Comments by "" (@louistournas120) on "Майкл Шермер: Почему люди верят в странные вещи" video.

People who use their feelings and intuition tend to believe none sense while people who are more analytical tend to question everything and are less religious. That's pretty much why scientists tend to be less religious compared to the general population. Note: I am not talking about intelligence. I am talking about how one approaches questions.
41
Gerry C : Can you provide the source for your information?
5
@biffalobull2335 “Being a bigot against religion is equal to be a racist against a person of color“ ==I understand racism. It means to treat an entire group of people a certain way, usually by taking away their human rights, because of their skin color (usually it is about skin color). Most people think that it is unfair to not grant them certain right based on that, so they made the word racism to describe this situation. “We always tell children to ‘find your way’ and ‘think things through’ rather than blindly accepting what their parents teach them.” ==That’s good. So, this means that we are both thinking things through and yet, we ended up with a different view. That’s the find that I wonder about. If we are all thinking things through, if we are all logical and looking at the evidence, then how can humans end up claiming that multiple religions are true? “Then when they do and determine for themselves that an Intelligent Being is the most logical conclusion, individuals like yourselves try to Poo Poo it” ==I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that I should not talk about christianity? Or are you saying that I am not doing it correctly? “That’s bigotry.” ==Can you modify what I wrote to make it non biguous? “If you want logic, try explaining why it’s racist to say 13% of the population commits 50% of the crime” ==I have heard this claim before. I have not verified it however, if it is a fact, then by my logic, it is not racist to talk about facts. “Or why it’s homophobic to explain chromosomes” ==What?
3
You can generalize it further: if you believe in an omnipotent omnipresent omniscient god, then you will believe anything and everything is possible. 1. Santa Claus? Yes 2. Superman? Yes 3. Smurfs? Yes 4. 2 + 2 = 5? Yes (I saw a video where a christian girl said that if god tells her 2+2 = 5, she will believe it)
3
@biffalobull2335 I understand that you are upset but that is the way it is with words. Over time, words change meaning and society evolves as well. I understand that in the case of LGBT and traditional christian society, there is quite a bit of friction but there isn’t much you can do since modern society has decided to be respectful to this minority group and give them rights. For example, if a person is born with a male body but mentally feels like a woman, he can get an operation. And I’m fine with that but I can see that it bothers some christians. Medicine will always advance. New methods will always be developed. It is up to them to get the operation that they wish. Why are you against it? “You’re nutty, and that’s not my opinion but logic based on what you’ve provided as evidence” ==It is your opinion and you are being offensive. Is that the kind of upbringing you get in your christian families in the USA?
3
@PlubusDomis : "1st Law of Thermodynamics - "matter or energy, cannot be created or destroyed, they can only change."" ==That's not what the 1st law of Thermodynamics says. Let's take a look at what it actually says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics ===The law of conservation of energy.=== "This states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. However, energy can change forms, and energy can flow from one place to another. A particular consequence of the law of conservation of energy is that the total energy of an isolated system does not change." Thermodynamics is limited to how energy behaves. The idea of conservation of mass comes from chemistry. New compounds can be made through chemical reactions but new mass is not created and mass is not destroyed during chemical reactions. ^^^^^^Those come from classical physics. In modern physics, it is understood that mass can be converted to energy Example 1: during chemical reactions but this not measurable since the mass change is so small. Example 2: During fission or fusion of nuclei Example 3: when a particle and anti-particle encounter each other, they annihilate each other, 2 photons are produced. Example 4: When a photon of sufficient energy passes through a strong electric field, a particle and anti-particle is created and the photon is annihilated. "The Big Bang was confirmed True by the cosmic background radiation in space, telling us our universe was Not always here. So the beginning of our universe breaks the first natural Law with a fantastic explosion of material, light, and energy all from absolutely nothing. This is only logical by a supernatural force. Supernatural only meaning superior to what is natural; An entity separate from our logic." ==No, you are way off. That is not what the Big Bang theory says. The Big Bang theory does not say that it violates any known Physics or Chemistry laws. I'm not sure where you are getting your information from but that source is wrong.
3
@biffalobull2335 The story is one thing. Logic is another thing. I am just using logic. There are million if creatures around the world. What wrong have they committed? There are lots of human babies and also fetuses. What wrong have they committed? There are lots of 1 y olds, 2 year olds. What wrong have they committed? There are lots of 20 y olds. What wrong have they committed? What have they done to deserve to be executed by drowning?
2
@biffalobull2335 Well, you didn’t really respond to my questions. Also, looks like youtube deleted your comment bc you are being disrespectful. “The Scripture goes out of its way to explain the wickedness of man from the Garden to the Flood” ==You think that everyone is wicked, 5 y olds, 1 y olds, babies, fetuses, all 20 y old and all creatures from every species? “Besides, you’re just when it comes to Christianity and other religions.” ==Why do you say that I am a bigot? I am just using logic and asking you a question. The goal is to make you think for yourself rather than just believing a piece of text.
2
Gerry C I'm still waiting.
2
@Samara V Hamilton : "I agree. I was hoping for some insight into anti-vaxxers.... Still a good talk, though" ==From what I understand, the reason is related to a pediatrician who claimed that vaccines cause autism. What he wrote was popularized. His research (or whatever he wrote) was flawed. Too late. The news has spread into the wild (the population). Since there is already a certain part of the population who doubt their government (in the USA) and Big pharmaceutical companies, they latched on to that info. With the internet, that info spread across the world. Some of the anti-vaxxers are very religious and believe with prayer, problems can be solved. There was a case where the parents prayed for their kid instead of taking him to the doctor. He died. Then a couple of years later, the 2nd kid was sick and they prayed. He died. The parents were charged and sentence to jailtime. There was a case in the UK where a kid died of the measles. Usually, group immunity protects the non-vaxxed kid but in this case, he was somehow infected. Home remedies and prayers did not save the kid.
2
Pierre LeDouche : "As far as the idea of intelligent design, all it takes to debunk any hypothesis is to note that there's no scientifically valid evidence to support it. It's the duty of the person asserting the hypothesis to produce scientifically testable evidence of its validity. This is how science works, and so-called intelligent design is a hypothesis that claims to be scientific." ==I understand that you don't accept intelligent design (and neither do I) but ID proponents don't seem to understand what science is. Science is a philosophy. It is a naturalistic philosophy. The idea is to explain nature and forgo our biases whether they are political, religious, personal. If a "god" did design something, that is not science. It belongs in a history book. If I design an automobile long ago, it belongs in a history book. Perhaps it can be discussed in an engineering textbook. If I design a new genome, it would be of interest to biologists. They would be interested in my technique and equipment. Since ID does not even discuss their "god" nor his methods and tools, it is of no interest to anyone. It is just a political tactic to insert religion into biology.
2
@PlubusDomis : "Must I really go on with more science? I thought I already said enough. Okay, since you asked! Most people bring up the Miller-Urey experiment and similar procedures to" ==Hello, I received a notification that started with that text but I am not seeing your post here. I didn't bring up the Miller-Urey experiment but I assume what you want to tell me is: 1. It was a failure because it did not form a cell 2. It formed 11 out of the 20 amino acids but this is of no interest to biologists. It did not form proteins, enzymes, DNA, RNA, mitochondria and other cell structures. 3. It was a racemic mixture of amino acids. L and D isomers were produced, with a 50-50 presence. I have have heard in a creationist show that this is death and not life since when a creature dies, the L isomers slowly change until an equilibrium is attained (a 50-50 racemic mixture). 4. Oxygen was not added as one of the gases. If oxygen was added, no amino acids would be produced since oxygen preferentially binds to the CH4, NH3, H2 and you end up with CO2, N2, H2O. 5. They were guessing as to what the conditions of early Earth was like. Nobody was there to witness early Earth, therefore, they were guessing and guesses are not allowed in science. I think that just about covers the points that creationists bring up as to the Miller-Urey experiment.
2
@dspitze "Like believing a Covid vaccine that requires you to still wear a mask and you can still get hospitalized actually works" ==The vaccine doesn't require that you wear a mask. We wear a mask since CV-19 is a highly communicable disease. Yes, you can still get sick and get hospitalized. Sorry if that disappoints you but in some people, there isn't enough antibody buildup. Human chemistry varies from person to person. Now you know why you should still wear a mask. You reduce the chances of spreading the v and catching the v.
1
@ralphholiman7401 “One of the reasons so many people are so fervent about climate change, covid and politics is that it is their substitute for religion and they get the same thing out of it.” ==If someone refuses to accept global warming or accepts it, it isn’t a substitute for religion. There are no silly rituals with global warming, there are no prayers to alien beings who are in hiding, no holy places being build to honor an alien, there isn’t a singular leader acting as the ultimate voice of perfection. It is a matter of whether you want to accept the collected evidence and how you compare it to the past. In the case of politics, the case for Donald Trump, Erdogan of Turkey, Illiam something from Azerbaijan, the president of Uzbekistan are cult like figures. They are regarded as the single solution to their problems. They are regarded as always correct even when it is observable that what they say is wrong.
1
@ralphholiman7401 Perhaps there was a miscommunication. Are you saying that issues like climate change, COVID are the new religion?
1
@ralphholiman7401 I’m not sure what you mean when you say that COVID-19 is a substitute for religion. There was a large faction of the population which was having doubts whether this virus existed, some stated that they doubt that any virus exists, some stated that there is no evidence that any viruses do any harm. Some are conspiracy theorists and think that everything is planned. Some mentioned the Georgia guidestones. Some were saying that it is the mark of the beast (Book of Revelations). Some, like Jim Bakker the teleevangelist was selling snakeoil, such as silver colloid. Some were convinced that businesses and schools would be shut down forever. All this fear seems to come from people who are christian. The Book of Revelation is a cornerstone in their religion, so they are being careful to avoid the devil. The amount of nonsense was flying all over the place while people’s health was being damaged so Youtube and other media companies decided to take away people’s rights to freedom of speech. So, it isn’t COVID-19 that is a new religion. It is christianity that is just guiding people to make poor decisions. More specifically, it is the internet community and some priests. There is nothing in the Bible about COVID-19.
1
@mangs9940 Yes, I was generalizing. That’s what statistics are for. Statistics tell us about trends. They give us clues as to what is going on. Of course there are plenty of scientists that are religious. There was an article on the Huffington Post that shows that countries with the best standards of living are the most atheist. This makes sense since when life is hard, people with very little solutions are desperate and they lean on religion as a crutch. For sure, the old days, thousands of years ago, life was much harder. The converse is also true. The easier life gets, the more engineering solutions, the more technological solutions, the more medical solutions there are, the less humans need the god-aliens to help them out. The less science savvy a person is, the more gaps he has in his knowledge and the more likely it is that he will be a young earth creationist. However, there was one university professor, a chemist, that they showed that was a young earth creationist. There was a 2009 statisitc from Pew that shows: 95% of the general public state that they believe in a god. 5% of the general public DO NOT. 51% of scientists state that they believe in a god. 48% of scientists DO NOT. We count don’t know since they are not stating that they believe in a god. (Survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science) There was some statistic on Nasonline, also on wikipeda and also on Nature: Among the members of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, 7% believed in the existence of God, 72.2% did not, and 20.8% were agnostic or had doubts. I just put people who say they are agnostic in the non-believer group. So, you have 7% believers vs 93% non-believers. Definitely, in the scientific community, there are far less believers than the general population.
1
@biffalobull2335 It depends on the god. The j people believe that their god is real and that he created Adam and Eve and this god permits himself to punish them for eating a magical fruit that gives knowledge of good and evil. He also kills innocent people and creatures with a global flood. Currently, there are billions of people who think that such actions are moral.
1
@biffalobull2335 “Nice attempt at ‘I don’t understand’” ==You see to suggest that I am not being genuine with my words. “Pretty simple stuff. It’s not logical but it’s prevalent thinking.” ==OK and what do you want me to do about it? We don’t have the technology, some equipment to connect to Driver 1’s brain and see if the reason why he cut off Driver 2 is because of skin color. Since there isn’t evidence that this was a case of racism, the switch stays in the default position: not guilty. If there is some supporting evidence, such as Driver 1 has made some racist comments in the past, then a lawyer can argue that this car related event was motivated by racism and a judge can decide if it is racism. “That way you won’t be in doubt anymore” ==I didn’t say that I have doubts. It is something that comes up during documentaries about crimes, it comes up on the news and elsewhere. At this point in time, would you like me to check it for myself? I thought we were talking about the tanakh or the Bible and maybe how being godless leads to immorality.
1
@biffalobull2335 “Your definition of racism is from the 60s and your analysis is not based in reality” ==Word definitions are quite flexible. I find that it varies from person to person. For example, when someone uses the word spiritual, I ask them what it means to them. Some of them explain while some of them respond with “You know what it means and you are pretending not to know” and then I have to respond with “the definition varies and that is why I ask him and yet, they don’t provide their definition. For the question of racism: I have had that experience recently when someone said there is no such thing as race and he linked me to a video. I watched it entirely. It is from a geneticist. I pointed him to the later parts of the video where the geneticist gives an important conclusion. Although there isn’t a clear cut set of genes that tell us that such and such is asian, such and such is from african descent, such and such is a native of north america, there is a certain set of genes that appear with a higher frequency in certain populations. Essentially, what that means is that race is a real notion. We can all see it with our eyes when we look at the shape of a human skull and genetics backs it up. There is a certain episode of the Eye of Nye, starring Bill Nye the science guy. A certain geneticist shows that genetics does not support the notion of race but I think she had only measured the presence of 4 genes. I don’t think that is enough. For eye color, only one gene controls eye color. For the notion of race, I don’t know but there must be plenty that control skull shape and other features. I have heard someone claim that math is a european thing. Racism is real but in order to fight it, it is making some people insane. By insane, I mean that their belief is not matching up with reality/observation. Truth is subjective? Maybe. It is clear that word definitions are subjective. If you want to base the definition of race on the presence of 4 genes and you conclude that race doesn’t exist, then that is true. If you want to define race via the presence of 50 genes, maybe then you will conclude that race does exist. If you want to define a corvette as a certain structure and if I remove a certain screw, then maybe it is no longer a corvette. What is a woman? Is it defined by the 23 chromosome pair? Is it define by the brain? Is it defined by the genital organs? When a baby is born, hospitals use the genitals to declare a baby as male or female. But the baby grows up and maybe he feels like a woman. Then it turns into a legal battle since society’s definition of male and female is based on genitals at the hospital. Merry Christmas to you!
1
@biffalobull2335 I try to understand different people’s point of view. Some people have a christian background and from their point of view, a person is either male or female and they claim that this is determined only by the 23 chromosome pair. This was something that was though in biology class as well. I’m not talking about all christians, since there are various sects of christianity, and perhaps in each sect, the opinions are not uniform either. Some christians that think you are born as a male or female, based on genitals and that the genitals reflect what role a person should play. They also tend to have a problem with homosexuality since there are lines about it in their Bible. For most people, it is not a problem since they are heterosexual and they are male and have male organs or they have female organs and they are heterosexual and are comfortable in their bodies. It is only a problem for minority groups since they might be born into one of those christian families or village or city. It turns their lives upside down. Then, there is the authority, such as the federal government. For example, in Canada and in the USA, the government decided that homosexuals deserve the same rights as everyone else and should be allowed to marry. But what about democracy? Shouldn’t it be put to a vote? Shouldn’t the christian groups win and choose how people live their life? “In fact you’ve not only boarded the train to La La Land, you’ve already arrived and purchased a house there” ==I understand your POV. I understand that you are upset. Lots of people are upset. So what should I do? Should I claim that only heterosexual males and heterosexual females exist and join your group?
1
@biffalobull2335 “If words and meanings are fluid to the point we don’t know if a person is a man or a woman, then you’re a moron” ==I never said that we don’t know if a person is a man or a woman.
1
@biffalobull2335 What do you mean by wokie? What do you lean towards? Do you define a man and woman only via chromosome?
1
@biffalobull2335 Ok, looks like woke is a united statian thing. Are you in the USA? Which church are you a part of? “But you’re still nutty so I have no allusions here of making any inroads” ==You are being offensive. I recommend that you treat people with respect. After all, I am not calling you names, am I?
1
What's a relativist?
1