How scientific discoveries changed religions: 1. The gods live on the mountain 2. The gods live on the clouds 3. God lives beyond the blue 4. God lives in another dimension 5. God lives outside of time.
@nicosteffen364
5 жыл бұрын
God died as he made the big bang,
@ecocentrichomestead6783
5 жыл бұрын
@@nicosteffen364 except the "big bang" requires just a little bit less faith than God. Sorry, pet peeves showing through!
@nicosteffen364
5 жыл бұрын
@@ecocentrichomestead6783 faith needs no evidence it rejects evidence!
@AlbertaGeek
5 жыл бұрын
@@ecocentrichomestead6783 _the "big bang" requires just a little bit less faith than God_ ...According to those who are ignorant of the wealth of evidence supporting the BB model. _Sorry, __-pet peeves-__ ignorance showing through_ FIFY
@ecocentrichomestead6783
5 жыл бұрын
@@AlbertaGeek you don't know how much I know about the big bang "evidence". This is an example of faith in science. A scientist said it, I believe it, that settles it.
@fullTimeVeganinOhio
5 жыл бұрын
The beginning of his argument is how flat earthers argue. "I can't do it myself therefore it's not true"
@tedgrant2
4 жыл бұрын
I don't have any false memories. I quite clearly remember my mother flying to the moon by flapping her arms. And 500 people saw her do it, but were so surprised that they kept quiet. Nobody told the newspapers because they knew they wouldn't be believed.
@tedgrant2
3 жыл бұрын
@Ares That's right, because of the eye witnesses.
@oldcountryboy
3 жыл бұрын
your mom is amazing her arms must be huge
@tedgrant2
3 жыл бұрын
@@oldcountryboy Normal size.
@annk.8750
4 жыл бұрын
For starters, a large number of scientists have rejected religion.
@Bashamo257
5 жыл бұрын
You know, a lot of raw scientific data from groups like NASA are freely available on line. "I haven't seen the data" isn't as strong of an arguement as "I don't know how to interpret the data"
@SpiderDiscord
4 жыл бұрын
You would still have to believe in the data.
@uofmich1994
4 жыл бұрын
we can all learn how to test the theories in physics, chemistry, biology... if one pursues this enough, you can create your own data for others to validate
@SpiderDiscord
4 жыл бұрын
@Derek Doesn't change the fact that you're trusting the data.
@SpiderDiscord
4 жыл бұрын
@Derek I didn't have a deeper point than that. You have to go through two passages: You have to trust the data and your own ability to understand it. That's why invoking data in itself isn't that meaningful. In relation to the NASA-data hat I responded to it's basically an argument to authority.
@SpiderDiscord
4 жыл бұрын
@Derek I agree.
@Arkloyd
5 жыл бұрын
*Cardinal Bellarmine:* Trial of Galieleo: 1633 _"To assert that the Earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that jesus was not born of a virgin."_
@TheCheapPhilosophy
4 жыл бұрын
Hi, God here. Big fan of ancient social media like manuscripts in dead languages! I am thinking in upgrading to instantaneous communication and simultaneous translation with a worldwide coverage, like you guys have nowadays... Of course, I was 101% capable of doing it at ancient times, but as a superior Creator I like to borrow inferior inventions that inferior creatures concocted, because mysterious supernatural reasons you will not understand for being inferior. You just need to have faith that seemingly stupid planing is instead superior supernatural thinking that you cannot understand. I am totally borrowing the internet for my next revelations, maybe... Coming soon, as always! Back to sleep!
@davers1953
4 жыл бұрын
Why do people ponificate about things and express "facts" that they have never bothered to check?
@tedgrant2
4 жыл бұрын
I don't want to learn too many true things because I need to go to the bathroom now. Too late.
@James-ye7rp
5 жыл бұрын
Validating assumptions: You don't try validating an assumption that a thing is true, out the gate, but you validate an assumption that a thing MIGHT BE TRUE. Treat an "assumption" as a "guess that something might be true", and you have the basis for an experiment using the scientific method.
@marilynwhitaker6086
5 жыл бұрын
Without watching this episode, I might argue that scientific discoveries have altered all theories even the most precise scientific ones.
@TCpoocifer
4 жыл бұрын
Science altered science. Hot take!
@baddogma
5 жыл бұрын
If you understand the scientific method you understand why you don't have to verify everything yourself.
@GeneralZod99
5 жыл бұрын
Not just don't, but also can't only by yourself.
@karlrschneider
4 жыл бұрын
Jay imagines himself to be a wit. He's half right.
@DeusExMamiya
4 жыл бұрын
Jay 2:40: “...and the Southern Cross stays put” - NOPE! The Southern Cross is a whopping 30 degrees away from the South Celestial Pole. It rotates around the sky on as large an arc as Cassiopeia does in the Northern sky.
@dollarbill2208
5 жыл бұрын
How about peer review? Scientists aren’t agreeing on the conclusion just because they like it. They scrutinize the methodology and reasoning that went in to reaching the conclusion, and may recreate the test themselves. Then they make predictions and test their reliability and repeatability. There’s a lot that goes into this stuff. Science doesn’t just make shit up willy nilly.
@typhoonic
5 жыл бұрын
My issue with his argument is religious people advancing as society advances just confirms that even religious people have to eventually agree religion isn't a good way to determine reality. The religious doctrines still support not only unscientific claims of faith, but anti-science ones that contradict with our current knowledge. That's the real reason why it's not rational, not just because of reasonable doubt and burden of proof. I wish more anti-theist would make that more clear.
@alistairmorrish8613
5 жыл бұрын
it's god of the gaps.
@nothingnerdyNtertainment
4 жыл бұрын
PREDICTIVE POWER OF SCIENTIFIC THEORIES NEGATE THE NEED OF FAITH.
@dresinss
5 жыл бұрын
I hate being homeless and it sucks to type on a phone to have a meaningful discussion. I have what I think is a very good example or analogy to bring up when people bring up faith. And it's not my own. It's popular, or it should be... it comes from Contact by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan. It would warm my cockles to hear a host remember this analogy and use it. Watch the movie; it's ok. The book is better as usual. The movie didn't make me weep. When Jodie Foster took her trip, in the book she took a palm frond from the alien beach. It was gone when she returned. She had zero evidence. The brilliant point the book made better than the movie is: she had had a personal experience that proved to her that aliens exist but she had zero evidence to share. She had to realize that, like people of faith, she had no demonstrable evidence for what she believed (but the audience has seen what she saw). So did she have faith? It's an interesting question to me. Is the audience just hallucinating with her? The way Sagan leaves it is that she's in the same position as the preacher (McConoghwhatever) who has no evidence to back his assertions. So the question is something like how can we tell between a true but one off anecdote and a statement of faith? She had evidence, but she couldn't show it. As the audience we know she had evidence, but no skeptic ought to believe her. We know she's right but she can't prove it. Spoiler... the movie failed at it but that was the twistish ending in the book. So the question to faithers is wtf just happened? But the question to skeptics is... what now? What if... what if you had evidence but couldn't share it with anyone? Turns out to be a big ol mystery. "It's true for me" but I can't expect to convince you. But I'm right... and I know it. But you don't. You can't cause I'm absent of evidence... I went to an alien planet and all I got was this stupid wait where did it go?? Not convincing to anyone, but in the book the audience knows it really happened. So what now? The ultimate conclusion is that nobody believes her (the movie throws us a bone). And nobody should. But damn she was right. That sucks... Absent evidence, she was forced to tuck tail and say she had faith that aliens exist. Boom. What can we do with that? At any rate, I've used this several times to level the field and I find it useful.
@Julian0101
5 жыл бұрын
Cool example, but was she preaching that aliens existed? was she treathening to believe on her o the aliens would come to torture the non-believers? was she trying to push her beliefs to others and more importantly on laws? As i said is a cool example of faith and evidence, but gets short when comparing it with religion faith.
@sljzz441
3 жыл бұрын
The difference is, that alien beach still exists somewhere out there. If it was possible to go there once, it would be possible to go there again, or find it when technology has sufficiently advanced, or establish lines of communication. If aliens exist, then evidence for them exists; maybe it'll take a hundred years to find that evidence again, but it will be found. Any proper scientist in her position would be taking steps towards finding that evidence, instead of asking others to take her on faith. However, when you point to an entity that exists outside of observable existence...... Edit: after reading the synopsis of the film, my obvious question is: why didn't they just build another alien machine and try again? It's not like the aliens were intentionally hiding. Even if for some reason physical evidence couldn't be transmitted, it would be entirely possible to transmit some verifiable information that Earth has yet to learn. For example, the aliens could say tell us that 'this specific star 10 light years from earth died 9 years ago." Then in one year when the last light from that star reaches earth that information can be verified. Or even simpler, just provide the theoretical foundation for the technology behind the machine. That would be iron-clad proof that contact had been made with the civilization behind it.
@doubleplusgoodthinker9434
5 жыл бұрын
No amount of rational argument will convince these believers. They are just too frightened to let them go. I have had some agree with every argument I put to them but they will just not make the leap. Cognitive dissonance, it is so frustrating.
@KyleJustRuns
4 жыл бұрын
I appreciate where you are coming from, but I think you are wrong. My best evidence is myself. Sure, your single argument with a believer may not convince them. However, believers are often convinced after prolonged and frequent exposure to more scientifically grounded points of view. It happened to me. I claimed these people were wrong over and over until one day it finally clicked "holy shit, I am wrong!".
@winnygallagher
5 жыл бұрын
This book, How to Think Straight About Psychology by Keith E. Stanovich, is a great book about critical thinking. It's not very long (about 200 pages), but it does look at critical thinking through the lens of psychology. Some subsections just in chapter 1: What then, is science? Systematic Empiricism Publicly verifiable knowledge Epirically solvable problems Psychology and Folk Wisdom Topics in other chapters: Falsifiability Errors in science Operationalism and Essentialism Testimonials and case study evidence Placebos Correlation and Causation Comparison, Control, and Manipulation Converging evidence Multiple causation Probabilistic reasoning The tendency to try to explain chance events
@patersongalupe5099
5 жыл бұрын
I hope you guys make a documentary on this. would love to watch this!
@jppan2261
3 жыл бұрын
Jay, the proof that supports those laws of physics is that we use them everyday. just about every piece of modern tech you have is based on these laws. none of the tech has "bible formulas"
@jppang4277
5 жыл бұрын
Jay, you dont give yourself enough credit. You can test a lot of these scientific principles without getting a college degree. You have to be methodical with your evaluation. Also, you are enjoying these scientific claims even if you dont understand them. Every bit of technology you are using is based on those scientific priniples. Name me 1 bible fact that your iphone is based on
@NeverTalkToCops1
4 жыл бұрын
Well, see, the Iphone is just a physical instantiation of The Tower of Babel, which is the origin of Siri.
@uofmich1994
4 жыл бұрын
@@NeverTalkToCops1 just checking- are you making a joke?
@kenbee1957
3 жыл бұрын
Well.....the iPhone is mildly based on selling stuff to gullible idiots...
@kenbee1957
3 жыл бұрын
@@uofmich1994 He was... Me too
@craiglee7993
5 жыл бұрын
I was in many types of churches and they all are the same at the core:)
@karlrschneider
4 жыл бұрын
Rotten
@tedgrant2
4 жыл бұрын
Washing clothes is not the same as walking on water. I often wash clothes.
@williamcarlson6586
4 жыл бұрын
I walk on water...... every winter.
@tedgrant2
4 жыл бұрын
@@williamcarlson6586 Given that the ground always contains some water, I suppose we walk on water every day. But that's not quite the same as getting out of a boat in summer and walking on the sea. Peter walked on the sea towards Jesus who was also walking on the sea. But Peter lost his nerve and started to sink ! (Matthew 14:29)
@Knight-Night
4 жыл бұрын
i miss jamie so fucking much!!!! come back jamie!!
@ecocentrichomestead6783
5 жыл бұрын
Faith is belief in a claim for which there is no evidence. I believe in things for which I (personally) have no evidence. But I have evidence that the source saying the evidence for the claim exists is trustworthy. If it was necessary for me to "prove" it, I could go get that evidence. But what is evidence? Evidence is an objective fact that can be confirmed by an average person using the same procedures that the presenter of the evidence did.
@a1612
5 жыл бұрын
So you can't test special/ general relativity so it's questionable ,but you can accept the idea of a supernatural entity because what? you believe in religious experiences or faith? What does it mean " experiencing the Devine" who defines this phenomena?
@ThEjOkErIsWiLd00
4 жыл бұрын
Don't be apologizing for insulting flerfs considering how much of an insult they are to our intelligence.
@LordOfThunderUK
5 жыл бұрын
An example of a valid tool is the fork and the hammer. You could have said to him that a hammer is NOT a good tool to whilst cooking spaghetti but the fork IS!!! and that is it. That guy was going through a massive rabbit hole. He is capable of "drowning himself in a glass of water"
@ThermaL-ty7bw
5 жыл бұрын
we could stop christianity with a glass of water then , they're all THAT dumb and ignorant really even the ''smart'' ones , just fall on their faces when words come out of their mouths ... it's sad really , but hey , at least THEY think they're right at least , that's something i guess , that THEY are SURE of themselfs , it's DANGEROUS as F*CK , christianity kills lives till this day , especially children's lives , that's the hard part about all this nonsense
@stevejensen9255
Жыл бұрын
Everett Washington here
@HankC9174
3 жыл бұрын
science has continuously pushed god into a smaller and smaller corner
@Boris99999
4 жыл бұрын
I think, religion is ok as long as it doesn’t contradict scientific consensus and doesn’t demand outrageous things from a person. Which is why I don’t consider any of the current religions to be ok sadly...
@cindyclemmons8009
5 жыл бұрын
It's so funny that this topic is being discussed. At one time in history the Catholic Church in particular was a leading sponsor into scientific research. In some ways science owes its start TO religion. The motive was not political but financial by paying for priests and clergy to attend universities. But other religious forms started to take a deeper meaning before they were used for a practical meaning. Why? Because the church believed that God created the universe and ordained the laws of nature. To study the natural world was to admire the work of God. This could be a religious duty and inspire science when there were few other reasons to bother with it. blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2011/05/18/science-owes-much-to-both-christianity-and-the-middle-ages
@Ometecuhtli
5 жыл бұрын
I really doubt creationism has as much to do with christianity as it does with pseudoscience, for its main focus is on presentation, rebranding, making appear old arguments as new and cause an impression on the younger generations or the disenfranchised, and, of course, securing funds (which incidentally can't produce a single scientific paper). It is also important to note that creationism in western Europe has never truly challenged the teaching of evolution, and remains, interestingly, a mostly north american phenomenon. If it's heard about in other parts of the world is because of strong influence, mainly culturally, that the US holds in those regions, and not because any type of research or truly serious consideration by native religious groups. Christianity in other nations generally tries to separate their teachings from those of science because when it doesn't it allows any number of interpretations, choosing and rejecting what is to be taken metaphorically and what is factual, fragments easily, so a less strict interpretation, although less influential in a person's daily lives, also has no conflict with million year old earths, cosmology, medicine, etc. During the middle ages the Catholic church had the power and ability to fund or deny research, private enterprise's involvement wasn't tied to religious motives and was mostly independent of the donor's beliefs, and governments like that of the Byzantine empire were instrumental at preserving knowledge and advancing technology. The church found a way to burn people at the stake for following ideas contrary to doctrine, even if the conclusions followed scientifc rigor, as was the case of Giordano Bruno (virgins can't be mothers, the universe is a big place with many different worlds, can a human being be a god?). It is nevertheless a rare occurrence, scientific knowledge advanced much more slowly and societies depended much less on it, so it can't be compared with the impact it has today. Dissection, the concept of zero, the earth's age and shape, were practiced and developed long before outside of Christian Europe, concepts like the brain and not the heart as the center of conscience and the heliocentric model had already been postulated, and astronomical, often tied with astrology, knowledge in Asia & America were respectably on par until the invention of the telescope revolutionized its methods.
@giraffewhiskers2045
3 жыл бұрын
He’s not wrong I have a thing called “hypochondriac” and I thought I had anxiety and depression that it actually became a real thing
@neighbourhoodwitch18
3 жыл бұрын
You may also have Munchausen’s Syndrome.
@shanehisle1294
4 жыл бұрын
Jamie "what I will say is" Uh. Duh.
@HankC9174
3 жыл бұрын
ive never heard a good explanation of how god created man and animals and 1 generation later humans were growing crops and domesticated animals rather than taking 1000s of years
@annk.8750
3 жыл бұрын
Scientific discoveries have altered religion by making the poor apologists continuously invent new things for god to have said and new things for god to want his followers to do.
@Knight-Night
4 жыл бұрын
JAMIE!!!!
@giraffewhiskers2045
3 жыл бұрын
Also why can’t I see the comment of anyone until I click on the reply botton, KZitem WHAT HAVE YOU DONE
@Climpus
4 жыл бұрын
The two hosts are excellent role models.
@Climpus
4 жыл бұрын
@Siege Man No - for being able to interact with people who fundamentally disagree with their beliefs yet remain civil.
@Climpus
4 жыл бұрын
@Siege Man I disagree - it's rarely virtuous to be uncivil when debating with delusional people.
@___LC___
4 жыл бұрын
Does this guy realize Christianity is polytheistic....?
@karlrschneider
4 жыл бұрын
"Fiath": A piss poor substitute for thinking.
@Climpus
4 жыл бұрын
Is that phonetic?
@karlrschneider
4 жыл бұрын
@@Climpus "fiath": Piss poor typing. ;-)
@anthonynorman7545
5 жыл бұрын
Is the follow up posted?
@kenbee1957
3 жыл бұрын
Can't find it either
@tedgrant2
4 жыл бұрын
You may be interested to know that a King (or Queen) requires money from his (or her) subjects. And when a King (or Queen) dies, his (or her) eldest son (or daughter) inherits the Kingdom. The new King (or Queen) may be stupid, but until he (or she) dies, you are stuck with him (or her). At the moment, the King of Heaven is still alive, so his Son will have to wait until the End Times.
@robertruiz6163
4 жыл бұрын
So u know about king or queen and how their lives work cuz ur a queen....right!? Now the end of times........so God/life has an end..... according to knowledge given and created by man/government\system and money is ur king....
@tedgrant2
4 жыл бұрын
@@robertruiz6163 So u know about Popeye or Olive Oyl and how their lives work cuz ur a girl...right? Now the spinach....so Bruto/grass has an end...according to facts founded and made by elves and sprouts is ur dinner...
@robertruiz6163
4 жыл бұрын
@@tedgrant2 so u use a cartoon story to make ur point of thinking about a person who u believe is wrong but ur cartoon story makes total sense of life. I can't treat u like a baby but I understand ur thinking is at a level of a 2 year old baby and If u understand life then humanity is not the life source to rely on. Earth life source water oxygen life creating humans life/lie
@tedgrant2
4 жыл бұрын
@@robertruiz6163 Which religion is the best ?
@robertruiz6163
4 жыл бұрын
@@tedgrant2 I'm not sure which one is best for u....we all think different but there's more then one religion each one claiming a true God if there's only one God then all religions are manmade but u can lie to urself and believe its truth Life is only one
@drlegendre
5 жыл бұрын
Pardon me for being blunt, but THE HOSTS TALK WAY TOO FUCKING MUCH. Thank you.
@bobbylindsey
5 жыл бұрын
(sarcasm 🚨) *Eric:* hey caller that's a great question, I hear your words and I love them and I respect them, now let's begin unpacking your beautiful theory. *Jamie:* hey caller, here's 100 metaphors and examples, and metaphors for your metaphors, now does that make sense to you? No, here's another metaphor. Seriously, I'm an atheist and I'm bored, lost, and exhausted. Jamie & Eric sound like two uncomfortable parents giving a sex talk.
@Silverwind_23
5 жыл бұрын
😂😂😂 true
@SarahCharles92
5 жыл бұрын
From about 20-25 mins in Jamie really addresses Jay's point. Jay then misunderstands it and points to Occam's razor. He doesn't provide a metaphor.
@JoshRoxxas
5 жыл бұрын
@@donnyh3497 I agree. Learning about difficult topics can sometimes be boring, especially if it has kind of left the realm of your understanding, kids get bored in school when they cant understand the information being discussed as well. It really is more like two teachers trying to tutor a failing student.
@bobbylindsey
5 жыл бұрын
It just seems like a lot of energy and effort for nothing? That's just my opinion, nevertheless I do enjoy both Jamie and Eric.
@smequals
5 жыл бұрын
Bobby Lindsey maybe this show isn’t your cup of tea.
@bryanplunkett69
5 жыл бұрын
Could you please just let him talk an not trying to explain it or suggestions of yourself
@warriorandscholar6692
5 жыл бұрын
Faith is the complete trust or confidence in someone or something. It does NOT have to be completely baseless and without evidence.
Пікірлер: 113