yet there exist no models making definite predictions about evolution. In fact, the evolutionists are not at all certain about what they would like to predict. Contradictions abound. On one hand the student of evolution can find statements that the outcome of the process of evolution is completely a matter of chance. And on the other hand, there are statements saying the outcome is quite determined by physical processes involving natural selection. In human evolution, some authorities assert that the evolution of manlike beings is highly probable and would be likely to happen on any suitable planet in the universe. For instance, Dale Russell and Ron Sequin of Canada’s Museum of Natural Science have proposed that if dinosaurs had not become extinct, there is a good chance that they would have evolved into humanoid reptilian forms by now. Then there are those who assert that the appearance of human beings on earth is a chance occurrence. According to this view, at the beginning of the evolutionary process there would be no certainty that humanlike creatures would develop. Theodosius Dobzhansky, a leading evolutionary theorist, poses this question: imagine a highly competent biologist living 50-60 million years ago in the geological epoch called the Eocene. Could he have predicted that man would evolve from the primitive primates then in existence? Not very likely according to Dobzhansky, who says, "Man has at least 100,000 genes, and perhaps half of them (or more) have changed at least once since the Eocene. The probability is, to all intents and purposes, zero that the same 50,000 genes will change in the same ways and will be selected again in the same sequence as they were in man's evolutionary history." So here we have two completely contradictory viewpoints about evolution. They both cannot be right. One says evolution is determined: the other says it proceeds in a way that can never be duplicated. Therefore it would seem that evolutionary theory does not provide a very consistent framework for deciding even the most basic questions.
WEAN YOURSELF Little by little, wean yourself. This is the gist of what I have to say. From an embryo, whose nourishment comes in the blood, move to an infant drinking milk, to a child on solid food, to a searcher after wisdom, to a hunter of more invisible game. Think how it is to have a conversation with an embryo. You might say, "The world outside is vast and intricate. There are wheatfields and mountain passes, and orchards in bloom. At night there are millions of galaxies, and in sunlight the beauty of friends dancing at a wedding." You ask the embryo why he, or she, stays cooped up in the dark with eyes closed. Listen to the answer. There is no "other world." I only know what I've experienced. You must be hallucinating. Rumi, The Essential Rumi
You’re upset god destroyed your face so you want to destroy god. It’s karma comrade. That’s why y’all love masks. Don’t cry but if you still are deposit tears here 🥤 I’ve never seen a beautiful atheist. Maybe some prostitutes but they hate god for their own bad life decisions-more daddy issues. It’s why they loved the Covid masks. Atheists are mad at god for making them too ugly, poor, dull, or they just didn’t get enough ice cream for dessert-daddy issues. But that’s their ugly karma sorry comrades. Be good maybe next time your karma will be better. Many atheists have a complex about God because they have personal issues they blame God for-daddy issues to put it colloquially with all due respect. They think there must not be a God because their life or the world isn’t perfect but the theology or philosophy is all wrong. They don’t consider karma and past lives. Be pious and in your next birth you might get a better situation. Many atheists assume to know how or why God would do things from their parochial viewpoint not thinking maybe this world is meant to be both good and bad depending on our actions or karma. Most western atheists aren’t so cultured or sophisticated or philosophically trained so they focus on the Iron Age books of the Abrahamic followers as if only they had an idea of God. They focus also on comic book myth such as magic pond scum or evolution transforming into super computers or bears becoming whales after millions of years (same exact storyline to the X-men comic books). It’s not a position supported by evidence ie science. Quite the contrary, which is why you can’t debate a single point I’ve made and resort to ad hominems. It’s understandable why one would reject Abrahamic religions because there isn’t much philosophy and there are all sorts of inconsistencies and illogical statements. When you really study the human body, you soon realize that it is a machine - a biochemical robot, so cunningly designed that the vague speculations of the Darwinists cannot really account for it. Furthermore, the brain of this machine is a complex electrical computer, which can be programmed and reprogrammed by an outside force. Many scientists have abandoned the evolutionary concepts, grudgingly admitting that the more complex lifeforms on this planet seem to be the product of design, rather than some hit-or-miss natural process. The physical evolution of humans is a comic book hypothesis with all due respect. It’s not real science like physics or chemistry nor a bona fide theory like gravity or quantum mechanics. Despite what people read in glossy pop-sci magazines, no one has ever demonstrated a sequence of gradual beneficial mutations leading to new complex structures in organisms. To put the theory of evolution on firm ground, mathematical models of how genes translate into physical form are absolutely essential. Without such models there are only vague handwaving stories about evolution. These stories can’t provide any firm, testable predictions, and when they are applied after the fact to observations, they are so flexible that they can be adapted to any set of data imaginable. In contrast, a mathematical model gives definite predictions that can be compared with evidence and thus be proved or disproved. If such models did exist, it might be possible to use sufficiently powerful computers to determine what might happen when a specific set of genetic information is randomly modified in concert with certain selective rules. If these modifications predicted in the model actually resulted in physical changes that corresponded to observed relationships among species, then we could say that evolution had actually been raised to the level of a science. But this is not the case. As of yet there exist no models making definite predictions about evolution. In fact, the evolutionists are not at all certain about what they would like to predict. Contradictions abound. On one hand the student of evolution can find statements that the outcome of the process of evolution is completely a matter of chance. And on the other hand, there are statements saying the outcome is quite determined by physical processes involving natural selection. In human evolution, some authorities assert that the evolution of manlike beings is highly probable and would be likely to happen on any suitable planet in the universe. For instance, Dale Russell and Ron Sequin of Canada’s Museum of Natural Science have proposed that if dinosaurs had not become extinct, there is a good chance that they would have evolved into humanoid reptilian forms by now. Then there are those who assert that the appearance of human beings on earth is a chance occurrence. According to this view, at the beginning of the evolutionary process there would be no certainty that humanlike creatures would develop. Theodosius Dobzhansky, a leading evolutionary theorist, poses this question: imagine a highly competent biologist living 50-60 million years ago in the geological epoch called the Eocene. Could he have predicted that man would evolve from the primitive primates then in existence? Not very likely according to Dobzhansky, who says, "Man has at least 100,000 genes, and perhaps half of them (or more) have changed at least once since the Eocene. The probability is, to all intents and purposes, zero that the same 50,000 genes will change in the same ways and will be selected again in the same sequence as they were in man's evolutionary history." So here we have two completely contradictory viewpoints about evolution. They both cannot be right. One says evolution is determined: the other says it proceeds in a way that can never be duplicated. Therefore it would seem that evolutionary theory does not provide a very consistent framework for deciding even the most basic questions.
Consider this: your own brain is, from one perspective, simply a mass of dead matter. And yet, by constantly maintaining a certain pattern within itself, it conjures the self-sustaining idea of the 'self'. This it does out of sheer necessity, but that doesn't make the idea of the 'self' real, or does it? One must ask oneself, in what sense is the self real, and not merely a hallucination that the brain 'believes' in for comfort? Buddhism's clear answer to this question is that, indeed, the self conjured by the mind is an illusion, and that by realizing this truth, we may alleviate our suffering. While I hold Buddhism in very high esteem, I believe that its approach is wrongheaded, or at the very least, the opposite approach is certainly merited, namely, that the 'self' is not an illusion, despite the fact that it maintains itself, and despite the fact that, much like Theseus' ship, it is an ever-changing entity. Natural selection is one of our best tools to glimpse the deep truths of existence, and in this matter, its verdict is clear and simple- organisms have evolved such that they construct and maintain a sense of self (and of distinct others), which is to say that, to the extent that an organism's genome is its answer to the great riddle of life (= how to flourish and preserve one's DNA in the world), the so-called 'illusion' of the self is an integral part of the answer. Viewed through this lens, our constructed sense of self emerges, not as a comforting mirage, but rather as life-giving truth. Now consider everything I just said, but replace divinity for selfhood. I won't elaborate here as I've already written enough, but I'll end my comment with an enlightening example. Genesis 18 recounts a soliloquy of the God of Abraham. Let's assume, minimally, that there was a man named Abraham who experienced what he interpreted as the divine revealing itself to him, and he subsequently wrote down his revelations and promulgated them in his family. Verses 18-19 tell us: _"Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him. For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised him."_ What exactly happened here? A man heard a voice inside his head, which he interpreted as the ground of being itself speaking to him and through him, and the voice commanded him to command his children to keep the way of the Lord, that is, the pathway indicated by man's encounter with the transcendent. It then elaborates exactly what is meant by this pathway- the way of the Lord simply means to do righteousness and justice. Furthermore, the text tells us that by keeping the way of the Lord, that is, by maintaining proper conduct, Abraham's seed shall flourish, and the rest of mankind shall be blessed through him. It seems to me that there's no way around it- to Abraham was revealed a sublime truth about the nature of existence, and this transcendental truth is now a cornerstone of the value systems of more than half of mankind. It is a self-maintaining, self-reifying truth- as more and more societies abide by this truth, and strive to maintain proper conduct within themselves, their subsequent flourishing strengthens the transformative potential of the truth revealed to Abraham, literally increasing its truthfulness. By maintaining the belief in the divine origin of Abraham's revelation, it is afforded power and potency.
I've suspected for a long time that these "religious" experiences are really just self-induced psychedelic experiences, perhaps their brains are producing decent amounts of DMT and these people are just tripping on their own supply without ever knowing it. Surely some dopamine is also involved, maybe some adrenaline depending on the kind of shit they're into.
This is very interesting. It kind of makes sense that due to decreases in default mode network activity in autistic individuals that they would be statistically less likely to be religious.
You’re upset god destroyed your face so you want to destroy god. It’s karma comrade. That’s why y’all love masks. Don’t cry but if you still are deposit tears here 🥤 I’ve never seen a beautiful atheist. Maybe some prostitutes but they hate god for their own bad life decisions-more daddy issues. It’s why they loved the Covid masks. Atheists are mad at god for making them too ugly, poor, dull, or they just didn’t get enough ice cream for dessert-daddy issues. But that’s their ugly karma sorry comrades. Be good maybe next time your karma will be better. Many atheists have a complex about God because they have personal issues they blame God for-daddy issues to put it colloquially with all due respect. They think there must not be a God because their life or the world isn’t perfect but the theology or philosophy is all wrong. They don’t consider karma and past lives. Be pious and in your next birth you might get a better situation. Many atheists assume to know how or why God would do things from their parochial viewpoint not thinking maybe this world is meant to be both good and bad depending on our actions or karma. Most western atheists aren’t so cultured or sophisticated or philosophically trained so they focus on the Iron Age books of the Abrahamic followers as if only they had an idea of God. They focus also on comic book myth such as magic pond scum or evolution transforming into super computers or bears becoming whales after millions of years (same exact storyline to the X-men comic books). It’s not a position supported by evidence ie science. Quite the contrary, which is why you can’t debate a single point I’ve made and resort to ad hominems. It’s understandable why one would reject Abrahamic religions because there isn’t much philosophy and there are all sorts of inconsistencies and illogical statements. When you really study the human body, you soon realize that it is a machine - a biochemical robot, so cunningly designed that the vague speculations of the Darwinists cannot really account for it. Furthermore, the brain of this machine is a complex electrical computer, which can be programmed and reprogrammed by an outside force. Many scientists have abandoned the evolutionary concepts, grudgingly admitting that the more complex lifeforms on this planet seem to be the product of design, rather than some hit-or-miss natural process. The physical evolution of humans is a comic book hypothesis with all due respect. It’s not real science like physics or chemistry nor a bona fide theory like gravity or quantum mechanics. Despite what people read in glossy pop-sci magazines, no one has ever demonstrated a sequence of gradual beneficial mutations leading to new complex structures in organisms. To put the theory of evolution on firm ground, mathematical models of how genes translate into physical form are absolutely essential. Without such models there are only vague handwaving stories about evolution. These stories can’t provide any firm, testable predictions, and when they are applied after the fact to observations, they are so flexible that they can be adapted to any set of data imaginable. In contrast, a mathematical model gives definite predictions that can be compared with evidence and thus be proved or disproved. If such models did exist, it might be possible to use sufficiently powerful computers to determine what might happen when a specific set of genetic information is randomly modified in concert with certain selective rules. If these modifications predicted in the model actually resulted in physical changes that corresponded to observed relationships among species, then we could say that evolution had actually been raised to the level of a science. But this is not the case. As of yet there exist no models making definite predictions about evolution. In fact, the evolutionists are not at all certain about what they would like to predict. Contradictions abound. On one hand the student of evolution can find statements that the outcome of the process of evolution is completely a matter of chance. And on the other hand, there are statements saying the outcome is quite determined by physical processes involving natural selection. In human evolution, some authorities assert that the evolution of manlike beings is highly probable and would be likely to happen on any suitable planet in the universe. For instance, Dale Russell and Ron Sequin of Canada’s Museum of Natural Science have proposed that if dinosaurs had not become extinct, there is a good chance that they would have evolved into humanoid reptilian forms by now. Then there are those who assert that the appearance of human beings on earth is a chance occurrence. According to this view, at the beginning of the evolutionary process there would be no certainty that humanlike creatures would develop. Theodosius Dobzhansky, a leading evolutionary theorist, poses this question: imagine a highly competent biologist living 50-60 million years ago in the geological epoch called the Eocene. Could he have predicted that man would evolve from the primitive primates then in existence? Not very likely according to Dobzhansky, who says, "Man has at least 100,000 genes, and perhaps half of them (or more) have changed at least once since the Eocene. The probability is, to all intents and purposes, zero that the same 50,000 genes will change in the same ways and will be selected again in the same sequence as they were in man's evolutionary history." So here we have two completely contradictory viewpoints about evolution. They both cannot be right. One says evolution is determined: the other says it proceeds in a way that can never be duplicated. Therefore it would seem that evolutionary theory does not provide a very consistent framework for deciding even the most basic questions.
The question in the title was never addressed much less answered. I’m still wondering why we worship supernatural beings. Assuming they aren’t real, does it perform a vital function in our brain? Assuming they’re real, do we worship out of sheer fear?
There's certainly a biological predisposition to spirituality and supernatural beliefs..BUT, the caveat lies within the perpetuation of audaciously-large claims stemming from religious dogma. You can personally believe in a god(s) all you want, it is everyone's right, but unfortunately more often than not it goes beyond that due the the heartfelt and ardent zealousness and conviction of believers..that is, people of faith. They are absolutely convinced of their messiahs, prophets, monks, priests, rabbis, imams and gurus..to the point that they insist on you believing it too. They start privileged organizations and institutions which receive tax exemptions, and get to proselytize and indoctrinate countless people, namely children. They spread myth, superstition, pseudoscientific stances, and are sectarian by nature. Enough is enough..most humans have a lot of growing up to do!
He hinted at the solution he is looking for; When interacting with supernatural agents the area of the brain that is active during REM sleep becomes active. We dream when in REM sleep (that you can't control for the most part). Supernatural agents are a funtion of waking dream. This is separate from the survival benefit of (believing in) supernatural agents.
@@djayjp there are a lot of 'wonky heuristics' that have/had a positive survival benefit, like hyperactive agent detection and placebo effect (see: 'You are not so smart by David McRaney for a fuller list). I will say; 1. Unchecked the cost can outweigh the benefits. 2. Something that had a survival benefit 10k years ago may be detrimental to our survival in today's world.
@@djayjp When we knew nothing of science myths helped tie what we did know into a memorable story (the meaning/etymology of the word "religion").When powerful gangsters started calling themselves kings and imposing their authority religion helped them impose their authority. We still don't understand reality, but science is better at describing and manipulating the world. Teaching children religion is now a form of child abuse.
Brilliant observation, I noticed the same thing. I'm suprised the neuroscientist didn't expand on it, maybe it would have defeated the open ended nature of his conclusion.
Belief is good when you are well-guided. If your chakras are all open you will believe in what you see. This doesnt mean sometimes you will be skeptical and doubt all these things. Its a matter of balance...
@@mamiel4413 that's primarily because there are more religious people (in the general population) than atheist. Poll them about their specific religious beliefs and they will contradict each other. It is a testament to the power of religious indoctrination.
Perhaps gods provided more than an explanation of natural forces, but also a unifying force for people to rally round. The belief in the same gods can help turn a disparate group of people into a tribe that will more willingly work together. That might be why you often find people with tribal gods and/or totem animals.
I believe belief in supernatural agents is universal across cultures for two reasons: 1. Before we had better ways of understanding the world around us, belief gave some feeling of understanding and order, in contrast to fear and chaos. 2. For those who are not satisfied with their natural position in life - whatever physical, mental, emotional, ethical, social, economic etc resources they have or don’t have, belief gives them comfort and guidance. Because they may not have the ability, for whatever reasons, to do better, or make better decisions, on their own or for themselves.
I agree on both points. If humans don't destroy themselves in the next few thousand years, I could imagine our "evolution" on a more macro level. We are just now entering the technology and science age on the timeline scale. The religious beliefs we hold onto today are sort of baked into our minds, because they were past down from societies, cultures, etc. close to our timeline of existence. Even our views of Christianity today, would probably be considered heresy not that long ago. The farther we get from the unknown, the less the desire we will have to hold onto supernatural beings. Essentially we've always created "Gods" to explain the why, the how, the what... and the ultimate question for humans, what happens to us after we die. I guess, the more we answer those, the less the need is to use our creative imagination-which, as I type that, kinda sounds a little boring also. LOL!!
That's not the reality. The think is, there is a supernatural being in control of everything, otherwise there will be no orderliness. The presence of creation justify a creator, effect justify a cause.
I have been pondering the existence of supernatural beings all my life and wondered why some people believe in a deity while others do not. listening and watching this video I am no closer to an explanation or answer.
Gods offered an explanation for the mysteries of nature-the thunderstorm or earthquake was created by gods releasing their anger. However, with every scientific explanation found for these mysteries, the list of things that were explained by the gods' DIRECT involvement grew shorter and shorter. Today, that possible list has been reduced to the creation of spacetime, physical matter and the physical laws. Science is on the verge of removing those items off the list as well.
Where you are born and raised makes a huge difference. People who are born and raised in the U.S.A are far more likely to be Christian than someone born in the U.K. People born and raised in Iran are far more likely to be Muslim than someone born in the U.S.A.
What happens when you stop believing in supernatural agents? Well, since people still need community and need mutual validation and support, people figure out how to do that without churches.
The fact that it occurs in every culture tells us that the psychological phenomenon is real, but religious people's claims about their supernatural agents cannot all be true. That is you cannot be a Buddhist and a Christian at the same time. So what made you a believer in one religion and not in another? The answer is almost certainly happenstance.
But someone's view of the truth being led by happenstance does not mean it is automatically untrue. By this I mean, lets say theoretically, Christ did exist. There would still be some people who blindly believe in Christianity, and there would still be some blind people who believe in Buddhism. The truth is not affected by how many people believe in one thing over another. This comment might be a little irrelevant to what your point might have been but I thought I'd share my opinions anyway in case they were relevant.
@@xx_amongus_xx6987 I do not disagree with you. My comment is in response to what was said at the beginning of the video that one possibility for the phenomenon to have happened in all cultures is that "Supernatural Agents are real". Well, how can supernatural agents in all cultures be real if they all contradict each other?
I believe many faiths are ultimately an attempt by many peoples to find their creator and be in a relationship with him. I have personally deep faith in Christ, our savior, and I do agree that not all faiths can be true at the same time. We are all liers and thieves, adulterers and blasphemers, murderers and hypocrites, and if we have a just God and creator, he has to judge us according to our Sins, because he is holy and perfect, and cannot lie. Therefore you can only ask for mercy and it was Jesus who paid the fine so to speak, for us. He gave his life through a horrible death, only so we could have everlasting life through his sacrifice and love. "There is no greater love than to give your life for your friends." That is how much God loves us and desperately wants us to become good through being born again in Christ. To get the little Christ be born in our hearts so we could be washed clean from our Sins. All we have to do is to repent, turn from Sin, and trust in Christ. I know more than 99% of people watching this video reject this, but I ultimately believe that it's because people don't want to let go of their Sins. It gives too much pleasure, and a just God is inconvenient in that world view. They hate the truth and love lies, and the only truth is in the word of God revealed to us through the bible. You only have to mention the name Jesus and people are prepared to destroy you if they are far enough from goodness and God. I apologize for the long reply, but just thought to share the gospel in a place where few people actually hear it. Gospel means good news, and the good news is that you can be saved and have eternal life through our Christ. "What should a man profit, if he gains the whole world, but loses his own soul."
I think it is important for viewers to understand the role of the John Templeton Foundation in this series. The Foundation has goals of promoting science, religion, and free market capitalism, which sometimes collide such as in the Foundation's early advocacy of "intelligent design" (creationism) and long-time work in climate change denial. I have also seen this play out in the Foundation's heavy push into free will research and backing of the questionable positive psychology movement. Just understand that there is a strong bias in most (not necessarily all) projects funded by the Foundation.
Yesssss! A lot of people don't realise how their function is to slip woo into science! This guy is so committed to his end goal he misses the most obvious explanation that the research he talks about hinted at. Supernatural agents are a product of waking 'REM' sleep.
@@djayjp That's why they spend a lot of resources flooding the zone of free will research. No free will = no religion. (also issues with free market capitalism)
I come at "supernatural" from a logical argument that appeared to me way back: Existence/Universe/Multiverse (whatever the entirety of reality is), is either finite or infinite. If it is finite we get a paradox of "ad infinitum" what started it, and then what started that, if it was nothing, then nothing at the end of existence could start it again, etc....Finitude leads to its opposite, Infinitude, and logically this means the universe is Infinite. Now what does infinity mean?? Well intelligence, levels and style of consciousness and experience far beyond our own and even beyond our imagination. Yogi's learnt this as "God" or the "Higher Self/Atman". This is a logical path, no need for dogma in specific experiences of deities. Even the religions like hinduism and buddhism which have deities and supernatural beliefs, also often have "wise masters" that explain the possible hallucinatory nature of supernatural beings, but still expound the truth that our own present consciousness is interconnected with all things, and that all things are infinite. With infinity comes some wild stuff, and to some extent, yes supernatural entities do exist, but they aren't actually beyond nature and the operations of the infinite existence.
This video contain so little information you might as well read cover of books on a library and learn more in the same amount of time... No idea why they invest so much on presentation and not more on spreading knowledge with all the effort they put on it.
I like believing in the impossible because my life hasn’t been the best but I have tried my best in everything and have had good moments and memories ❤️
The enduring presence of supernatural agents throughout human history raises fascinating questions about our cognitive and social evolution. What if our belief in these agents is a reflection of deeper psychological needs and cultural adaptations?
Imagine believing everything that someone on hallucinogens said… that’s religious people. Hallucinogens have been taken recreationally for eons as a way to connect with ancestors, gods, different realities… and it was even weaponized to validate whole societies going to war and slaughtering people. Even then, there were people like you… “Look at the enduring presence of supernatural agents… we need this to psychologically validate the genocide of our neighbors, the non-believers.”
"What if our belief in these agents is a reflection of deeper psychological needs and cultural adaptations?" The thing is we don't know that. Its just a what if. Makes it easier for Atheist not to believe though. Don't reject something just because it easier for you not to believe!! Truth is not about taking the easy way out!
@@amberhiggins6327 Exactly. Which is why we have thousands of years of research and study: so we didn't have to take the easy way out by believing in a big scary tribal man in the sky.
The reason humans have created gods is due to our consciousness and awareness. The idea of gods served to explain all the things in the world we didn't understand and the things that scared us
Uhhh, sorta. You're either an atheist or agnostic trying tell religious people why they are religious. Some societies may have created Gods over a lack of understanding, but not all. When God makes frequent contact, that tends to make people take notice. When God inspires the writing of his story, and it has stood the test of time, that's more than just "happy to be in the know about things that we don't know and scare us".
You’re upset god destroyed your face so you want to destroy god. It’s karma comrade. That’s why y’all love masks. Don’t cry but if you still are deposit tears here 🥤 I’ve never seen a beautiful atheist. Maybe some prostitutes but they hate god for their own bad life decisions-more daddy issues. It’s why they loved the Covid masks. Atheists are mad at god for making them too ugly, poor, dull, or they just didn’t get enough ice cream for dessert-daddy issues. But that’s their ugly karma sorry comrades. Be good maybe next time your karma will be better. Many atheists have a complex about God because they have personal issues they blame God for-daddy issues to put it colloquially with all due respect. They think there must not be a God because their life or the world isn’t perfect but the theology or philosophy is all wrong. They don’t consider karma and past lives. Be pious and in your next birth you might get a better situation. Many atheists assume to know how or why God would do things from their parochial viewpoint not thinking maybe this world is meant to be both good and bad depending on our actions or karma. Most western atheists aren’t so cultured or sophisticated or philosophically trained so they focus on the Iron Age books of the Abrahamic followers as if only they had an idea of God. They focus also on comic book myth such as magic pond scum or evolution transforming into super computers or bears becoming whales after millions of years (same exact storyline to the X-men comic books). It’s not a position supported by evidence ie science. Quite the contrary, which is why you can’t debate a single point I’ve made and resort to ad hominems. It’s understandable why one would reject Abrahamic religions because there isn’t much philosophy and there are all sorts of inconsistencies and illogical statements. When you really study the human body, you soon realize that it is a machine - a biochemical robot, so cunningly designed that the vague speculations of the Darwinists cannot really account for it. Furthermore, the brain of this machine is a complex electrical computer, which can be programmed and reprogrammed by an outside force. Many scientists have abandoned the evolutionary concepts, grudgingly admitting that the more complex lifeforms on this planet seem to be the product of design, rather than some hit-or-miss natural process. The physical evolution of humans is a comic book hypothesis with all due respect. It’s not real science like physics or chemistry nor a bona fide theory like gravity or quantum mechanics. Despite what people read in glossy pop-sci magazines, no one has ever demonstrated a sequence of gradual beneficial mutations leading to new complex structures in organisms. To put the theory of evolution on firm ground, mathematical models of how genes translate into physical form are absolutely essential. Without such models there are only vague handwaving stories about evolution. These stories can’t provide any firm, testable predictions, and when they are applied after the fact to observations, they are so flexible that they can be adapted to any set of data imaginable. In contrast, a mathematical model gives definite predictions that can be compared with evidence and thus be proved or disproved. If such models did exist, it might be possible to use sufficiently powerful computers to determine what might happen when a specific set of genetic information is randomly modified in concert with certain selective rules. If these modifications predicted in the model actually resulted in physical changes that corresponded to observed relationships among species, then we could say that evolution had actually been raised to the level of a science. But this is not the case. As of yet there exist no models making definite predictions about evolution. In fact, the evolutionists are not at all certain about what they would like to predict. Contradictions abound. On one hand the student of evolution can find statements that the outcome of the process of evolution is completely a matter of chance. And on the other hand, there are statements saying the outcome is quite determined by physical processes involving natural selection. In human evolution, some authorities assert that the evolution of manlike beings is highly probable and would be likely to happen on any suitable planet in the universe. For instance, Dale Russell and Ron Sequin of Canada’s Museum of Natural Science have proposed that if dinosaurs had not become extinct, there is a good chance that they would have evolved into humanoid reptilian forms by now. Then there are those who assert that the appearance of human beings on earth is a chance occurrence. According to this view, at the beginning of the evolutionary process there would be no certainty that humanlike creatures would develop. Theodosius Dobzhansky, a leading evolutionary theorist, poses this question: imagine a highly competent biologist living 50-60 million years ago in the geological epoch called the Eocene. Could he have predicted that man would evolve from the primitive primates then in existence? Not very likely according to Dobzhansky, who says, "Man has at least 100,000 genes, and perhaps half of them (or more) have changed at least once since the Eocene. The probability is, to all intents and purposes, zero that the same 50,000 genes will change in the same ways and will be selected again in the same sequence as they were in man's evolutionary history." So here we have two completely contradictory viewpoints about evolution. They both cannot be right. One says evolution is determined: the other says it proceeds in a way that can never be duplicated. Therefore it would seem that evolutionary theory does not provide a very consistent framework for deciding even the most basic questions.
I think God just an Idea came from Humans Limitation of Understanding. Just 500 years back Our Ancestors didn't know what makes Rainbow. There understanding are limited. Just conclude god made rainbows and begin to worship him. Later, Isaac Newton discovered Prism and Unlock mystery behind Rainbow. Now, we know the god behind Rainbow😅, But dont know how Bigbang begin💥, Said God made it. Because our Understanding are Limited there😂. As Science Grow We FILL Our limitation of Understanding with the IDEA POPULARLY CALLED GOD. BECAUSE, IT'S A EVOLUTIONARY TRAIT OF OUR HUMAN BRAIN. AGENT SEEKING MENTALITY. And make different Stories about Gods like that Rainbow people And Trained To Believe In that Different Stories From Childhood Without Scientific Evidence And give to their Children Also. And even Fight Eachother For it. SO, REMEMBER LET SCIENTIFIC-EVIDENCE LEAD US.✨️
You’re upset god destroyed your face so you want to destroy god. It’s karma comrade. That’s why y’all love masks. Don’t cry but if you still are deposit tears here 🥤 I’ve never seen a beautiful atheist. Maybe some prostitutes but they hate god for their own bad life decisions-more daddy issues. It’s why they loved the Covid masks. Atheists are mad at god for making them too ugly, poor, dull, or they just didn’t get enough ice cream for dessert-daddy issues. But that’s their ugly karma sorry comrades. Be good maybe next time your karma will be better. Many atheists have a complex about God because they have personal issues they blame God for-daddy issues to put it colloquially with all due respect. They think there must not be a God because their life or the world isn’t perfect but the theology or philosophy is all wrong. They don’t consider karma and past lives. Be pious and in your next birth you might get a better situation. Many atheists assume to know how or why God would do things from their parochial viewpoint not thinking maybe this world is meant to be both good and bad depending on our actions or karma. Most western atheists aren’t so cultured or sophisticated or philosophically trained so they focus on the Iron Age books of the Abrahamic followers as if only they had an idea of God. They focus also on comic book myth such as magic pond scum or evolution transforming into super computers or bears becoming whales after millions of years (same exact storyline to the X-men comic books). It’s not a position supported by evidence ie science. Quite the contrary, which is why you can’t debate a single point I’ve made and resort to ad hominems. It’s understandable why one would reject Abrahamic religions because there isn’t much philosophy and there are all sorts of inconsistencies and illogical statements. When you really study the human body, you soon realize that it is a machine - a biochemical robot, so cunningly designed that the vague speculations of the Darwinists cannot really account for it. Furthermore, the brain of this machine is a complex electrical computer, which can be programmed and reprogrammed by an outside force. Many scientists have abandoned the evolutionary concepts, grudgingly admitting that the more complex lifeforms on this planet seem to be the product of design, rather than some hit-or-miss natural process. The physical evolution of humans is a comic book hypothesis with all due respect. It’s not real science like physics or chemistry nor a bona fide theory like gravity or quantum mechanics. Despite what people read in glossy pop-sci magazines, no one has ever demonstrated a sequence of gradual beneficial mutations leading to new complex structures in organisms. To put the theory of evolution on firm ground, mathematical models of how genes translate into physical form are absolutely essential. Without such models there are only vague handwaving stories about evolution. These stories can’t provide any firm, testable predictions, and when they are applied after the fact to observations, they are so flexible that they can be adapted to any set of data imaginable. In contrast, a mathematical model gives definite predictions that can be compared with evidence and thus be proved or disproved. If such models did exist, it might be possible to use sufficiently powerful computers to determine what might happen when a specific set of genetic information is randomly modified in concert with certain selective rules. If these modifications predicted in the model actually resulted in physical changes that corresponded to observed relationships among species, then we could say that evolution had actually been raised to the level of a science. But this is not the case. As of yet there exist no models making definite predictions about evolution. In fact, the evolutionists are not at all certain about what they would like to predict. Contradictions abound. On one hand the student of evolution can find statements that the outcome of the process of evolution is completely a matter of chance. And on the other hand, there are statements saying the outcome is quite determined by physical processes involving natural selection. In human evolution, some authorities assert that the evolution of manlike beings is highly probable and would be likely to happen on any suitable planet in the universe. For instance, Dale Russell and Ron Sequin of Canada’s Museum of Natural Science have proposed that if dinosaurs had not become extinct, there is a good chance that they would have evolved into humanoid reptilian forms by now. Then there are those who assert that the appearance of human beings on earth is a chance occurrence. According to this view, at the beginning of the evolutionary process there would be no certainty that humanlike creatures would develop. Theodosius Dobzhansky, a leading evolutionary theorist, poses this question: imagine a highly competent biologist living 50-60 million years ago in the geological epoch called the Eocene. Could he have predicted that man would evolve from the primitive primates then in existence? Not very likely according to Dobzhansky, who says, "Man has at least 100,000 genes, and perhaps half of them (or more) have changed at least once since the Eocene. The probability is, to all intents and purposes, zero that the same 50,000 genes will change in the same ways and will be selected again in the same sequence as they were in man's evolutionary history." So here we have two completely contradictory viewpoints about evolution. They both cannot be right. One says evolution is determined: the other says it proceeds in a way that can never be duplicated. Therefore it would seem that evolutionary theory does not provide a very consistent framework for deciding even the most basic questions.
The difference between reality and existence is that the second is greater than the first, for what we call reality is physical existence (phenomenal), but thoughts exist, imagination exists, the things you think they exists, not in physical existence, but in mindful existence (noumenal). So existence comprehends physics and the mind. All the natural. But does it comprehends the super natural? For that should be "above" physics and the mind.
I personally am Christian, I grew up catholic and realized that I wasn’t catholic. Went through a period of not really identifying with anything but then I kinda saw the world differently and would say I am a believer of god. I can’t say I know anything as nobody can but I do believe through my faith and that’s enough for me, that’s just not enough for some people and that’s ok. At the end of the day as long as you’re not trying to diminish what I believe then we’re good.
I was raised Catholic as well (and still am) and I'd be the first one to acknowledge all the flaws of the Church. But I separate the faith from the humans who comprise the Church. Beyond that, I'm not sure one needs religion, just the Good Book. As long as you have a working relationship with God and you put effort into it, organized religion seems less than necessary. Also, a lot of people in power are trying to diminish what you believe in. God is actively erased through every possible outlet and institution and millions buy into it hook, line, and sinker. Don't let your mind get infected by scientism like most of the videos on this channel preach and many of the people in the comments can't tell apart from science (which acts in harmony with God and faith). If people need something to be tangible or proven all the time, they aren't quite grasping the notion of faith, or science for that matter.
I wonder if belief in supernatural is a particular case of what is more generally prevalent, which can be differently described as establishment of authority in the psyche. Once the authority gets established, does the relevant areas of brain either are lighted up or they fail to light up? Do we have any comparative research in primates where rank of the individual in the society governs significant parts of their behavior? It seems important to ask this question because control agents can be more devastating than any belief in supernatural. Hitler is a glaring example of a regular control agent guiding not only individual beliefs but even world affairs for a prolonged period of time.
The dieties are as real as they can get. This is absolute. Theres Thousands of them. And they all know each other. We as humans are not interpreting them correctly like the animals & plants are doing. As you cycle through different lives & somehow get away with getting rid of amnesia, youll figure it out eventually.
Humans CAN abstract, therefore they do. Creating gods is what intelligent life does. We evolve on a planet which comes without instructions and explanations, so we make up our own. But now we see the universe more clearly, its scale both large and small, and realize we ARE the instructions for this beautiful planet.
When humans gain consciousness they starts to realize that the Universe is Created and there is a creator of the universe. So then they search for the creator.And they realize that if the creator can create such huge universe , the same creator can also change their lives.
There are two reasons why people believe in God, Multiverse, Big Bounce, Hard Determinism, and Simulation Theory: *(1)* Whenever a theory or construct is missing key information, the human mind naturally fills the gap with "infinity." *(2)* Humans need to feel like there's something bigger in charge.
You’re upset god destroyed your face so you want to destroy god. It’s karma comrade. That’s why y’all love masks. Don’t cry but if you still are deposit tears here 🥤 I’ve never seen a beautiful atheist. Maybe some prostitutes but they hate god for their own bad life decisions-more daddy issues. It’s why they loved the Covid masks. Atheists are mad at god for making them too ugly, poor, dull, or they just didn’t get enough ice cream for dessert-daddy issues. But that’s their ugly karma sorry comrades. Be good maybe next time your karma will be better. Many atheists have a complex about God because they have personal issues they blame God for-daddy issues to put it colloquially with all due respect. They think there must not be a God because their life or the world isn’t perfect but the theology or philosophy is all wrong. They don’t consider karma and past lives. Be pious and in your next birth you might get a better situation. Many atheists assume to know how or why God would do things from their parochial viewpoint not thinking maybe this world is meant to be both good and bad depending on our actions or karma. Most western atheists aren’t so cultured or sophisticated or philosophically trained so they focus on the Iron Age books of the Abrahamic followers as if only they had an idea of God. They focus also on comic book myth such as magic pond scum or evolution transforming into super computers or bears becoming whales after millions of years (same exact storyline to the X-men comic books). It’s not a position supported by evidence ie science. Quite the contrary, which is why you can’t debate a single point I’ve made and resort to ad hominems. It’s understandable why one would reject Abrahamic religions because there isn’t much philosophy and there are all sorts of inconsistencies and illogical statements. When you really study the human body, you soon realize that it is a machine - a biochemical robot, so cunningly designed that the vague speculations of the Darwinists cannot really account for it. Furthermore, the brain of this machine is a complex electrical computer, which can be programmed and reprogrammed by an outside force. Many scientists have abandoned the evolutionary concepts, grudgingly admitting that the more complex lifeforms on this planet seem to be the product of design, rather than some hit-or-miss natural process. The physical evolution of humans is a comic book hypothesis with all due respect. It’s not real science like physics or chemistry nor a bona fide theory like gravity or quantum mechanics. Despite what people read in glossy pop-sci magazines, no one has ever demonstrated a sequence of gradual beneficial mutations leading to new complex structures in organisms. To put the theory of evolution on firm ground, mathematical models of how genes translate into physical form are absolutely essential. Without such models there are only vague handwaving stories about evolution. These stories can’t provide any firm, testable predictions, and when they are applied after the fact to observations, they are so flexible that they can be adapted to any set of data imaginable. In contrast, a mathematical model gives definite predictions that can be compared with evidence and thus be proved or disproved. If such models did exist, it might be possible to use sufficiently powerful computers to determine what might happen when a specific set of genetic information is randomly modified in concert with certain selective rules. If these modifications predicted in the model actually resulted in physical changes that corresponded to observed relationships among species, then we could say that evolution had actually been raised to the level of a science. But this is not the case. As of yet there exist no models making definite predictions about evolution. In fact, the evolutionists are not at all certain about what they would like to predict. Contradictions abound. On one hand the student of evolution can find statements that the outcome of the process of evolution is completely a matter of chance. And on the other hand, there are statements saying the outcome is quite determined by physical processes involving natural selection. In human evolution, some authorities assert that the evolution of manlike beings is highly probable and would be likely to happen on any suitable planet in the universe. For instance, Dale Russell and Ron Sequin of Canada’s Museum of Natural Science have proposed that if dinosaurs had not become extinct, there is a good chance that they would have evolved into humanoid reptilian forms by now. Then there are those who assert that the appearance of human beings on earth is a chance occurrence. According to this view, at the beginning of the evolutionary process there would be no certainty that humanlike creatures would develop. Theodosius Dobzhansky, a leading evolutionary theorist, poses this question: imagine a highly competent biologist living 50-60 million years ago in the geological epoch called the Eocene. Could he have predicted that man would evolve from the primitive primates then in existence? Not very likely according to Dobzhansky, who says, "Man has at least 100,000 genes, and perhaps half of them (or more) have changed at least once since the Eocene. The probability is, to all intents and purposes, zero that the same 50,000 genes will change in the same ways and will be selected again in the same sequence as they were in man's evolutionary history." So here we have two completely contradictory viewpoints about evolution. They both cannot be right. One says evolution is determined: the other says it proceeds in a way that can never be duplicated. Therefore it would seem that evolutionary theory does not provide a very consistent framework for deciding even the most basic questions.
Patrick, nearly all, if not all human involvement with supernatural agents can be attributed to dreams, waking dreams or trances. There is a big prize waiting for anyone who can prove supernatural events.
Yea but what about the objectivity of the resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact. It’s either true or it’s not. See NT Wright and CS Lewis. Jesus is the true story that all religion(myth) points to. God(Jesus) has created us to worship, we will worship the one true God(Jesus) or make up a god to worship.
I don’t need divine permission, or some guy in the desert 2,000 years ago allowing me to be an ethical human. If you do, maybe explore that within yourself. And if it truly is from God, he can convince me himself in a way that is discernible and fair.
Gods and dogs, all humans have them. Which one is spelled backward? Religion on psychedelics is also good; religion has used psychedelics, fasting, and many different techniques to communicate with the supernatural. Hard to separate the two, really.
It's an ego trip: boredom + loneliness + unhappiness = escapism and self importance. *_Without love and sense of humor there is unhappiness and life is meaningless._* 💕☮🌎🌌
You’re upset god destroyed your face so you want to destroy god. It’s karma comrade. That’s why y’all love masks. Don’t cry but if you still are deposit tears here 🥤 I’ve never seen a beautiful atheist. Maybe some prostitutes but they hate god for their own bad life decisions-more daddy issues. It’s why they loved the Covid masks. Atheists are mad at god for making them too ugly, poor, dull, or they just didn’t get enough ice cream for dessert-daddy issues. But that’s their ugly karma sorry comrades. Be good maybe next time your karma will be better. Many atheists have a complex about God because they have personal issues they blame God for-daddy issues to put it colloquially with all due respect. They think there must not be a God because their life or the world isn’t perfect but the theology or philosophy is all wrong. They don’t consider karma and past lives. Be pious and in your next birth you might get a better situation. Many atheists assume to know how or why God would do things from their parochial viewpoint not thinking maybe this world is meant to be both good and bad depending on our actions or karma. Most western atheists aren’t so cultured or sophisticated or philosophically trained so they focus on the Iron Age books of the Abrahamic followers as if only they had an idea of God. They focus also on comic book myth such as magic pond scum or evolution transforming into super computers or bears becoming whales after millions of years (same exact storyline to the X-men comic books). It’s not a position supported by evidence ie science. Quite the contrary, which is why you can’t debate a single point I’ve made and resort to ad hominems. It’s understandable why one would reject Abrahamic religions because there isn’t much philosophy and there are all sorts of inconsistencies and illogical statements. When you really study the human body, you soon realize that it is a machine - a biochemical robot, so cunningly designed that the vague speculations of the Darwinists cannot really account for it. Furthermore, the brain of this machine is a complex electrical computer, which can be programmed and reprogrammed by an outside force. Many scientists have abandoned the evolutionary concepts, grudgingly admitting that the more complex lifeforms on this planet seem to be the product of design, rather than some hit-or-miss natural process. The physical evolution of humans is a comic book hypothesis with all due respect. It’s not real science like physics or chemistry nor a bona fide theory like gravity or quantum mechanics. Despite what people read in glossy pop-sci magazines, no one has ever demonstrated a sequence of gradual beneficial mutations leading to new complex structures in organisms. To put the theory of evolution on firm ground, mathematical models of how genes translate into physical form are absolutely essential. Without such models there are only vague handwaving stories about evolution. These stories can’t provide any firm, testable predictions, and when they are applied after the fact to observations, they are so flexible that they can be adapted to any set of data imaginable. In contrast, a mathematical model gives definite predictions that can be compared with evidence and thus be proved or disproved. If such models did exist, it might be possible to use sufficiently powerful computers to determine what might happen when a specific set of genetic information is randomly modified in concert with certain selective rules. If these modifications predicted in the model actually resulted in physical changes that corresponded to observed relationships among species, then we could say that evolution had actually been raised to the level of a science. But this is not the case. As of yet there exist no models making definite predictions about evolution. In fact, the evolutionists are not at all certain about what they would like to predict. Contradictions abound. On one hand the student of evolution can find statements that the outcome of the process of evolution is completely a matter of chance. And on the other hand, there are statements saying the outcome is quite determined by physical processes involving natural selection. In human evolution, some authorities assert that the evolution of manlike beings is highly probable and would be likely to happen on any suitable planet in the universe. For instance, Dale Russell and Ron Sequin of Canada’s Museum of Natural Science have proposed that if dinosaurs had not become extinct, there is a good chance that they would have evolved into humanoid reptilian forms by now. Then there are those who assert that the appearance of human beings on earth is a chance occurrence. According to this view, at the beginning of the evolutionary process there would be no certainty that humanlike creatures would develop. Theodosius Dobzhansky, a leading evolutionary theorist, poses this question: imagine a highly competent biologist living 50-60 million years ago in the geological epoch called the Eocene. Could he have predicted that man would evolve from the primitive primates then in existence? Not very likely according to Dobzhansky, who says, "Man has at least 100,000 genes, and perhaps half of them (or more) have changed at least once since the Eocene. The probability is, to all intents and purposes, zero that the same 50,000 genes will change in the same ways and will be selected again in the same sequence as they were in man's evolutionary history." So here we have two completely contradictory viewpoints about evolution. They both cannot be right. One says evolution is determined: the other says it proceeds in a way that can never be duplicated. Therefore it would seem that evolutionary theory does not provide a very consistent framework for deciding even the most basic questions.
Religion is like a big warm blanket which our addictive adult brain craves almost more than anything. When you were a child it was Santa the Tooth Fairy & the Easter Bunny. Ridiculous + Give me a break people...
And you can thank the rise of the modern hospital infrastructure that makes it even possible to entertain eradicating cancer nowadays to religious orders, pal; you're welcome, BTW
This guy is ABSOLUTELY the worst person to present the topic of this video! He neither connected with the audience or did he give an explanation of what a "supernatural agent" is and why people worship/love them.
I have come to the conclusion that human beings are hard wired for religion. Religion manifests itself across all cultures. Rituals play an important part in connecting the person with the supernatural agent (god). What is the difference between a Catholic priest in a robe, a Jewish Rabi in a Yarmulka with a prayer shall and an African tribal shaman with a bone through his nose dressed in animal furs ? There is none. They all express religion in different ways.
@@amberhiggins6327 The “us and them” game is very likely the oldest control game on the planet - and it works! Hence the reason it’s used by governments, religions, political parties, and special interest groups worldwide. “Don’t be so skeptical that you believe in nothing” but make sure you are skeptical enough to see bullshit for what it is.
Great video. But would’ve absolutely been worth it to include 1-2 more minutes to explain the different brain networks and areas from 3:55-4:32 in laymen’s terms. Important info that just got breezed over.
The history of supernatural agents in the course of human development can be summed up as: People thought that the universe was magic. Then they figured out how it worked. That still doesn't stop it from being amazing.
Is there one change you can make right now to your work environment? What could you add or remove so you will not be tempted to wander? Silence your phone. Put up a sign. Close the door. Set a timer. Notice, when it is time for your work session, you will commit. Nothing can distract you. Whatever you need to prepare to make that happen, now is the time.
"work"??? - are you living to work, or working to live? - why create such a barrier around the concept of "work". I do not separate out the things I do that I receive payment for, from the things I simply do out of enjoyment - ALL is part of the life I am deliberately living - _all_ of it and how is this at all relevant to this topic, to the content under this topic?
