Funny to see that from a man who’s shown himself to be wrong in so many bigoted ways yet unwilling to change his beliefs 🤦🏽♂️ I was surprised to see this pop up in an account dedicated to Carl Sagan, tbh! I suspect his answer might’ve been different/humbler than simply turning it back on the one asking
Greatest answer and response to any close-minded knuckle dragging religious believer. That's why I believe in science and it's also why I'm a spiritualist and not a book thumper
What is it about mankind that they have to create a god? Any god. Why do we have to believe in something else? Something after. Why isn't this enough? Right here. Right now. Get THIS one little life right!
What if a god exists and hates Christians and likes atheists. That’s the point. She’s all “what if you’re wrong”, but Pascal’s wager is flawed because what if you’re wrong.
i’m not denying the question ‘what if i’m wrong?’ if i’m wrong, then i wasted a lot of time and, for your example, i’m going to hell. he didn’t answer the question because he should’ve said what would happen to him if he was wrong. that’s all.
He did answer the question because the question makes no sense. The question implies that there are only two choices, but there are countless choices. Hinduism could be true, in which case we may both be hooped. It makes it seem like there is no risk for a theist, but there is.
that’s a fair point. i suppose i am suggesting that the person is implying ‘and what if im right?’ after the ‘what if you’re wrong’ which might not be fair.
Actually, he does. He uses the concept that all of those same beliefs could be wrong. It is an answer in terms of demonstrating that belief in any of the mentioned religions/belief systems is predicated on the "fortune" of one's birth & is the result of acculturation. He states that in his answer.
I don’t blame him for answering like an asshole. Far too many Christians haven’t given their faith any consideration at all. For him to point out the presumptions of her faith is entirely fair.
on the flipside we now have rationalists who believe an all-powerful self-improving AI is an inevitability and that they alone are responsible for ensuring it’s a benevolent one, by any horrible means necessary. guess religion was never a requirement for self-important zealotry
not really? it’s the same kind of reasoning religions use, the same black and white moral compass that says you are a net negative human being if you don’t serve the almighty endgame. that you alone are part of something greater than the society you leech off of. all repackaged zealotry
"it’s the same kind of reasoning religions use" not at all. This is a very old abstraction brought up with rigorous information theory. And you know you have no concepts of machine learning out of entering some prompts into ChatGPT
it's all a grift based on one factually wrong hypothesis:
- machine learning requires finite resources
- all-powerful beings have no conceivable reason to care about human welfare or values
- any intelligence sufficiently smarter than us will bypass its prime directive in ways we never considered
- timelessness as a concept does not have a basis in scientific or even rational thought
- information from the distant past is inferred and not known to be recoverable
- the fullest nature of reality is known to be elusive. it's presumptuous to assume even a perfect intellect could understand it
Although many rationalists are atheists, not all atheists are rationalists. Also, zealotry refers to religion, politics, or ideals. AI is not any of these things, although it does interplay with politics due to regulation. I wouldn't lump in atheists and the AI argument, doesn't hold up.
i would say that a man-made god qualifies as an ideal. people have based their entire value system around contributing to that end. cults have formed around it. people have died as a direct result
Kinda jumping to a conclusion without substantiating the premise there. I don't know anyone who thinks of AI as a god or people who have based their value system on it. This seems like a "going nowhere" conversation only meant to further your own ingrained beliefs against AI so I'll excuse myself.
The point is we are all atheists about most of the gods human beings have ever believed in. As Dawkins says, "Some of us just go one god further." You are most certainly an atheist about Thor, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Shiva, and Ra, and It is only by accident of birth which god anyone believes in today.
Speak for yourself. Just because I like what a carpenter had to say in 1st century Judea doesn't mean I don't believe in the others. I just don't worship them.
In fact, at least one keeps sending pairs of corvids around and I wish he'd stop. Trickster gods make me nervous.
He answered perfectly.. Which part did you have issue with... Essentially, There are thousands of 'alleged' gods, why is he wrong for not believing in the one she chose to believe in. 🤔.
I think that was the point. I think the answer is a mirror to the question. "What ifs" are questions that have no difinitive answer and are best used as rhetorical mind exercises
I don't think smugnicity had anything to do with it. Perhaps the devil in the details are whether or not the question was asked in the context of being dead and finding out or being alive and being told it was so. Perhaps that can be explored
To add to this, I had to rewatch to see what exactly was asked. It wasn't "what if...God exists" it was "what if you are wrong" feels personal, if you spend your life worrying about if you did something in the past that was wrong with no way to verify the alternative. That's a horrible life.
A scientist wouldn't take that question personally. I certainly wouldn't. It's a simple objective question with the simplest answer! The whole point of science is to handle being wrong. In fact it's a very pertinent question which people should be encouraged to ask about science.
Pretentious, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic POS. Who didn’t answer the question asked of him because his ego would not allow him to be questioned by a woman who asked him a question that challenged his ability to admit he doesn’t know everything.
But he’s a man so that’s ok isn’t it?
🤷♀️🙄
His views on trans issues is gross, but he’s right in this instance. No one can verify their god is real, most people just take their parents religion blindly.
I prefer the "follow the money approach" to the question. Religion began the moment the first human smelled dinner on the fire and asked himself: "How can I get myself a bowl of that daily stew without breaking my nails digging in the earth, or scrambling over rocks going out hunting?"
Some of them are likely to be much much more advanced than our point of view. So powerful that from our point of view they can only be regarded as “god-like”.
Some of them have so much computing power that they could run entire simulations of a human civilisation like ours from start to finish in a tiny fraction of a second. Then can run trillions of such simulations, almost effortlessly.
There’s no scientific consensus on whether beings inside such a simulation would be conscious as there’s no known scientific theory of consciousness. But the leading theories (functionalist) suggest they would be.
There’s a strong statistical argument that - if such sims are conscious - we ourselves are more likely to be inside such a simulation than outside. The creators of the sim we’re in are not only godlike, they are (from our point of view) gods.
We can only guess at what they are like, how many there are, or what their intentions were for creating our simulated world.
But if they wanted to tell us (or at least some of us) they could. If they wanted to occasionally suspend the rules of the sim to impress at least some of us, they could.
I completely agree with him.
However, if someone chooses to believe in Christ, Mohammed, Buddha or the Juju up the mountain, let them believe WHATEVER s/he chooses.
Who is anyone to tell person of faith that they are wrong when we cannot prove that they are?
The question works both ways... what if you're wrong? The evidence points to a creator. Follow the evidence. The Theory of Everything is everything has a cause... and so, who is the uncaused cause?
And what if ya'll are wrong? Ya'll are fine with lying to yourself and others every day you're whole life? So much for honesty.
Nobody can prove if any god exists. So by default, accept the answer "I don't know", and in so accepting, no lies are perpetuated.
Just a point, a tiny point: in the first few pages of one of Dawkins' books - doesn't matter which, they are all clones - he makes a foundational statement. An axiom. ".. but on the balance of probabilities .."
An aside
My answer to climate sceptics is-
"If we are wrong then all we did was stop destroying the planet and made it a nicer place for all of us to live in.BUT if you are wrong then we're all dead and that's forever"
I just cite how Exxon scientists proved climate change in the 70s then implemented a misinfo campaign for decades. They literally admitted it to Congress.
Demonstrating stupidity is easy. Educating is a challenge. Sagan understood this implicitly. When a layperson asks a scientist "What if you're wrong?", one couldn't ask for a clearer invitation to explain the scientific method. Dawkins chose to be a smart ass rather than an educator.
This question would have been at the end of his discussion, so he'd have already covered most of that. But, yes, Dawkins is acerbic. However, I disagree that his answer is nasty. He's explaining that religion largely depends on birth and that her answer applies to all religions equally.
I didn't suggest his answer was nasty. I suggested it was pedagogically impotent. I presume the whole talk is from back in the God Delusion days anyway, which was in itself, imo, a scientifically and pedagogically wrong-headed enterprise to begin with.
Yeah, we disagree then. The God Delusion book was important to bringing atheism mainstream. It's a very simple book and it points out the obvious: science does not support mythology. Ergo, there's no scientific reason to accept any particular religion's claims.
Fire insurance. A planted question no doubt. Pascal was ridiculed immediately - by Voltaire "the interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists" and other contemporaries, both for its lacunae and its insincerity, violating Pascal's own Jansenism. It's a wonder it persists.
His response establishes “if I’m wrong, that doesn’t mean your right” but I agree that there was plenty more to say and Dawkins can be clunky. Dawkins is really for people who already made up their mind, in my opinion.
The point is that the question is also a what-aboutism.
I do think in his answer he could’ve added that being wrong requires evidence that invalidates a claim. So being wrong means having evidence for the deity we’re talking about.
Whataboutism occurs just after you've presented me with more than enough evidence and or data you'd think I'd shut it down but instead I just return w smarmy mcsmarmbreath teeheehee
There's nothing past present or future quantifiable about this invisible sky faerie who isn't good with money.
It wasn't a gotcha, and he gave it a fair and courteous answer.
He pointed out that in the context of the question, "what if you're wrong" is a loaded, biased question, with a not-so-hidden built-in assumption -- essentially claiming privileged status for an equivalent, equally unlikely assumption.
The question, though sincere and not intended as a blatant gotcha, was in fact a type of gotcha -- it was the theological equivalent of "why won't you stop beating your wife?"
I thought that's exactly what it means. Example: I commit a felony, go to prison. Someone else commits a felony and doesn't. I say..."what about that guy, he didn't go to prison?"
Yeah, and he didn’t address the actual question. He just uno reversed it. Yes, words mean things. He didn’t actually answer the question. He just posed a different question that was meant to throw it off. That’s certainly whataboutism
It's not whataboutism though.
You may disagree with the way he answered, you may find it condescending, you may say he didn't "actually answer the question," but it is NOT whataboutism.
It totally isn't. It's asking the person who asked the question to examine why they believe what they do & consider what being wrong looks like. He could be wrong too. He started with, we all could be wrong.
Dawkins isn't an atheist. He's a militant atheist. Dawkins isn't content to not believe in God, he wants everyone else to reject the idea of God as well. Is he much different than the Jehovah's Witnesses who come to the door to try and convince us their religion is the right one?
Religion has been misused, abused, and has caused much suffering, no doubt. But science too has given us nuclear weapons, climate change, 24-hour surveillance, chemical weapons and cancer-causing chemicals. And yet both science & religion have done much good as well. If you want to debate
I suppose i dont see much difference between Richard Dawkins and your typical evangelical preacher (or any religious leader). All are trying to convince you that they are correct, all have a specific forum/platform to do so. I just don't see him as all that militant tbh...
...He had a loud opinion, yes, but he wasn't saying "repent or burn eternally" which is the base message a lot of evangelicals gravitate to. If that isn't considered "militant Christianity," is it militant atheism to point out the dangers of religion being misused and to see it as a threat? ...
Yes, religion is easily misused and causes suffering. Science is also misused: Nuclear weapons, pesticides, fossil fuels, chemical weapons, 24 hour surveillance, etc. Whatever humans make or do can be used for good or evil. Even a hammer can be used to build homes or knock someone out.
You're right, I overplayed my cards. I still think however he's a bit irresponsible for taking a clear stand on something as unknowable and mysterious as to whether a divine consciousness created the universe.
...And, to be clear, I'm not even saying i agree with his stances, but I dont think hes comparable to Jehovah's Witness who will send unsolicited letters to your mailbox or knock on your door to try and convert you.
Yes, and what he taught is light-years from what modern Christianity has become, infected with nationalism, misogyny, racism, materialism, superstition, dogma, homophobia and tribalism. We've taken the superb teachings of Jesus and turned them into a religion about Jesus.
There are a few mentions of Jesus outside of the bible by various writers around the time, or shortly thereafter, of his death. There's also a lot of congruence between the 4 gospels. But when most people decide something is true or false, they no longer are open to any new evidence
No, there are zero contemporary writers who mention J. All mentions of J were by people who could not possibly have seen or met him. That includes the gospels. It's all heresay. The congruence is a result of the other 3 gospels being influenced by the first one, "Mark", which was written anonymously
Dawkins can't answer because he doesn't know the answer. Whatever name you use; God, Shiva, Godhead, Jesus, Divine Spark, Allah--it doesn't matter. The point is we don't have a clue if some kind of eternal, infinite consciousness created matter, space, time, energy and even consciousness itself.
I don’t know if there’s a god or not, but if there is an omnipotent being, it surely doesn’t need a bunch of monkeys praying to it, that would demonstrate that it is flawed and therefore not omnipotent…🤔
Maybe we can choose other scientists that aren’t virulent transphobes to make this point? Plenty of scientists out there that are just as eloquent on this point that don’t hate marginalized people they don’t understand idk 🤷🏼♀️
My bad for just making an assumption. I figured it was probably at least accurate to the point it wanted to make, but no surprise he just sucks at the stuff he’s supposed to be good at. He’s a shitty dude
And, now the "transphobic" tweets that everyone is mad at. Doesn't seem like he's demeaning the trans culture whatsoever, but continue on being ill informed and easily provoked.
He's the worst but people are desperate to gloss over his bigotry- here's one you forgot: he's also a raging islamophobe, to the point of uplifting radical Christians just to bash on islam specifically. Talk about an atheist...
He’s truly a horrible person. Not believing in god is like the only good trait about him. He’s just a white supremacist that made edgelord dorks that hate religion feel like they are smart and reasonable.
As a scientist one of the first things you learn is the scientific method. Oddly this is forgotten whenever God is discussed. I believe in a God who created this World for us. How this was done is for us to figure out.
Its a stupid answer because the world’s religions largely agree that the creator embodied the spirit to create life; while there are important differences, there is also near universal agreement on key aspects of “why” we exist, which is beyond the “how” of science.
How's that working out? The various religions of the world cannot find harmony with each other about God because they're too busy finding disharmony with each other about everything else.
I wouldnt say its working out all that well. My point was more that this would have been a more appropriate answer from an open minded and sincere scientist.
Richard Dawkins' upbringing in secular Britain, where approximately 50% of the population identifies as non-religious, is merely coincidental. Such contextual information neither strengthens nor undermines the validity of his thesis.
But still those observations are done by man and are viewed through the lens of man's experiences and ability to comprehend. Bias forms that view as does acculturation.
Logically, religion is a load of old hooey. In truth, early man realised that when the weather was good, things grew and when it was bad they didn't, he associated that with the heat from the light from the sun and the cold darkness from the moon. He saw them as two gods. One good and one evil.
As time went on, they became by reference God and the Devil. These beliefs were passed on through the generations until the beginnings of scripture. These beliefs were added to, with myths and fireside stories, then transcribed and over centuries, they became early versions of what we call a Bible.
When other distant lands heard of this miracle filled book, it appealed to them, but they had reservations about some of the stories, so they created their own. Now there were two religions then three and so on and so on.Prove me wrong and don't say "faith means not needing proof".
Dawkins now says he's a cultural Christian so he can participate in bigotry. He was always wrong because he was, at his most basic level, an absolute asshole to people. He was the Twitter pile on, in human form, before Twitter existed. He was pre-MySpace ragebait.
I don't think it's a good answer. There are better ones. "What if you're wrong?" Then I'm wrong. What do you think determines if someone is wrong, and what do you think are the consequences of being wrong?
His answer is belittling, snide, an attack...he did not answer the question.
"What if you're wrong" is a very important question, and the answer depends on context. Are we talking about measles, or physics, or religion? In the same time that he blathered on about flying spaghetti monster and pink unicorns he *could* have demonstrated why that's a good question,
why it should be asked. It should be asked of anyone who proposed a plan of action...of engineers, scientists, craftsman ("I'm sure that structure is sound." "What if you're wrong?" I"m sure that won't blow up too soon." "What if you're wrong?"
What if I'm wrong that I can drive that twisty road at 10 mph over the posted speed even though the road's wet? What if I'm wrong about my calculations? What if I'm wrong about where the enemy army is? What if I'm wrong that the white crystals in that jar are salt? Or sugar?
Sloughing off the question of "What if I'm wrong?" with condescending twaddle...not admitting that opinions, like decisions, have consequences that need consideration...is dishonest.
This is exactly what I was thinking. He could have addressed the question as a philosophical experiment or a lesson in how we should question ourselves and the world around us, rather than treating her question as a personal attack and responding so brusquely.
Its belittling because its a dumb position. What if im wrong? We are inherently wrong; we dont need a what if for that, science wouldnt advance if we figured it all out and religions supposed position in society cant justify why their paths dont always work. Yet they want to define normalcy.
A great post for all the frustrated people who have no idea what being a Christian really means. I’m glad for you that you’ve again heard what you wanted to hear. Happy Easter.
Of the hundreds of research papers & articles I've written, this is one that gives perhaps the best overall summary of 3 major religions (Judaism, Christianity & Islam) & how they came to be. #ReligionSky #AtheistSky #HistorySky
The Jewish Proof Texts? Jewish leaders down thru history knew the truth about their own religion (Judaism), Christianity (they witnessed its creation) & Islam. I'm one person who actually saw them. Everyone should know this.
Arrius Calpurnius Piso was the main author of the gospels & the main creator of Christianity. The Jews witnessed it and the Pharisees were writing in the Talmud what they knew about the creation of Christianity; including who did it & why.
'Lord Byron And The Inner-Circle' is a paper about Byron and his friends knowing the truth about how Christianity came to be, and inserting hints & clues about that information within their literary works; including Mary Shelley and her 'Frankenstein'. #WorldSky
Many leaders have & do understand things on a more complex level, but speak to the public on a level that they are able to relate to. If you only think of things on a superficial level, that's all you will know. The world is in reality, extremely complex. Many refuse to accept or learn that.
Religion is a scam. It has always been used by the worst people (con men, psychopaths) to take advantage of people of low intelligence, the elderly & others who are susceptible, has been so for thousands of years & to keep the elite in power.
Sure, it can be a scam. But so can politics, the Supreme Court, law, business, the stock market and selling used cars. So is the problem really just religion or is it more what we do with it?
No, religion was created as a scam & much more. The authors of the biblical texts were NOT believer, but deceivers - ALL of them! Genesis was written by Amenemhept I, founder of the 12th dynasty. He also founded the Biblical Dynasty. 'God' was a royal title. Arrius Piso was God of the New Testament.
IF the original authors of biblical texts wrote bawdy & tasteless jokes into those texts, even making fun or light of their own writings, doesn't that indicate that the authors themselves did not believe in what they wrote?
The authors of the biblical texts were NOT believers; they were deceivers! They were cruel, bawdy royals, who were joking as they wrote their texts. They included their jokes as a type of disclaimer for their actions.
Arrius Calpurnius Piso was the main author of the gospels & the main creator of Christianity. The Jews witnessed it and the Pharisees were writing in the Talmud what they knew about the creation of Christianity; including who did it & why. #JewSky #HebrewSky #Ihfo
The Bible God? 'Adam' aka pharaoh Adammenemes I/Amenemhept, founder of 12th dynasty of Egypt. Pharaoh, who was god to Egyptians, who was author of & the God of Genesis. He played God & Adam in Genesis. 'God' was a royal title.
The Jewish Proof Texts? Jewish leaders down thru history knew the truth about their own religion (Judaism), Christianity (they witnessed its creation) & Islam. I'm one person who actually saw them. Everyone should know this.
The LEADERS of the Jews had always known how their religion & later religions began. And, they kept records of their firsthand knowledge so that eventually what they knew could be revealed to all.
This! I was watching a documentary on Islam last night, and just blown away by the similarities of what we are seeing in real time today. You get one charismatic person with followers and they can push an agenda through for the masses to follow. Wild.
It’s mostly about power and control. If one can control another’s belief system then one can control everything they do, think or how they behave.
It also benefits the grifters who always resort to colorful variations on the theme of “GOD wants you to make ME rich”
Yes, down thru history religion has been about power & control. It has been used by psychopaths & con artists to get what they want from gullible believers.
Once people become religious their mind is set on a process of mental deterioration which happens in stages. After the natural ego is corrupted so that the believer thinks that their self/ego is both soul/God, their mind develops an Ego Feed. That sets triggers of affirmation releasing chemicals.
Organized religion does to the mind the same thing that we see in cults where people are 'programmed'. So, if politicians like Trump can get to religious people by pretending to be one, they are already 'primed' to believe his lies. That's how he got them to help him get elected both times!
There are so many aspects involved in what makes religion so harmful, toxic & dangerous to society. This is one that few are aware of. Religion is so many bad things; from a legal scam, to psychological warfare & a political tool.
Religion is harmful in many ways. We need to keep educating & informing people of the harm that it does. Biblical texts have been the backbone of Patriarchy. We need to break it once & for all!
Organized religion was created by ancient rulers as psychological warfare to better control & manipulate the masses with; it is still being used by politicians & religious leaders today to get what they want from gullible believers. Religious belief sets off a process of mental deterioration.
Religion is a mental health issue. Ancient rulers created religion as psychological warfare to better control & manipulate the masses with. Today, it is still used for that. We CAN and MUST defuse it through education.
Yes, it is. Rational Thought: There are differences in the way minds work. There are two different main mind types; a) the rational, reasonable, thinking mind, & b) the 'religious' type that perceives things in simplistic terms ('Either/Or'), aka "reactive mind".
George Carlin
"He loves you and he needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes and they always need a little more. Now you talk about a good bullshit story"
Easter is a REALLY good day for a whole lot of people who like to call themselves Christians to wake up and realize that talking the talk of Christianity and walking the walk of it are 2 very different things. Christ expects you to walk. If you want to talk at the same time, that's fine also.
Religions are a members only club that keeps forcing people to choose. But people still need to be curious about everything, because opinions are like Uranus.
There is one God, different faiths.
The fact there are different religions in different areas of the world tells me that many people, from distinctly different cultures, realize there is something greater than us, & they bow in reverence to the Creator of all.
I have no bias in favor of or against Dawkins. What he says in this clip is true. So, castigating him because you don't like him or something he said isn't rational. It's as filled with unreasonable emotion as those declaring a savior is proved by mere faith
I was was questioning whether my agnosticism could be wrong at the time & I remember thinking this was a very poor response from Dawkins. He deflected & didn't for a second consider whether he could be wrong, preferring to default to condescending mockery rather than actually thinking about it.
The perfect answer is "wanna bet". The assumptions inherent in Pascal's wager is that God won't know you are putting it on, and there is no cost. Given the answer here both are falsified because which God are you going to bet on.
I don’t particularly like Pascal’s Wager because it has a rather narrow conceptualisation of God as the Christian God, which I do also entertain, but don’t limit myself to.
I think Dawkins own inability to see that one could believe in all the Gods is part of my problem w/his response though.
Sure, and being correct about basic facts doesn't mean he's not a terrible human being. No one said he was wrong about atheism, just that he's a bad person no one should be connecting to Sagan. There are plenty of atheists who aren't also scumbags.
Carl is dead, this is a disgrace to his memory and what he stood for. All faith is inherently wrong because it demands worship without evidence. Thankfully degree of ridiculousness isn't the measure of rightness. But Christian Nationalists would have you believe "less" ridiculous is righteousness.
If he is real, God is either a terrible, mean-spirited entity, or he's not all powerful and has been a liar. Because how can you allow for the death of millions of people on a global scale in your name? The Holocaust, Palestine, and right-wing governments during the pandemic.
If he'd simply said, "Yeah, I could be wrong", she would have seen this as an affirmation that her belief was correct. Humans aren't always logical. We often judge the merits of an argument by how ardent the arguer is - confidence creates trust (it's why con-men do so well).
A Christian would say it's not an accident; God planned for them to be born already in the loving embrace of the "correct faith". It would then be their duty, as one of the anointed, to spread the "true faith" to the rest of the world. You can't reason with cults, and Dawkins wastes time trying.
Not the wisest response to Pascal’s wager I’ve heard. I prefer Jorge Maria Bergoglio’s humanism to Dawkins’ harsh evangelical atheism- he told mother of child with Downs child unfit to live.
It's a pretty terrible answer really. He starts with an assumption about the person asking the question. That's not an answer to the question but a misdirection based on nothing.
The worst thing to happen to humanity was organized religion. Everyone is right and wrong too. The point is to find what fits how you feel about something "Greater than you". Don't take dogma at face value ✌️
This is an underrated comment. I lost religion some yrs back and initially was anti-religion becuz of the dogma. But now I realize that religion can be a great structure for ppl that feel there is something at play bigger than they are. Religion becomes bad when used as a weapon rather than a tool.
100% agree. I grew up in an Evangelical family. I believed in God, that was easy, it was the hypocrisy that was confusing. I felt like a terrible Christian so I started looking elsewhere. Long story short, I landed as a Pagan 🤷
Being in the Marines during the Iraq War era made me reassess my beliefs. It lead me down a road of studying NDEs, Mediums, etc. I believe in something bigger...but God is too small a word for it. I simply study and find truth wherever it can be found.
Exactly. By whatever name or form, "it" IS there. I'm a fan of serious Mediums and also see NDE experiences as vindication of an existence beyond this.
My own experiences just made me beyond certain of it
How fervently I agree with him while my brainwashed mind, daily at the mercy of inescapable Catholic ideology even as long ago as 58 years ago, still struggles with even thinking, this is nonsense. Oppressive, emotionally harmful nonsense at that. Misogyny
Jesus in your head watching your thoughts.
I would ask that of all of the cited belief systems that attempted to impose on others their personal belief in their religion and insisted on telling ME, an Atheist, that I am wrong!
From those that I've come upon, a lot of them feel pressed to ask this question because of the fear of hell, but even fear asking that question in and of itself.
It taught me to consider the option that the question may not be criticism as much as it is an exploration to potentially escape.
Good points and totally agree but also quite insulting toward African categorization of “the Juju on the mountain/sea” versus traditional religious practice such as ancestral worship. Yes acknowledge the era but just a sticking point.
He didn’t have the knowledge to reference his generalized religious attribution and resorted to an era of ignorance. We are all flawed in how we reference viewpoints. As a big fat liberal of Asian descent, I have had to deal with racism from all races including other minorities,even by other Asians.
We may be tribal in nature and have to work at viewing individuals rather than group think but it is a challenge for all of us. I’m not wiping out Dawkins’ accomplishments- just pointed out a blip.
No I totally agree. These off key notes spoil so much of his work. I still want someone to redo his book The Ancestor's Tale without the weird anglocentrism
Its pretty terrible that he bothers to name other cultures deities but because he doesn’t know any African ones he decides to be horribly derogatory and dismissive to African culture despite a wise and varied lexicon of myths and legends he could have bothered to learn.
He’s 💯 spot on…your faith is dependent on where you are born & raised. How many people who are born & live in India are Southern Baptist or Jewish or Muslim or Pentecostal or Catholic? Same, how many ppl living in Texas or Hindus?
Dawkins too is a product of his culture and time, and probably wouldn't be an atheist (or now "cultural christian") if he was born in a different time or place.
I'm glad to see the people were walking out. I'll take my chances, thank you. None of those other "gods" were seen alive by hundreds of witnesses after they were murdered. Their testimony has been kept alive for over 2,000 years and many people gave their lives rather than deny Him. I'm with Him.
You seem to have not paid attention. In addition to Jesus, many others have been described as "saviors": Buddha, Osiris, Odin, Zoroaster, Salivahana of Bermuda, Zulis or Zhule of Egypt, Osiris of Egypt, Oru of Egypt, Odin of the Scandinavians,
Zoroaster of Persia, Baal of Phoenicia.
He repeated the question verbatim for clarity.
Then, rephrased it to expand how her question can be applied to several other faiths.
And he finished with a long winded, & politely English way to say, “Your question is silly.”
"What if only 1,999 of the 2,000 gods you don't believe in aren't real?"
Which also assumes that merely CHOOSING the right god is enough. What if the only people who god likes belong to some weird pseudo-Christian cult in South Korea you've never heard of?
Juju is not a deity. Juju is an object of spiritual power. Like a talisman. Orisha are deities. The belief system is Yoruba. And these are inherent to Western Africa, not Central Africa. If you're born in Central Africa, you're most likely to be Christian.
a failure to recognize that colonialism has lead to Christianity being the dominant religion and either English or French the dominant languages across much of the continent isn't a simple mistake. It's systemic ignorance that has consequences - an academic claiming expertise needs to do better.
And i find it kind of bizarre that the premise is "you must absolutely everything correct about this or you're a monster/racist/bad." Its faulty logic and puts the cart before the horse. No one is saying colonialism didn't happen, least of all one dude who simply made a simple mistake.
The video above has nothing to do with colonialism in that sense whatsoever. He simply misspoke about the name or nature of a deity. Just because he got one thing wrong about a belief doesn't mean he ignores the colonial problem, nor that Europe caused problems.
Christians like to forget/ignore that there is and was a whole world outside of their Jesus. The world existed before Jesus. The world exists after him.
If they really want to stick with that, they should look at the ones Dawkins mentioned and what God did for the Jews in Egypt.
Sure, he’s an asshole, but he was so strongly on to something when describing viruses of the mind that modern pop culture has one of its central tenants baked in.
Yep. Being an asshole is a subjective assessment of the individual’s personality. In itself, it does not have any bearing upon the accuracy of said asshole’s statement.
There is a fundamental mechanic to any religion that builds faith into its dogma. Believe because the alternative is wrong. The primary mechanic to an Athiest is generally I see no irrefutable proof therefore I can not believe. Show me some proof and if it is repeatable I shall believe.
Why is it so important to religion believers that atheism is a faith? Is it so you can categorize it with all those other faiths that you think are wrong?
It seems to reveal some insecurity. Is someone who thinks it's all bullshit more of a threat than someone who simply believes in other gods?
"Atheism" is just a way to short circuit unwanted attempts to "prove" religion. If one claims they are agnostic because one cannot provide absolute proof there is no deity, the barrage of religious drivel begins. So claiming one is an atheist helps to prevent the river of poop from flowing.
No. That's not at all what I wrote, but your lying spin is noted.
If one uses the likely end point which is "no deity", atheist is a logical conclusion. However one cannot actually prove "no deity" anymore than you can prove there is a "deity". So using your lame argument, all religious are liars.
I don't make a habit about discussing religion, but in my experience, if you make that statement in a discussion with religious people, they will try to change your lean.
The last time I had someone ask my religion & I said agnostic 'cause no proof, they still tried to explain why I was "wrong".
Literally is. It's just don't believe in what you all believe. And yes. We very often come up with labels to communicate things to people. So communication can be easier.
Maybe depends on the lingual region...we in central Europe define Atheisn is the firm believe (!) that there is no go, and agnosticism that we believe nothing, because we admit that we don't know
When you realize God has made himself manifest for so many in the world in so many forms...God is Christ AND all the other manners in which WE CHOOSE to acknowledge him. I know Christ & by Christ I know that he loves ALL.
How about those kids with terminal cancer. He sure loves those guys! Take that as my payment for your supposed original sin, motherfuckers! Die, die in abject agony and suffering!! Whoooooo... Check how fucking beneovlent and loving I am.. WHOOOO.
Except the gays. And trans people. And neighbours who covert oxens.. Also, what version of 'the bible' are you referring to? The one that best fits your narrative? https://www.cambridge.org/gb/bibles/bible-versions
My sibling is trans & I love them just as much as I did before they transitioned. Why are you attempting to talk down to me when I have not been negative towards you?
The teachings of your (and most other) religions claim such things as a sin.. to be punished by slow, violent death.. Not what I'd define as welcoming.. And where are the 'religious leaders' of today decrying such acts?! Nowhere. They're perpetuating and inciting it. Disgusting.
This is actually a childish, playground retort. He didn’t answer the question put to him. He dodged it. It doesn’t matter if everyone else is wrong. That’s irrelevant. The question is what if YOU are wrong? The adult answer is, “Then I’ll accept the consequences.” He wasn’t clever; he was cowardly.
That is the best answer ever! And it’s so right. I think people need to believe in something even if it really doesn’t exist. They need to think when they die, they will go on somewhere else and it’s a comfort to them. It’s certainly not because they live their lives according to their beliefs.
How did he know she was a Christian though? Maybe she was just asking the question to see what he’d say? He could have answered with the same points without making assumptions about her or being so rude and dismissive.
Prabhupada was once asked “What if your wrong and there is no God”.
The response I recall i read was.
He said “if I live my life as if God exists and He doesn’t then what have I lost? But if I live my life as if He doesn’t exist and He does, then I’ll lose everything”
I’ve never put a title solely on it. I have a Hare Krishna Kavacha with the Narashima Prayer of a protection inside it. With the St Benedict metal of protection next to it around my neck.
I literally have been asked my views from friends so I started journaling it a few months ago 😂
‘The big juju up the mountain’ is a pretty racist way to talk about the religious practices of ‘central Africa’. Like…that’s a lot of different peoples and countries all smushed together and dismissed in one wilfully ignorant statement. I mean, I didn’t expect better, but wow.
No less racist than Christianity violently subjugating native colonized nations while also simultaneously keeping them destitute, defenseless and persecuted for hundreds of years and blaming them for everything. I don't think the scales are in your favor on this point.
It's literally the version of a religion in Africa at a point in time mate. You could do some fucking research before jumping on your high horse. He was literally citing several religious beliefs from different times and places.
Comments
- machine learning requires finite resources
- all-powerful beings have no conceivable reason to care about human welfare or values
- any intelligence sufficiently smarter than us will bypass its prime directive in ways we never considered
- information from the distant past is inferred and not known to be recoverable
- the fullest nature of reality is known to be elusive. it's presumptuous to assume even a perfect intellect could understand it
In fact, at least one keeps sending pairs of corvids around and I wish he'd stop. Trickster gods make me nervous.
The correct and only answer for a scientist can be: I would change my mind.
Instead he got defensive for no reason.
But he’s a man so that’s ok isn’t it?
🤷♀️🙄
Most, simply become atheist. A few, by percentage, change faith.
The same people who taught you about Santa Claus and Reindeer and the Easter Bunny, told you about an invisible man.
If your faith gives you reason and purpose, that’s great for you and I have no issues with it.
The moment you try to push the tenants of your faith on me, however, we’re gonna have problems
Most theories of cosmology now predict a super-duper large universe or multiverse.
In such a large place there are almost certain to be other intelligent beings and civilisations.
But if they wanted to tell us (or at least some of us) they could. If they wanted to occasionally suspend the rules of the sim to impress at least some of us, they could.
However, if someone chooses to believe in Christ, Mohammed, Buddha or the Juju up the mountain, let them believe WHATEVER s/he chooses.
Who is anyone to tell person of faith that they are wrong when we cannot prove that they are?
That's all I had to hear .
Nobody can prove if any god exists. So by default, accept the answer "I don't know", and in so accepting, no lies are perpetuated.
Spinoza’s ‘god’ is making more and more sense!!!
Me? Personally?
"What if I'm wrong? What if you're wrong?!"
That is sophistry. The classical term is "accusation in a mirror."
Bill Nye, Carl Sagan, and Neil Degrasse Tyson all have answered that very question MUCH BETTER AND MORE DIRECTLY.
The. Balance. Of. Mother. Forking. Probabilities.
My answer to climate sceptics is-
"If we are wrong then all we did was stop destroying the planet and made it a nicer place for all of us to live in.BUT if you are wrong then we're all dead and that's forever"
There is no point in explaining the scientific method to a god-botherer. Science is not the problem.
Pointing out that monotheists are atheists of all but one divinity is a rational, and useful point. As was his anti-exceptionalism.
As both an educator and former "god-botherer", I couldn't disagree more.
https://bsky.app/profile/nifftycydonia.bsky.social/post/3lnaovs657c2t
That's not a thoughtful argument. That's whataboutism. I hear maga pull that garbage all the time.
He could have just said "then I'm wrong".
I do think in his answer he could’ve added that being wrong requires evidence that invalidates a claim. So being wrong means having evidence for the deity we’re talking about.
There's nothing past present or future quantifiable about this invisible sky faerie who isn't good with money.
The question can answer itself, if he's wrong he's wrong.
Our being born into societies with biases is real but nothing to do with what he was asked.
He pointed out that in the context of the question, "what if you're wrong" is a loaded, biased question, with a not-so-hidden built-in assumption -- essentially claiming privileged status for an equivalent, equally unlikely assumption.
Words mean things, y'all. Look them up sometime.
You may disagree with the way he answered, you may find it condescending, you may say he didn't "actually answer the question," but it is NOT whataboutism.
We must not have watched the same clip.
Please be an authority before you act as an authority.
The problems begin when religion ignores scientific knowledge.
Carl Sagan wrote "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I'll go with that.
I prefer what Bertrand Russell said:
Believe it if it's true
Don't believe it if it's not true
If there's no evidence either way, suspend judgement.
That was a great answer because it's true.
You choose to believe the character in the book existed
The bible is the CLAIM not the evidence
But when it comes to all things pertaining to the origins of the cosmos, no living scientist knows the answer to that question.
Humility consists of being able to say "I don't really know". Seems to me Dawkins failed the humility test.
I LOVE his response.
He didn't actually answer the question, but deflected and then asked it straight back again.
There was no point in his response.
(Fuck I hope I’m not missing some bad shit about Sagan too, ya never know these days lol)
His answer is belittling, snide, an attack...he did not answer the question.
When The Real Popes Came To Power
https://www.academia.edu/37008493/When_The_Real_Popes_Came_To_Power_odt
Regarding The Jewish Proof Texts
https://pisoproject.wordpress.com/regarding-the-jewish-proof-texts/
https://www.academia.edu/10920856/Arrius_Calpurnius_Piso_aka_The_NT_Jesus_In_The_Talmud
https://secularhumanism.org/2022/10/the-manipulation-of-morality-how-religion-co-opts-american-identity/
Economics is a science, based upon testable theory.
Marx's grasp of economics was on a par with Jesus' - they saw capital rather than submission to ideology as the driver of inequality.
https://www.academia.edu/48904951/Lord_Byron_And_The_Inner_Circle
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33386506-the-harm-done-by-religion
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/150531-religion-science-faith-healing-atheism-people-ngbooktalk
a #dress 😐
https://www.ipsos.com/en/global-study-shows-half-think-religion-does-more-harm-good
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/faith-and-foolishness/
How Corporate America Invented Religious America
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/corporate-america-invented-religious-right-conservative-roosevelt-princeton-117030/
'One Nation Under God' (How Corporate America Invented Christian America)
https://history.princeton.edu/about/publications/one-nation-under-god-how-corporate-america-invented-christian-america
https://www.kcba.org/?pg=News-Bar-Bulletin&blAction=showEntry&blogEntry=102518
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/13/christian_fundamentalism_is_a_capitalism_invention_the_secret_history_of_american_religion_partner
https://www.rawstory.com/tammy-faye-and-jim-bakker/
New Testament Joke: 'The Lump'
https://www.academia.edu/14864199/New_Testament_Joke_The_Lump
Human Dung Jokes In The New Testament
https://www.academia.edu/15028710/Human_Dung_Jokes_In_The_NT
https://www.academia.edu/10920856/Arrius_Calpurnius_Piso_aka_The_NT_Jesus_In_The_Talmud
Ancestry Of King Herod Back To 'Adam'
https://www.academia.edu/119985912/Ancestry_Of_King_Herod_Back_To_Adam
Regarding The Jewish Proof Texts
https://pisoproject.wordpress.com/regarding-the-jewish-proof-texts/
Regarding The Jewish Proof Texts (Hidden Proof Of Deliberate Fraud)
https://www.academia.edu/122281381/Regarding_The_Jewish_Proof_Texts_Edited
It also benefits the grifters who always resort to colorful variations on the theme of “GOD wants you to make ME rich”
https://www.amazon.com/MOSTLY-HARMFUL-Things-Everyone-Religion/dp/B08JJ2MSNV
@michaelpaulkovich.bsky.social
How Psychopaths Use Religion
https://www.academia.edu/14933278/How_Psychopaths_Use_Religion
Religion Harm Studies List:
https://pisoproject.wordpress.com/religion-harm-studies/
22 Unique Traits Of Religious People
https://www.academia.edu/98605644/Unique_Traits_Of_Religious_People
https://www.academia.edu/11700558/Point_Of_Rational_Thought
Books & Research Papers of Roman Piso
https://pisoproject.wordpress.com/
"He loves you and he needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes and they always need a little more. Now you talk about a good bullshit story"
EXCELLENT WRITER!!!
a dominion over your life.
Your Karma is still yours..
The fact there are different religions in different areas of the world tells me that many people, from distinctly different cultures, realize there is something greater than us, & they bow in reverence to the Creator of all.
Your bias (in favor of Dawkins) being triggered is rather telling though.
The moron supported a fascist and is anti-trans. He deserves to be castigated.
You're either lying about your biases, or you agree with his positions.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/juju
I think Dawkins own inability to see that one could believe in all the Gods is part of my problem w/his response though.
He's correct. Where you were born and what your parents believe, generally dictate your beliefs.
Until you read your scripture for yourself and dump religion altogether.
Sagan was brilliant and Dawkins just cosplays as someone brilliant
Not Christian, but if it turned out I was wrong…
I’d be like “well I am honestly shocked, but fair enough.”
Ditto JuJu at the bottom of the sea.
So he made her answer.
I am interested is what his reaction would actually be if he was wrong - for the comedy value.
🌊🇺🇸🇺🇦🌈🟧🌍💙
Oh well, I’m sure it’ll only FEEL like an eternity
It is a mixture of equivoxation, false equivalence, and big dollop of strawman, all mixed into a meandering word salad.
How y'all think this guy is a genius is simply baffling.
My own experiences just made me beyond certain of it
Jesus in your head watching your thoughts.
It taught me to consider the option that the question may not be criticism as much as it is an exploration to potentially escape.
Zoroaster of Persia, Baal of Phoenicia.
He repeated the question verbatim for clarity.
Then, rephrased it to expand how her question can be applied to several other faiths.
And he finished with a long winded, & politely English way to say, “Your question is silly.”
For the record saying a question can be "applied to other faiths" is not an answer. It is avoiding.
https://bsky.app/profile/sunnyweatherdaze.bsky.social/post/3lncfu2v2k22y
Go away, you anon sea lion.
If you are unable to engage in intellectual debate don't try.
"What if only 1,999 of the 2,000 gods you don't believe in aren't real?"
Which also assumes that merely CHOOSING the right god is enough. What if the only people who god likes belong to some weird pseudo-Christian cult in South Korea you've never heard of?
Want to keep the circle going?
If they really want to stick with that, they should look at the ones Dawkins mentioned and what God did for the Jews in Egypt.
JC is AntiNazis
Each has varying beliefs, even what is a sacrament, and who is a Christian
And if they pick a version, then I ask what subsets of that
….
Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk.
It seems to reveal some insecurity. Is someone who thinks it's all bullshit more of a threat than someone who simply believes in other gods?
If one uses the likely end point which is "no deity", atheist is a logical conclusion. However one cannot actually prove "no deity" anymore than you can prove there is a "deity". So using your lame argument, all religious are liars.
The last time I had someone ask my religion & I said agnostic 'cause no proof, they still tried to explain why I was "wrong".
That's it.
There is no normative claim associated with it.
If you don't we've no argument.
But you walked in the thread preaching.
Dun look like it when all this shit that’s going on is going on in the name of Christianity.
I keep seeing people on TV screaming how Christian they are as they pick up weapons of destruction and murder people they think are not Christians.
Of whom do you speak?
Just wondering who is "he".
What if you’re fucking stupid?
The response I recall i read was.
He said “if I live my life as if God exists and He doesn’t then what have I lost? But if I live my life as if He doesn’t exist and He does, then I’ll lose everything”
.
What if you pick the wrong god?
I believe in the idea we have our own personal relationship with whomever we see as our Spiritual Guide.
At the end of the day when we lay to bed, did we stay true to our path?
I literally have been asked my views from friends so I started journaling it a few months ago 😂
I am an Amalgamationist Buddhist
I am. At least, I think I am.
And generalized ALL religions.
His point had nothing to do with Africa. He's saying we could ALL be wrong. If anything it's targeting Christianity.
It's not racist. 💀 There's just no reason why 1 God is more "real" than any other thing people believe in.