Comments by "" (@louistournas120) on "Джулия Свини о покидании Бога" video.
-
3
-
2
-
1
-
@janetbeatrice9505
"to imply that someone cannot be religious and reason is rude and insulting."
==Religious people can reason and I find that calling people "stupid" doesn't do anything for the conversation but you have to admit that some religions have some pretty bizarre things in them.
Let's take an example. Scientology:
1. This religion states that we have souls. [There is no evidence for that but its not bizarre for me.]
2. An intergallactic warlord 's planet was overpopulated. Also, their cities look exactly like Earth's 1950 cities back when Lafayette Ron Hubbard wrote his stuff. [I have to be honest. My bullshit senses are tingling.]
3. 75 trillion years ago the warlord brings them to Earth in space ships that look like DC10 planes with rockets mounted on them. [DC10 planes? Why Earth? Was it the closest planet?]
4. He freezes the aliens I think and dumps them in volcanoes and blows up hydrogen bombs.
In a religion like mormonism, Joseph Smith talks about other planets. The "god" is near a star or planet called Kolob. The Sun gets its light from another star.
He doesn't talk about rockets, interstellar travel, hydrogen bombs, DC10 planes.
In very old religions like judaism, you have no mention of other planets, no hydrogen bombs, no technology. You have lines that talk about gold, copper, brass, trumpets, fire, swords in the tanakh.
It is bizarre that judaism doesn't mention other planets, rockets, interstellar travel, hydrogen bombs, DC10 planes.
Is it possible that the creators of these religions write about the things they know and can conceptualize?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GMC-qo9xi :
"‘faith’ is actually a real thing like in the same vein as say ‘love’"
==I know what love is but What is faith?
There is physical evidence for love. By physical, I mean made of atoms.
First off, we need a human brain. The human brain is where human thought, logic, vision processing, sound processing, memory,
emotions happen. When a person is in love with something, he would take actions accordingly. If he/she loves someone, he/she takes
actions accordingly.
Also, in principle there would be evidence in the neuronal connections but right now, we don't understand the human brain that
well.
"God is found through spirit, not a microscope... Love for example would be a much better tool for detecting traces of ‘God’ than
say the Hubble telescope?"
==How would you determine if what you have found are gods as opposed to just "feelings"?
I'm don't thing that feelings are the best way to determine what is real and what is not real.
Reality should be something observable by anybody.
That's why in the science domain, people argue and debate but in the end, when enough evidence piles up, the explanations for them
slowly become accepted. When a model in science has the ability to explain and make predictions that can be tested, we call this a
good model.
"before countering arguing the numerous weaknesses in my words, that science itself tells us that ‘everything’ comes from
‘nothing’—or an infinitesimally small dot."
==Science doesn't state that everything comes from nothing.
Perhaps you are talking about Lawrence Krauss's book. He explains that stuff in his book, I believe on page 5.
The Big Bang theory postulates that since space is expanding, then logically, going back in time, space was more compact and
possibly crushed into a very tiny dot.
"Science without these ‘things’ is completely limited or cut off at the knees when it comes to describing spirit and spiritual
things like God."
==Unfortunately, I do not know what spirit is. It isn't something that is demonstrated in the sciences.
"Humans are spiritual being living in a physical reality, anyone who can’t accept this (that we are truly spiritual) cannot see
anything beyond the physical."
==I'm not sure why some humans have a need for "beyond the physical". Perhaps the physical world is hard to understand. Perhaps it
is hard to work with. Perhaps it does things that you have no control over, such as death and pure chance.
That's something that you would have to explain to me.
"And whose to say that spirit and science are in any kind of opposition? Science just hasn’t discovered a way to effectively
‘observe’ or even define what spirit is (thank God). Science just needs a few more tools in the box (like faith.)"
==Faith is a tool? Explain how a scientist would use it?
"The ultimate irony, being that children would have a better chance of proving/observing God than any of the tools of science do.
(Ie. Innocence/purity, simplicity, unfettered by the ‘ways’ of man—corruption, etc...) Be therefore ‘like’ children should you
wish to see the kingdom of God."
==I don't know if what you said is true or not. Can it be demonstrated in some way?
1
-
@GMC-qo9xi :
"has to be accepted through faith (/trust/being ‘like’ a child)"
==So you define faith as trusting what another person says.
But who are we talking about? Trust who exactly?
I don't randomly trust what other people say, even if they are a group of people.
For example, when they predict what the weather will be like for tomorrow, I trust that it is most likely correct.
I expect meteorologist to behave professionally. It is a profession. It requires education and skill.
They take ground measurements of pressure, temperature, air flow, they take satellite images to track large bodies of air flow and they use computer models.
It is a subset of physics and it is well understood.
So, I know that people who understand the behavior of the Earth's atmosphere work on the problem of predicting the future and they get it right about 90% of the time. 70% for the next day. 50% for the next day. 30% accuracy for the next day.
When you are talking about trust, you must mean trust in someone. Who is that someone?
Since you are quoting the Bible, I guess it is the people who wrote the Bible.
What Luke 10:21 says, is not something verifiable.
1
-
@GMC-qo9xi :
"did you read Luke 10:21?"
==This is Luke 10:21 NIV version
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have
hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were
pleased to do.
What are you trying to tell me with Luke 10:21?
"however, for spiritual things we shall turn to spirit"
==What is a spirit?
I base what I believe in on as much evidence as possible.
Reading a book is fine but the ideas they present have to be verifiable, reliable, testable.
For example, I cannot verify if Jesus is full of joy.
In fact, it is pretty irrelevant.
I cannot verify if Jesus said "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth .........".
Let's say I give it the benefit of the doubt and Jesus spoke those words.
The question is:
1. Is Jesus really talking to a god?
2. I know that there is an Earth. By heaven, is he talking about space or some other dimension?
3. Does the "god" really hide these things from the wise and learned? Is he talking about Isaac Newton?
The bible is basically a piece of paper and ink. Anybody can buy paper and ink and write whatever they wish.
Anybody can get webspace and write whatever they want on their website.
You shouldn't just believe anything without verification.
Most importantly, you should ask questions.
"Seek understanding, use your intelligence to navigate the lies from the truth."
==Sure, I don't have a problem with that.
The difference between you and me is that you think the Bible is entirely factual and I do not.
How come we have come to different conclusions?
I think you already answered it:
You trust the people who wrote the Bible.
So, why do you trust them when other people who were there did not trust him?
1
-
@GMC-qo9xi :
"the system of verification you use to filter out baloney is admirable and obviously makes sense. However, at the same time of filtering out some useless noise, it is still not a reliable method to always ensure truth. For example, does it have the ability to cut through its own bias? Is it not self protecting and automatically rejecting anything that doesn’t fit within its preconditions?"
==Yes, it is pretty important in science to have a strong filter. The job of the filter is to block bad information, unverifiable claims.
Without a filter, everything gets in and pollutes the books of science.
Since science is done by humans, individual humans have their own biases. That may be political, it may be religion, it might be that the human has developed an idea that he likes or thinks is true.
In order to deal with that, it is necessary that any other peer be able to verify the work.
But even that does not guarantee that the filters of science will work.
There is no 100% guarantee.
So, the solution that you are proposing is to eliminate the filter?
Should we go with faith in science?
How would that make science superior to science without faith in gods?
1
-
@GMC-qo9xi :
"LoL, I’m actually saying you cannot find the answers that deal with spirit through the scientific method. And that cracking the mystery of God is truly what man’s purpose is. So the person that puts all their eggs in that basket (the science alone one) is essentially missing the point. Though I say it’s admirable to have a rigid filter like you describe, that filter is not necessarily going to serve you well when seeking the answers to origins of man and the universe... "
==I can't agree that that is human's purpose.
I think that science is the best way to determining how reality functions. The inductive method is what is currently used in science (Collect data, build a model, explain the situation, make predictions. This becomes the initial hypothesis.).
The previous way was to use the deductive method which basically means sitting in a chair and thinking about how reality operates. Although that is nice, in the end, data must be gathered from reality.
I'm not sure how you are going to determine how many gods there are, what they do, where they are located, and various other details.
Perhaps you can explain your methodology.
"You can clone life and bring back the wooly mammoth from extinction with science, you cannot however discover the true purpose or source of life through it."
==I would use the word purpose in certain situations such as
1. The watch. Humans invented the mechanical/digital watch in order to keep track of time.
2. A painting. An artist draws a painting. The reason is that he likes to pain certain scenery. An art admirer buys it. The purpose of the painting is entertainment.
I don't see the mountains as having a purpose. Same goes to all natural phenomenon. I think nature is a mindless thing. It has no purpose.
I can understand your POV. You think that everything is artificial and so, they have purpose (Some sort of utility).
"If ‘the filter’ automatically just filters all of this out [ie. b/c its preconditions are not met] then you can be sure that the filter is not serving you, but is serving something/someone else"
==I think what you mean to say is that the filter is blocking something that is true.
It certainly is possible that some things are true and there is no verifiable data yet.
That is why the books of science remain opens.
I think the best time to believe that some "thing" exists or something is true is when it can be verified and not before.
^^^^^^^^I am talking about the default position here. The default position is non belief as to the existence of gods.
The same kind of concept is present in science.
The same kind of concept is present in criminology: not guilty until proven guilty.
The prosecution and his team have to put in the work to bring evidence that Mr X did the crime rather than Mr X proving that he is innocent.
"Consider the previous example in light of quantum theory. It contains a theory called the ‘observer effect’, which scientists have shown that observation, even passive observation changes the outcome of a phenomenon."
==It's not an observer effect. Some people have misunderstood the interference experiment. It has nothing to do with consciousness. Interacting with an electron (which has wave behavior) changes its behavior.
There is no indication that reality is subjective or that we are creating reality.
"Again consider, love and hate. When hate (dark) is used as the perspective for observing a situation or phenomenon you might conclude that something is bad, regardless of whether or not it is inherently bad and vice a versa with love (light) as the perspective. This is like faith. When faith is part of the equation you can actually change the outcome. Like optimism, it can improve the outcome of a phenomenon... BUT everything has its opposite to counter it, for where faith doesn’t exist you will have doubt, where love doesn’t exist you will have hate, etc... everything of this nature appears to be in a sort of vacuum. If you are not full of one thing you will be full of its other.... but in reality it’s usually a combination of both elements that are in constant flux"
==I don't understand. Perhaps you can give an example.
So what is your plan for heaven. What will you be doing?
1
-
@GMC-qo9xi :
"Seek and you will find, ask and you will receive, knock and the door will be opened... to me this is directly encouraging us (from the gospel) to ‘learn’, to seek knowledge and understanding as our primary goal/instinct."
==To you, those lines have value.
To me, they don't have any value at all since they are far too general and not giving usuable information.
Do you really need some other human to tell you to learn, to seek knowledge?
It is in human nature to be curious. It is also present in other animals.
I don't know. It is a huge planet with 6 billion people. Perhaps in your case you aren't curious about the world around you.
I can understand that there are some humans who have problems that get in their way: they need clothes, food, medicine.
What is your excuse? You have a PC. You have a library nearby. You have access to a higher education.
"I was an atheist and very cynical about anything supernatural, it was only after been shown that science didn’t really have any of the pertinent answers (origins, purpose, etc...) that I assumed it had."
==I was a christian and I realized that primitive man did not have all the answers and they developed the answers as they saw fit to them. Death is difficult to accept for any sentient being and so, they began believing in having souls at some point. Different cultures developed their own creation myths, their own gods.
The core of all religions is THE SOUL. All the rest is just icing on the cake.
People just don't want to die. They don't want to suffer. They don't want their loved ones to suffer. So, they dream of a utopia.
(Note: I don't know the details of every religion but the ones that I know about have the concept of the "soul".)
I also learned that people who use the term supernatural have no idea what it is. It is just a word that gets thrown around. The most I have gotten is "above nature". Fine, but is there anything observable?
"science didn’t really have any of the pertinent answers (origins, purpose, etc...)"
==Science is a natural philosophy. In other words you have to keep your political and religious biases out of it. So, it is normal that you aren't going to find a purpose to why you exist with science. There is no evidence that the universe is artificial or that we are artificial. As for origin of the hominid species, evolution theory covers that. The ultimate beginings of life would be covered by chemistry/abiogenesis which is a work in progress with various hypothesis that are being worked on. It isn't solve yet.
"The more I looked the bigger that gaps and the recognition that it is actual through faith that those gaps are being filled, with the idea that they will ‘soon’ be discovered"
==Maybe they will be discovered and maybe they won't.
If that is not acceptable to you, then might as well forget about science and go with religion which says it has the answers.
"scientific method is a good tool for reducing bias and raising objectivity above all things.... but yet it’s apparent faux pas is that it kind of ‘lies’ at the same time"
==What lie are you talking about?
"by it’s very nature/purpose it basically removes God from the equation or from having any pertinence to anything."
==Why would we write in the books of science about the jewish god that you believe in? Why not the god that the greeks believed in? Or one of the thousands of other gods?
Well, which gods do you want included in the page of a science book and what do you want them to write?
"And the aftermath focuses on stuff like evolution and then somehow or other use that as a bases for arguing against creation"
==Science doesn't argue against the existence of any gods or aliens and science doesn't use evolution theory to argue against them. However, Evolution theory, geology, radiometric dating and so on certainly tell us that young earth creationism is none sense.
This is why the christian/jew/muslims who are into young earth creationism see science as their enemy. Quite a few of them have mentioned that Evolution theory comes from the devil.
"If you can follow this, you should be able to admit that the ‘god’ of the gaps is not created by ‘creationists’"
==It absolutely comes from creationists and also ancient humans.
God of the gaps means when you have a gap in your knowledge, for example, how does lightning work/happen and if you don't know the answer, you insert god into it.
How did life form on Earth? God did it!
How did the Sun form? God did it!
How did that cloud form? God did it!
^^^^^^^^As you can see, the "god did it" can be used at any point in time. It is an easy answer. It doesn't require much thought. It doesn't required expensive equipment, a good education. Basically, any idiot can say "god did it!".
"both, essentially coming from nothing, except we can play the laws of thermal dynamics and maybe use something like E=mc^2... and then say well from pure energy everything came to be... but then again that essentially proves God.... and your question of what is spirit? Everything is energy, is moving, is not even ‘solid’... you would know this better than most. How does that sit with you in light of nature supposedly not being supernatural?"
==You lost me. How does that prove that a god exists? You seem to be talking about the initial stages of the Big Bang.
Sure, what is a spirit? Where is your spirit located?
"How is rock, the most natural thing we can think of actually ‘natural’? It is hollow? It’s mass is only like 1/100,000 of something that we would naturally assume is solid... you could blast a rock with quarks or neutrinos and they would never even meet each other."
==What???
"Bottom line is that I know where we come from"
==Well, how do you know that the Bible comes from a god?
1
-
@GMC-qo9xi :
"Your first paragraph missed the mark so badly"
==What I am suggesting is that there are some ideas that are a little bit advanced and there are some ideas that are so basic that
even the people from cavemen times could figure it out.
I will give you a few examples. Tell me if it makes sense or not.
Example 1:
What are the chances that a primitive man (from ~5000 y ago) will try to build a house? I would say pretty high. Reason: All humans want
to have a safe location to dwell, out of the winds and rain. [Do you agree or disagree?]
Example 2:
What are the chances that such a man will invent the door? I would say pretty high. Reason: Humans want to feel safe in their home. They would also invent the hinge and eventually, someone will invent a way to block the door. [Do you agree or disagree?]
Example 3:
What are the chances that a primitive man will talk about atoms, the existence of sub atomic particles, the arrangement of electrons in shells, the arrangement of nucleons in shells, nuclear stability? I would say the chances are 0. [Do you agree or disagree?]
Example 4:
What are the chances that humans would invent a language? What are the chance that they would invent a written language? I would say pretty high. Reason: humans want to record what they are doing bc they know that they will die and history will be forgotten. [Do you agree or disagree?]
Example 5:
The Bible. What are the chances that some believer would write that when you seek god, he will reply back (or something of the sort). I am referring to what you wrote ""Seek and you will find, ask and you will receive, knock and the door will be opened.". To me, it seems normal that they would write stuff like that. I am not seeing anything extraordinary. Primitive man is perfectly capable of writing such things.
If they had written about Example 3, I would sat WOW. HOLY COW! That's a lot of details they discovered. How did they find out about the atomic structure and nuclear structure?
So, go ahead and give your input.
Does the Bible contain things that ancient man could not have written on his own? Did it really require a super intelligent being to write it?
1
-
@GMC-qo9xi :
"I suppose you would have me go backwards to rejoin you with the way I used to perceive reality, a return to an empty,
materialistic philosophy"
==No, that's not what I am talking about.
I am talking about how would you (or anyone else) be able to tell what is true and what is false.
You can't just listen to a story and based on your feelings decide whether a story is true just because it makes you feel good.
The best way to determine what is true is to collect evidence. Multiple people should be able to view the evidence. In fact,
anybody should be able to view it.
"where we sacrifice our children to false gods. Do you understand this? We (as a species) need to wake up and turn away from
idolatry (worshiping stuff) and move forward into spiritual lives, but in truth"
==Who is asking you to sacrifice our children to false gods?
No sorry, I don't understand it. Are you talking about a real event that happened with you? Are you talking about a dream? Are you
talking about a movie?
"no more lies, no more power structure that cater to the rich or to corporations or to the powerful (including the clergy)"
==There are always power structures. For example, you are quoting the Bible so I assume you are a christian. That book talks about
king, a kingdom, a throne. It describe the "god" as omnipotent and omniscient being. They sold you a story about how loveable the jewish god is. It's just a story. It is ink on paper. There is no evidence for any of it.
"So where is the truth? How do we establish who is right? Votes? Lol. For ‘now’ we decide what is true, even if we don’t actually have a clue."
==You seem to be talking about politics & human law. Human laws can be changed and policies can be changed.
I am talking about reality itself. Reality, the laws of reality can't be changed.
If you want to believe the bible comes from the god, first, there needs to be solid evidence that it comes from a god.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1