How’s that for a provocative title? It’s true though. Any defence of religion, whether it’s the beliefs or the institutions, fall under one of these three categories (sometimes more than one at a time).

1. People argue that the religion is true. There really is a god and an afterlife, reincarnation and karmic justice actually exist, Joseph Smith really got his book from golden plates that he read using a magic stone etc... People might offer anecdotes and personal testimony, they might offer empirically testable evidence, or they might just assert it’s true and back it up by appealing to faith. In any case, the first type of argument comes down to the supernatural claims of the religion being literally true.
2. People argue that religion is beneficial to individuals, society, or both. Perhaps the beliefs in an afterlife inspire bravery or comfort mourners. Perhaps the threat of a divine big brother watching over you promotes social order. Perhaps the very foundation of morality is based on the divine word of the gods/god of the religion in question, and without it we would all be murderous rapists. People might argue that temples and churches promote community and charity. Religious institutions have given us schools and hospitals after all. Religious individuals have given us scientific discoveries, beautiful works of art, and impressive architectural structures. The second type of argument contends that regardless of whether the religious claims are true or not, believing in them and organizing your life around them is beneficial and therefore should be embraced.
3. People argue that atheism/scientism/heliocentrism/evolutionism is a religion just like theirs, and so both party’s are on equal footing. Sure it takes a leap of faith to believe in god, but it also takes a leap of faith to believe in no gods, or believe that the universe created itself from nothing by nothing. They might drastically misrepresent the contrary position, or simply misplace the burden of proof. Either way, the third type of argument is basically saying ‘no u’ to the person questioning and expressing doubts about the religion.

I might do a deep dive into the problems with the second and third arguments and list the logical fallacies they tend to suffer from in future posts, but for now my only intention is to communicate this point. If we are talking about the existence of god, only arguments that fall under the first category are relevant.

At least that’s what I think, but what do you think? Am I missing a category? Am I mistaken to say that arguments of type 2 and 3 are completely irrelevant when discussing the existence of gods and souls and the afterlife? What’s your most favourite (or least favourite) argument for the existence of god and what caregory does it fall under?

7399619 Here's an argument that I find most appealing:
If we wanted reality to be most logical and simple, there would be nothing. No space, no time. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Now that would be a reality I could get behind. It would make perfect sense. Everything could be easily explained since there would be nothing at all. In such reality, one could say almost with certainty, "There is no god."

But the fact is, we don't live in that reality. Our reality isn't that simple. Actually, it's complicated. Every time you try to follow some logic, reality throws you a curveball. Every time physicists try to put a finishing touch on their final model of the Universe, something pops up and opens a brand new field of science. And don't get me started on quantum physics...

So, if we're throwing intuitive simple logic out the window since it clearly has no business in this reality... Well, god isn't intuitive, simple or logical either, is He? Just like the actual reality.

7399649
I don’t know if I’ve heard that argument before. It’s interesting.

Would you say it’s a type 1 argument? I think it’s type 1.

7399655 I've never heard of it, either. It's just one thing I could never solve in my head.

On my personal level, the question: "Why isn't there nothing instead of something?" is on the same level as: "If you have to take the blue pill that instantly kills you or the red one that forces you to live forever, which one would you take?" I haven't solved the second one, either, and I have a crack at it every day...

Anyway, the argument falls under type 1 argument. Namely:

offer empirically testable evidence

I offer you the complicated reality around you that is clearly not nothing.

No matter what we believe we are all living in a computer simulation which is why there is glitches in the Matrix every day, it's just the code glitching out.

7399696 What glitches have you encountered?

7399726 That would probably take way too long to explain but what I'll say is the more I'm alive the more I think everything is just advanced computer simulation. But even if we are all just living in a simulated reality, we can't do anything about it. No matter what, we exist. We can't stop until the code breaks or there's a reset. Regardless of anything, we continue to go on.

7399829 Why couldn't you stop existing in a simulation?

In MMOs, when you slay a boss, she is not present in the simulation anymore.

Unless you believe there's a secret code that simulates Heaven for all the bosses you slew?

7399977 How do we know what happens to a character that disappears? Maybe it's code has generated into a different level of simulation that acts as the afterlife.

7400068 I'm a programmer, I know.

7400082 But we don't know the code of the simulation we live in. It could be very advanced. It could have multiple levels of a simulation including a simulated afterlife.

7400154 If the programmers have half a brain (and since they're supposedly more advanced, I'd assume they do), they would optimize the simulation. It would run better without the simulated afterlife.

7400160 But most cultures in the world have stories about an afterlife. Why would these stories be included if they weren't levels to be achieved or unlocked in the simulation?

7400162 I also had such a story to share, but I believe it was more a reflection of me than reality.

What people experience within their own brains isn't a good indication of what goes on in the reality.

Just because everyone talks about Valhalla, doesn't mean it actually exists.

7400193 I think they are unlockable content in the simulation and the stories are Easter eggs. :0

7400197 Even if that were the case, the administrators could say at any time, "Let's optimize. No more afterlife for any character."

7400213 Why would that be an optimization? It seems like it's a hindrance in many ways. For example, the cycle of life is made so that species constantly are evolving and going extinct due to many factors such as natural climate change (think of the prehistoric animals, plants, ect that died put because of the shift in climate) and so on. So if there is no natural process to species coming and going, doesn't that interfere with the natural process and lead to something bad in the longrun?

7400216 No.

Firstly, the existence of an afterlife doesn't aid the cycle of life. It removes from it. Afterlife is like a black hole that just sucks up things but gives nothing in return.

If the changes cease, the natural selection slows down, and so too does evolution. Then again, this is what most people want. Whenever I mention that maybe we should consider evolving humans, they start calling me Hitler.

The alternative is stagnation or even devolution that the human race is experiencing.

Again, this has nothing to do with an afterlife.

But you are right. We have a limited time (a billion years or so left). We've already wasted the majority of it (4 billion years wasted with slow evolution). We need to get off this rock, pronto, else inteligent life will be extinguished from this solar system, maybe even the Universe as a whole.

The only solution I see is hiper-artificial-evolution. Maybe CRISPR. Maybe genetic engineering. Maybe artificial selection. Everything is fair game when you're about to go extinct.

Yet again, this has nothing to do with an afterlife.

7400263 Let's say you live an infinite amount of time. What exactly does that achieve that you couldn't achieve by giving a normal lifespan or extended lifespan? How would that effect things in the long run? If you have space colonies it could help with the colonization of space, but the longer people are alive the more they have a longing to go home to another phase of existence. Otherwise you are out on some space rock for one million years alone and have one million years to feel the pain of betrayal and being hurt by others without ever being able to transcend to another state of consciousness. It would seem that the code our simulation would account for this since it's a very advanced code.

7400268 I guess you're more of a blue pill kind of girl.

What exactly does that achieve that you couldn't achieve by giving a normal lifespan or extended lifespan?

You need at least 1 000 000 years to colonize a galaxy, preferably 1 000 000 000 years.

the longer people are alive the more they have a longing to go home to another phase of existence

I think that's just an evolutionary trait of humans, nothing more. Those who were content with staying stagnant were left behind. We're the offsprings of those who craved for more. And now we have the same craving that won't let us be content even in the times when we could be.

Besides, just because you crave something, that doesn't change the reality of things. If you crave merging with a microwave, it doesn't mean that the land of microwaves is foretold in our future. It just means that you have stupid cravings in your head that have nothing to do with the actual reality.

If anything, I'd go the exact opposite way you're going with your logic. I say: If it feels nice, you know it's a lie. The truth hurts.

If you want to experience another phase of existence, chances are there is none. It would be nice, though, wouldn't it? That's how you know it's a lie. The world doesn't give you nice things. Stupid cravings are just that, stupid cravings. Reality takes a dump on stupid cravings all the time.

If this was a simulation and the goal was another phase of existence, we'd already be there.

7400278 I still don't see how this would negate the purpose of an afterlife.

7400280 There is no purpose in an afterlife. Afterlife is like a trash bin. A trash bin gives you nothing of value. It's just a place where you throw old and useless things.

The purpose of your vibrator isn't to be thrown in the trash when it reaches its limit. It's just a place it will end up so that you can forget about it when you buy yourself the new Vibe 9000.

So, stop praising the trash bin. It's just a trash bin. A trash bin is not the meaning of life. It's not the purpose of the Universe or its inhabitants.

And your old vibrator will never achieve another power-level. It will just stay broken. Same with the bosses you kill. Same with the cats you run over with your car. Same with every person. Same with everything. In the end, entropy will prevail.

7400290 How is an afterlife the equivalent of a trash bin? It seems like a lot of good things happen there that don't happen in the living realm, regardless of how long you live. Seeing as it is a destination that people or lifeforms have reached in the past, I wouldn't say that their life had no value just because they ultimately ended up at a higher state of consciousness and are most likely doing very well there. There is infinite possibility and space in an afterlife whereas there is limited possibility in a living space because even if you live a long time you still can't do the things you can do at a higher state of consciousness. So none of that seems to negate the purpose of an afterlife.

7400297

seems like a lot of good things happen there

doing very well there

There is infinite possibility and space in an afterlife

the things you can do at a higher state of consciousness

You seem to know a whole lot about the afterlife. Tell me, do you have a source for all this information, or are you just pulling stuff out of your behind?

7400309 Well if we are going from legends throughout history and the infinite amount of stories about an afterlife, it usually seems like a place people could do what I just described.

It was always a higher state of consciousness that was reached after death. Some legends and so on said people could move in and out of the afterlife, even while still alive.

So another question to ask is, if we achieve technology that allows us to move in and out of the living realm and the realm of the dead whenever we want, how will this impact things moving forward?

There are a lot of interesting questions to ask.

7400315 The descriptions of an afterlife differ depending on which authority figure you ask. And that view is usually aligned with the culture the person grew up in, even though that should have no bearing on the actual reality of the afterlife.

People constantly claim all sorts of things. What always seems to be lacking is verification.

Those who commune with the dead always tend to be vague. If you ask them for a number of the safety-deposit box, they'll never give you a straight answer.

And besides, I myself visited the afterlife, and it was nothing like you describe it. You only have anecdotes, I have a first-claw experience.

You can make up any story you want in your head, and you'll always find a person who will confirm it. But that doesn't make it the truth.

if we achieve technology that allows us to move in and out of the living realm

According to you, we already have the technology. The way you describe it, we don't even need any technology to achieve it.

If people really were moving between worlds, they'd act as a hub of information between the worlds. It wouldn't be an information highway, but messages would come through eventually. Sooner or later, you'd get an e-mail from your dead grandma. Everyone would.

But that's now what's happening in reality. It's just some authority figures spreading their dogmas around. They don't actually provide any verifiable information, even though it should be really easy for them to do that.

This is why I prefer to believe hard-core proofs over anecdotes.

There is no Lock ness monster. There is no bigfoot. And I could name 10 000 more creatures that don't exist, but with your pursuit, you could find some anecdotes about them. It wouldn't make them real, though. It would just make you more delusional.

7400324 I've technically crossed over a few times due to health reasons and I personally believe there is an afterlife because I've had experiences being there. But the thing about experiences no matter what they are they are ultimately personal.

For example if you find a penny in a shoe, you can tell people, hey I found this penny in a shoe. You can take a picture and tell your story of finding a penny in a shoe.

But ultimately because you witnessed it and experienced it, it's only real to you. Anyone else looking at your picture could say it was faked, you did not really find the penny in the shoe, in fact maybe it's not even a real penny.

And let's say you made a video and said, here is video evidence I found this penny in a shoe. You'd still have people who said, you put the penny in the shoe yourself, it's fake, you are just trying to get attention online.

Yet you know your experience, your pictures, and your video footage which proves you found a penny in a shoe. But see only you can know that. Because only you witnessed it.

And a lot of things are just like that. Whatever someone's experience is you either believe them or not. But it's still their experience. It's real to them.

7400388 But there can only be one truth. If people have different experiences, they cannot all be true. It can only mean that people's experience is wrong. Knowing that, why do you trust your experience? I don't trust mine. Personally, I seek the universal truth beyond my subjective experience.

7400649 You've definitely offered some interesting perspectives here. It's always interesting to explore things from more than one point of view. :)

7400690 And so have you. I may not agree with everything you believe in, but I've always appreciated your open-mindedness.

7400388

But the thing about experiences no matter what they are they are ultimately personal... But ultimately because you witnessed it and experienced it, it's only real to you

Sure, but not all claims of experiences are equal. The difference is that when you claim you found a penny in a shoe, that’s a very minor and mundane claim. We know that shoes and penny's exist. If you met someone that wasn’t aware of them, you could show them a shoe and a penny and let them experiment with them. They could hand the penny and shoe to other people to repeat and confirm the experiments. This means that we are justified believing that penny’s and shoes exist and that a penny can fit in a shoe. Sure you could show someone pics and videos and they might still doubt, but that’s more cynicism than scepticism. When judging what the explanation of your experience is, we know that hallucination, deception, and a penny actually being found in a shoe are all possible answers. I have no problem believing that you actually found the penny in your shoe. Not only is it very plausible, believing it has no risk to my life or world view so the threshold of required evidence is very low. If you were trying to get me to invest my life’s savings on some business plan then I would need more evidence than just your word.

An afterlife, a god, or any other supernatural claim is completely different. There is no empirical evidence that they are possible. There are no pictures, no videos, inconsistent testimony, and all the out of body experience tests have failed. In addition: the existence of these things also would have a massive impact on my life. For all these reasons, to believe them I would need more than just someone’s word.

You have had an experience. It’s not just real to you, it was real period (even though you are the only one that had access to it). I have no reason to doubt that you are honestly sharing what you experienced (whatever it is). It’s the same with peoples ghost stories and alien abduction stories. I accept and believe that they had an experience.

What is the explanation for these experiences? That’s where I am sceptical. We know that people can hallucinate. We know that people can lie. We have no reason to think that aliens and afterlife’s exist. The possible explanations (hallucinations or lies) are always more plausible than explanations that haven’t been shown to be true (ghosts and gods and aliens).

TLDR: It’s inaccurate to equate the claim ‘I found a penny in my shoe’ with the claim ‘there is an afterlife’.

7400696
7407266

I'd be interested in you two watching this channel on YouTube called The Scariest Movie Ever and giving some in depth feedback on what you see talked about in the videos. But you'd have to spend some time watching them all and just observing everything/ taking everything in. It really makes you think about a lot of things and question what you think you know.

I would approach watching the videos and livestreams with an open mind, I definitely did! I just like seeing what other people have to say after watching a good amount of his videos. I like to see things from more than one perspective.

Here's his channel if you'd like to check it out.

7407337 I watched some of it.

Here are my quick observations:
-He openly admits that he doesn't take things for what they are. He presupposes things and then searches for confirmation. In other words, he's the guy on the right:

The problem with that is that the book on the right can be replaced with anything. The Quoran, My Kampf, anything.

When you search for something, you find it.

I could find you hints that Twilight Sparkle lives among us, but it wouldn't make it true.

-He always gives his own views. He doesn't try to give out objective alternatives.

-He searches for the fringe perspectives, not the state of the general reality.

-He doesn't even try to argue for his opinions. He just spreads them around as if they don't need any justification.

I think that saying holds true for you:

Show me the videos you watch and I'll tell you what you believe.

7407426 I think his videos are pretty interesting, personally. I spent a good amount of time watching them all and really thinking about the points he brings up in them. I think he's pretty laidback, I like his delivery and research into fringe things. He's a pretty cool guy. I always enjoy hearing his perspective even if I don't necessarily agree with everything he says.

7407431 You may not be willing to admit this, but the opinions of people you listen to make their way into your own worldview. No person is immune to that.

If you were to watch less fringy and more sciency stuff, your worldview would be more 'to the ground'.

Here's what I don't like about how you're doing things. You look for an example of a person who crossed the street at the green light who got hit by a car. From that fringe case, you start building your worldview of all reality. And after finding some more confirmations, you start believing that the government implemented green lights to attract humans onto the dangerous street to decrease their population or some similar nonsense.

You're not after the truth. You're after the interesting 'truth'.

Your worst nightmare would be to find out that the world is actually bland and boring.

7407440 I actually think of things from a scientific perspective quite often. I like thinking of all potential reasons for something, which is part of the scientific process.

I like questioning things in general. That's what is important about listening to all sorts of perspectives. Everything causes you to think and do your own research into things.

There are a lot of things which are argued even in scientific communities. I was only a few classes short of a minor in many different scientific areas, including biology, geology, archeology, anthropology, and many others. I took a lot of classes all through college and university because I find new scientific discoveries to be very cool and interesting.

I've found that the more research I do, the more scientific papers I write or read, the more I'm learning. There's always something new to learn every day.

7407448 Glad to hear it.

Btw, do you think the world could function without all the fringe elements you believe in?

7407460 I think the universe will go on existing long after humans go extinct which inevitably happens to all species, regardless of how advanced they become. Humans are just one part of a larger cycle of existence. So one way to think of it is, just enjoy being human while you can. Any event could suddenly wipe out our species like an impact from a space rock and no one would ever know we existed until one million years later when someone discovers our bones and tries to figure out how we once lived.

7407479 I agree with all that. However, what I was trying to relay is, maybe the world is much simpler than you think it is. Perhaps, and I know this may come as a shock to you, you might not even need the tinfoil hat.

7407486 The world is build of complex government systems and complicated histories of countries and areas of the world that only become more complicated with time, especially when corruption of government is involved. It seems like life has always been complicated one way or another, the more you look into things.

7407492 Just because something seems complex to you,

doesn't mean it is.

Take the birds for instance:

It looks like a complex system, doesn't it? Turns out, every bird follows very simple rules. The system is actually rudimentary.

7407448
I think you have the right approach, or at least mostly you do. I’ve always enjoyed reading your opinions in past threads and am enjoying this convo.

I’ll check out the video you posted and give my thoughts in a bit.

What did you think of my breakdown of your penny in shoe VS afterlife analogy?

7407337
Yeah, this guy is a conspiracy theory nutcase. Calling the vaccine the vac-scheme is a cute pun, but it’s both dangerous and inaccurate. Biden is far from perfect. The ‘decriminalizing knowingly infecting others with HIV’ sounds ridiculous and crazy, which means it probably is. I googled it and quickly found that there is more to it. You might agree or disagree with such a law change, but the speaker in the video was dishonest in his presentation of it and the reasons behind it (because he didn’t explore the reasons given at all). Doing a deep dive into what the law originally does, why it was written the way it was, how they want to change it, and the reasons why, that would be interesting. He could even find other countries that have implemented similar laws and see how it turned out for them. Instead he just reads the headline and relys on his audience’s imagination and bias to fill in the blanks. Very shady.

Then without evidence he suggested a link between this law to people getting the vaccine and suddenly being HIV positive. I looked into this and quickly found it to be a lie. He took a controversial sounding headline with no context and without evidence suggested it’s linked to a debunked conspiracy theory. By doing so he’s fanning the flames the of anti science, anti government, and anti vax culture. There is some number of people in his audience that won’t get the Covid vaccine because of his lies. Some percentage of those people will become infected with Covid and spread it to others. Some of those people (the audience members and the collateral people that got infected) will die. The man is an irresponsible and ignorant charlatan.

Your speaker isn’t doing research and presenting his findings, he’s shopping for controversial and shocking conspiracy theories to get views and followers. He had the audacity to complain about youtube demonetizing him when he is peddling untruths and falsehoods. I think it’s irresponsible to support him financially or with attention. That said, I am a freedom of speech advocate and I support his right to share his thoughts and your right to listen.

TLDR: it’s good to have an open mind, as long as it’s not so open that your brain slides out.

7407710 I personally am not an anti vaccination person. However I do like hearing alternative perspectives that people have about it. One thing I can agree with is that the pharmaceutical industry often does not disclose ever ingredient or the longterm effects of using medications, which really should be the right of anyone using a medication. As long as they are honest about what is in it and the long term effects, I have no problem.

I like the guy's channel because he does present a lot of interesting articles and asks people to think about them. He's not really trying to push an idea on anyone. He's just saying, hey look at all of this stuff, and is questioning things which I think is good for people to do.

I've talked to many doctors over the years, some who are friends, some who are family and even they have mentioned the corruption in the pharmaceutical industry and it goes pretty deep the more you look into it. I would suggest looking up the corruption because trust me, there's a lot of stuff going on.

Anyway the guy in the video isn't anti vaccination, he's just presenting cases of people who took the new vaccination that's being presented currently for Covid 19 and showed that a bunch of people have developed a face paralysis and some other issues from it. He's just suggesting that people should be careful about what they are putting into their bodies and for more research into what they are taking.

As for the bill, I think he was just saying look at what Joe Biden is proposing and think about the long term effects good and bad it will have on the overall situation.

Basically the information he presents is just there for you to think about, and that's what I like about his channel. I recommend that people watch a lot of his videos because then you'll get more of an idea of what his style is and what he is trying to do, which is to cause people to think and do their own research.

7407968
It’s good to listen to alternate perspectives, but not all perspectives are created equally. I gave a very specific criticism that is, in my opinion, unforgivably irresponsible and dishonest. Even if that’s his worst clip of all time, unless he came back and apologized/corrected himself (like News organizations sometimes do when they get a story wrong) I would not give him another moment of my time. He calls his video NEWS_Share, but he’s not sharing news.

Do you agree with my assessment, but think that the rest of his content is significantly different (and better)? Or do you disagree with my assessment and believe I took it out of context? If the former, please provide a clip of his that you really like and think is great (preferably 10 mins or so) and I’ll listen to it. If the latter, then please give me an idea of what I’m missing.

Edit:

One thing I can agree with is that the pharmaceutical industry often does not disclose ever ingredient or the longterm effects of using medications, which really should be the right of anyone using a medication.

I don’t see how this is relevant. The guy in the video didn’t talk about legitimate problems with the pharmaceutical industry (of which there are many), he took a law that was not fully explained and he made up a connection with a debunked conspiracy theory. Either he is lazy and ignorant, or he is selectively misrepresenting things to appeal to his audience (or both).

he's just presenting cases of people who took the new vaccination that's being presented currently for Covid 19 and showed that a bunch of people have developed a face paralysis and some other issues from it.

No, he said that there are people getting the vaccine that are then being found out to be HIV positive when they weren’t before. If he said face paralysis then I would have researched that claim instead.

7408304 I think it might have been a different video where he was talking about the face paralysis. I've watched a good deal of them and he does often correct himself in light of new information, which is one of the reasons I like watching his channel, personally. He's definitely presented a lot of articles that have caused me to do my own research into things and question things.

I think he overall takes a pretty fair approach. He encourages people to do their own research if you watch his videos. But you kind of have to watch a lot of them, not just one, to see what he's about.

One thing I find interesting is that he went to film school and studied special effects and editing which gives him an interesting perspective because he can tell when special effects are used or certain filming techniques are used.

I find his perspective to be very interesting even if I don't always agree with everything he says. He's laidback and encourages people to do their own research, which I like.

He's made one of the best videos I've seen to date about how the media lies to you, especially when it comes to things like trying to take people's rights away. That video really made me think about a lot of things and do my own research.

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this video he made. I feel that it brings up a lot of interesting questions and makes you think about a lot of things.

7407507 Everything is more complex the more you try to make them simple. That's why there are complex theories and complex mathematical equations. That's why new things are being discovered every day. Things are always being discovered which challenge what we think we know. Often one discovery can cause a complete change of when a species was said to die out or pushes back human civilization back to an earlier time than what was initially assumed. Science is about discovering new things every day. There's always something new to learn. Whenever we think we know everything we are always surprised by a new perspective or a new discovery.

7408535 The guy clearly doesn't understand the concept of:

Correlation does not mean causation.

I'm wondering if you also have the same mental failings as the guy in the video.

Tell me, if there is a correlation between my grandma baking cookies and school shootings, does that mean there is a connection between the two?

7409035 The video to me is interesting in that he is pointing out many of the inconsistencies of how the events were reported. I think that's important for more than one reason.

For one thing it does a disservice to people involved to not have the right information reported.

However for another, it points out the oddities and strange circumstances surrounding many of these events.

It even goes as far in some circumstances (this was mentioned in some other sources I read) where the parents or children mentioned in the news reports never even existed or the school they were reporting on hadn't been in operation for ten years so how did something happen if the school or location wasn't even in operation at the time?

It makes you think, why are they making up this information? Why are the news stories inconsistent then get buried when people start asking questions? It definitely makes me question why this is going on.