Watch Matt Dillahunty and Jordan Peterson

It’s only a matter of time

@@notbob8252 JP and Sam Harris was better

@Leo Mulgrew I think one of the best ways to explore someone's beliefs is simply letting them talk like Jordan Peterson and sticking his foot in his own mouth when is views on atheism I think the last year has shown the weakness in his worldview

@Leo Mulgrew I think this last year is basically proven that there are very few people in positions of authority and power that know what they're talking about Gain-of-function research The complete denial by our mainstream media that a lab leak from a China was even possible Quite frankly the people in power don't know what the fuck they're doing it's time for Old Men to step down and shut the fuk up Jeffrey Epstein Glenn Maxwell openly operated in the United States for over 30 years were repeatedly investigated and even convicted human sex trafficking done by the US government

@@alan0_ No other religion Besides Christianity has the claim to their God coming to earth becoming man Dying and then rising from the dead. With actual scientific evidence to back this up. Take a look at the Shroud of Turin. There are also eucharistic miracles that are still taking place today. Even today science can not figure out how the shroud even has an image imprinted on it no paint pigment so not forged. We dont even have technology today that can produce that image. Anyway God Bless you and take care :)

@@shauncollins4456 radiocarbon dating found the shroud to be dated to the 1200s AD. The shroud has been replicated using gelatin, ferric oxide, and linen over a bas-relief.

@@alan0_ Jesus invented free speech by saying He forgives blasphemy. Innocent until proven guilty is from the Bible too. None of the other religions promote free will. Even the atheistic left use Jesus's tactics snd ideas. Passive resistance is a Christian idea. It's no mistake the freest and most compassionate countries are Christian based.

@@jamesc9862 they did some more recent ones because the samples taken were from where repair work had been done by some nuns. These samples date back to an earlier period and closer to the time of the resurrection. Not only the but the Pollen from the shroud is also interesting as it also comes from Jerusalem. No that study was found to be false. Because although there was some replication it was not a full replication. But hey its your choice to believe or not im just some random on the internet God bless you and have a good day :)

@@stevengarthune9802 I never said Adam and Eve and thats the point im making your not even talking about what I said, to make me sound ridicoulous you bring up Adam and Eve. Did you know that they still can't produce a single protein without the influence of outside forces? Did you also know that evolution does not add gene but rather subtracts them. Not many people are willing to admit that the theory of evolution could be completely wrong but it is losing its hold as being true. So please spare me your im so smart routine. anyway what do i know im some random guy on the internet God bless you and have a good day :)

He's literally using the arguments for atheism I used when I was 14

@@louispalmer9429 Aaaand, he's right.

He's entitled to his opinion but when he says "we don't need it" he means "I don't need it". Fair enough. Also you don't need to know to believe in something. In fact the word itself can suggest some degree of uncertainty otherwise you would say I know. Faith is beautiful thing and I know I need it as someone who had lost it completely for so long I can only speak for myself.

@@jaganmaster Faith is good in itself but definetly not in religious contexts, i mean why dont you just study at least the main big religions and their history and you'll see that if you put in balance what came good and what came bad from them, the balance is overwhelmingly tilted in the bad direction. His arguments and in general arguments against religion are simple because religion itself is simple and easy to dismantle. Faith in religious context is very dangerous and always been a barrier in the way of progress in any sense (technical and moral).

@@joshuat3686 Thats why is said "if you put them in balance". And also religion is hard to compare with reason because it was the only game in town basically until Voltaire. If Spinoza and Voltaire were born in the roman empire in 300 a.d., probably the history would've been very different.

I think about this statement a lot. Many, many people are blind to their own hypocrisy: they, for some reason or another, believe humans aren't broken and that others know how best to decide what is good or evil. Hence, the evils societies commit against one another. There is a law and there is a law-giver. There is absolute truth and it originates from something greater than humans can reason. The only truth can only come from God. In the story of the garden of Eden, Adam & Eve's original sin was to think they have the wisdom themselves, not God, to decide what is good as evil and what is evil as good. The snake introduced them to this concept, but even he knew the truth: God is the source of Truth.

The narcissism of religion. Puffing up your ego by pretending you have a personal relationship with an imaginary all-powerful creator of the universe.

@@publiusovidius7386 yes but religions don’t own the concept of god, fortunately :)

@@georgeholliday1071 which concept of god are you referring to?

@@publiusovidius7386 i have no definition of god apart from ‘all that is beyond human comprehension’ :)

But I could be wrong....

I see what you did there 👌😂

@@mellowtron214 "I don’t know and you don’t know, but we can be pretty sure jesus/Vishnu/allah/yahweh/zoroaster/zues and the sun ARENT IT." I haven't spent any time listening to atheist philosophy, so forgive the possibly obvious question... but a rough definition of agnosticism I've heard, is something like "We have yet to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist." I assume you can be agnostic while still rejecting any ridiculous sounding religious belief. I doubt you'd find an agnostic that'd be open to young earth creationism. In math terms... there is a set of all possible explanations for reality, we've dreamed up some chunk of that set. The subset we've fleshed out with stories may or may not contain anything like the real explanation, but even an agnostic will have rejected quite a few of the stories different tribes have told themselves. So which threads do atheists entertain as being possible? Not just philosophical materialism I take it? If the closest version of the truth was one that would be rendered to our understanding as 'there was a conscious creator', would atheists feel like they were right, provided that 'true' version of the story at least didn't look like any historical human religion?

@@mellowtron214 it sounds like your criticism is of Dogma and blind faith. Religion is full of both and they're counterproductive. Also, it sounds like you're conflating atheism and agnosticism. You're right that myths don't represent historical truth, but myths are metaphors for truth. If you read ancient scriptures, then you might notice similar themes which aldous huxley referred to as a highest common factor. The abrahamic Faith's were all seemingly inspired by the gathas of Zarathustra, which represent philosophy and psychology through metaphorical truth, not dogma. The gathas are highly abstract, and that tradition influenced so much of the human world. Humanism might be a cognate of vohu mana, which is a representation of highly evolved human consciousness. I believe the zoroastrian tradition influenced the eleusinian mysteries and gave the Greeks a reason to believe in a merit-based experience of the afterlife. Regardless, any study of ancient scriptures gives one the notion that the most perennial philosophies are highly theosophical in nature, and that moralism isn't relative, or arbitrary, but highly abstract concepts which might be the result of evolution and/or one of the primary causes of evolution. I highly recommend you read the upanishads, the bhaghavad gita, the gathas of Zarathustra, and research the practices of mystery schools like the essenes and pythagoreans

Vain

Got a good chuckle out of me.

Yeah hahaha so true-or more like not true.

Ethics isn't a metaphysical category.

@@chrismcgraw2112 I was just thinking “what is ethics” within like 2 minutes of you posting this comment. That’s funny

@@thetrollpatrol8799 It's a code of values that guides your choices and actions. It's a requirement for a rational animal's survival as such, because we make long-range choices, and we exist in a world of conceptual abstractions. To call it a 'metaphysical category' would be to claim that it exists outside of us, written in the stars or somesuch. But it doesn't. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of reality. Epistemology is the branch that deals with knowledge. Ethics is the branch of philosophy that tells you how to act, given your metaphysical and epistemological foundations.

Hard not to when we're still arguing about Bronze-age superstition in 2022.

@@williaml5223 Harsh, but true. There is just too much about religious institutions that flag them as mechanisms of control for me to take them seriously. I don't know what's out there but this idea that if I don't obey two thousand-plus year old traditions that I will be eternally punished in the afterlife sounds way too much like scare tactics than a serious attempt to understand the unknown.

Lol it looks like he's completely confused or intentionally trying to troll Yaron....

Brilliant comment!

Thank you. Finally someone who gets it

@@Chimera_166 Yes noob but it wasn’t about that. The first mythos of God still remains. It is called creation.

@@hyperretroactivehyperretro5992 thinking there was or needed to be creation is a human way of thinking. Just accept you don’t know shit

@@NDwhITeBoYZ actually assuming that the visible reality that you can grasp is the nature of reality is a human thought creation is a common sense notion about the complexity of the universe in which we find ourselves. Creation is compatible with every major science. your personal version of creation or the story that you were told may not be compatible with the science that you were told however those stories that you have in your head are not the end-all be-all to the idea that something was created. In fact I would argue very strongly that the idea that the universe was not created in some capacity is a silly notion what is the alternative sir is the alternative that the universe was simply created from nothing? creation simply employs the idea that the universe was constructed or set into motion by some intelligent being or designer. You may think that is a silly notion. There are many very intelligent scientist that also think this is possible. Have you heard for example of the simulation hypothesis? No creation is a common sense extrapolation based on our own observations of the world.

Can you think of something he does understand (excluding Ayn Rand's books)?

@Major Mike Arrogant people cannot understand what they've decided is beneath them.

Lachlan Bell do you believe he’s beneath you?

@@xe2014 I believe he's an idiot who believes r.e.t.a.r.d.e.d. ideas.

@@lachlanbell8390 you assert everyone else is too arrogant to understand what (according to you) they see as being beneath them, but then spend your time insulting them and making no effort to understand their ideas. Projecting much?

Ayn Rand is Yaron's God

🤣 I laughed out loud. So true! Something religious going on here

@@jeremyashcraft2053 She also was a bigot and pro genocide/eugenics... a very bitter woman.... not the greatest source of truth to live by

Having passion for something doesn't mean it doesn't have real world value. Humans are emotional beings that must use reason to survive. Passion is part of life even if you aren't religious. 1/27/23

@@jeremyashcraft2053 "Ayn Rand is Yaron's God" -- No, reality is Yaron's god. Ignore reality and see how far you get. It's the god we must all contend with. Honestly, why misrepresent ideas? 1/27/23

The way he talks irritates me.

What is it according to you?

@@heraldojacques8386 As I understand it, his idea of religion, especially Christianity, is to find a way that leads you to reach your highest potential. The pursuit of this ideal is embodied in the idea of God. Here I have to speculate because I believe he gives a similar value to the many paths (i.e. ideals or gods) that can lead you to the right one. Religions or the holy books are merely a circumlocution to keep you on the right path. Since they have been around for generations, they should not be lightly ignored just because you think you know better these days or have a "better" idea of the right ideal. As Jordan argues, generations before us have thought about the same things, and he thinks that Christianity in this case conveys values that are universally responsive to human nature by understanding them through stories (Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel etc).

@@lcslvrgn wouldn't that just be spirituality and not religion per say?

@@heraldojacques8386 Well, it depends on what spirituality means to you and where you see the difference with religion. Spirituality for me is the striving for something supernatural, which can be an ideal (e.g. God, Jesus, Buddah etc), to become a better person. In that case there is a strong overlap for me. If you are comparing the ecclesiastical interpretation of religion with the term itself, then I understand why the two ideas seem ambivalent. How do you understand spirituality and religion?

@@heraldojacques8386 The word religion literally means spirituality, so it's the same thing. The Latin term religiō, - "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods, sense of right, moral obligation, sanctity"

Almost looked a little painful

Yeah, these kinds of people use up so much brain power studying materialist literature they don't have enough left over to self analyze.. If they did, they'd realize they've turned science into religious, and they're more fanatic than most religious people.. "we don't need God anymore, we've got it mostly figured out"....

@@infiddle_8810 "Religion is just a primitive form of proto-philosophy, from before humans were smart enough to do real philosophy" -- Yaron "the Ayn Randian Midwit" Brook, 2021

@@richardvecchio7263 although you don’t really get to choose do you?

Lel, Jung. How do you even falsify his claims? Its not even science, its pure speculation.

@@tadejpavkovic7228 Ooohh, look at the big-brain science man, here to tell us how anything that isn't "science" is worthless, because "science" is the only thing that matters. What a big brain you must have, to recognise science as the one true God.

Yaron hates religion. He always has a visceral reaction to it. He also has a fictional view of what direction society is heading as we distance ourselves from religion.

*McCoy Kirk nod*

Every notion finally boils down to one ultimate simplification: true or false.

@@GallaiTamas Not necessarily - Useful or Not Useful can be just as valid a binary.

@@D4n1t0o Useful does not make it morally truthful. Without moral objectivism, the natural law of who ever is the strongest declares what is "truth" takes over. At the end, a "truth" can be useful for some and to others a hinderance. That is why moral objectivism is required. Which is only attainable thru God. For some, stealing is okay. It is their truth. But for another stealing is wrong. Both are useful. Whoever is the strongest will override the other's "truth". With moral objectivism we have an actual reference point of what is right and wrong, of what is Truth and what is a lie. Without moral objectivism, the movie the Purge is the end result.

Oversimplified, there's nothing more simple, we as humans once looked at nature and said everything was a supreme God that made up the world then we educated ourselves and moved on. 😉

Christians very often speak in absolutes.

@@williambartholmey5946 I'm a christian and I believe there are a few absolutes that exists

Yaron is an objectivist. That's just the way he talks

@@SoumilSahu There are (some) humble objectivists out there. Yaron isn't one of them.

Agreed lots of errogance. I hold a few degrees computer science being one of them and even after receiving the levels of knowledge I have I know it wouldn't be right to talk out of my ears as if I know everything. That shows that some people at old age may achieve some knowledge but may still missed out on wisdom.

Well said

How have religious cultures acted in the world throughout history? Christian cultures brought genocide and destruction to the rest of the planet. Religion may "teach us how to act in the world" but because it's irrational it is not a good teacher and history is filled with the result.

@@riotgear6891 you can’t just focus on the bad sides and say, well hey look at all that mass murder, that was all religion, let’s get rid of it. Mass murder has and will exist past religion, Look at Mao, look at Stalin, look at Hitler, look at Americas history of warfare. Those things fundamentally and mostly didn’t have anything to do with religion in the way you’re implying here. Because it would be plain idealistic to say that religion doesn’t bring anything good ever. Look at how the schooling systems began, not just the schools in the western world led by monks but also in the Islamic world, huge centers of learning leading on the scientific revolution. Religion has brought so much and just abondoning it because it has its faults doesn’t sit right with me.

In an odd way, that was so satisfying to watch.

lol true - best part of the clip - I think the rest was a sort of high-school take on myth an religion - very forgettable

No religion is a religion as much as no chocolate cake is chocolate cake. Pray on that.

'No religion' is an assertion of something as an idea. No cake is an actual absense of cake as a tangible object. Theres no such thing as not having a view. You exist, by default you have a view. Even if that view is 'No view'. Its an assertion of the nature of reality.

Have you ever listened to extremely religious people discuss intelligent concepts?

@@christophert8419 obviously. My issue is just that most of the arguments made in this clip about religion are ideas that most philosophers and modern thinkers of today don't entertain or take serious anymore. Ive often seen irony in how followers of Rand use the same arguments against religious and theological thought that Marx used...

@@dag320 im not claiming that history isn't completely filled with narrow minded religious fundamentalist, it most certainly is! I suspect you believe that is my implication? I merely am suggesting that I believe Yaron is wrong and people like JBP are right, and we dismiss all theological thought and its religious implications at our own peril.

@@dag320 i see your point. Solid argument.

@@daz5712 Your first mistake was confusing Yaron Brook for an intelligent person. Your second mistake was engaging earnestly with this antitheistretionalist dickwad who's calling you names for making a point that's clearly valid & grounded in reality, without even being able to point out anything wrong in your words.

A diagnosed schizophrenic relates to the writings of other schizophrenics from the bible. There's a shocker. 😂

Thus proving JP's criticism of ideology as a crippled religion. Clearly it creates crippled philosophers.

When your IQ is higher than everyone else’s and you’ve allowed yourself to learn throughout your life, religion and it’s peoples seem almost ape like. Sorry

@@NDwhITeBoYZ IQ, or intelligence for that matter is highly domain specific. Competence in one academic field does not translate to others - hence the analogy. Yaaron was making an absolute historical claim (and to my knowledge he has no academic credentials in the field) which, based on the works of those I referenced, is not so clear cut.

@@NDwhITeBoYZ There's no need to apologize because what you wrote is pure dogshit. There are plenty of high-iq lifelong learners who have more nuanced thoughts on religion, and plenty of whom are religious themselves. Yaron has the perspective of religion I had when I was 12, and it's a sophisticated perspective. If you're 12.

@@doseferatu there are very few high intelligence religious people, hence why most of them are “famous”. And even they don’t admit to their cognitive dissonance when it’s blaring

@@ericrodwell8706 bullseye

Yes. The majority are ignorant of these mushrooms... If you want to be closer to god... Seek the mushrooms

@@TheJbiz84 Amen

@@TheJbiz84 Or engage in a regular practice of meditation and learn it from a master. Anyone who dismisses the idea of unity with the whole typically hasn't meditated in any kind of serious way. There is no substitute for direct experience. Anything else is unconfirmed rumor.

@@zyrrhos The problem with that is like mushrooms are not for everyone... I have ADD and siting in one place isn't an option for me. But i do understand that there maybe a certain person that reflect that view. As an individual its great that we all have unique outlets to be in the divine realm. God bless

Well, I don't know. Maybe.

But thats not what i am saying- Kermit voice

It's a podcast, not a court. JP had multiple talks and written literature on this. I think they can get an idea of what he means regarding that. I'm only saying this because of your "ffs SMH" as if Lex has done a huge disservice to JP.

Yeah he said that we can just throw away myth and religion and say we don’t know. Not a smart take. Metaphorical truth is gained through the following of many myths. This allows you to take advantage of a particular truth without an understanding of the finer details. Society is too complex and advanced to start pulling out the roots just because you don’t understand them. In fact you should only step away from myth and religion when you are confident that you understand all of the communicated wisdom. FYI I’m agnostic, raised in a very liberal college town. While I won’t be believing in the “flying spaghetti monster” any time soon I have experience the unwise removal of traditional religion leading strait to hedonism. Drugs sex and rock n roll over kids career and community. We won’t get far like this.

Then you've missed the point entirely, none of these men converse looking to "destroy" each other when none of them has the real truth.

@@englishthought1360 Because rock and roll is the height of all moral evil and humans hate getting high while having sex right,? just because you've lived a boring life it doesn't mean the world is going down the pan.

I think the teens are the intended audience for this type of philosophy, idk.

Because that's all you need for religion. Not even that...

@@mattiasniska7199 When this type of philosophy is all you need to debunk religious beliefs...

Then make an argument for your beliefs in the institution of religion. If you have something to say then back it up.

@@tankerd1847 No arguments would ever be sufficient for a rebellious heart. I was the exact example of that rebellion when I was 19 years old. 'Professing themselves to be wise they became fools (...)'

Definitely.

And also Jay Dyer

Israelis have a problem with that consonant...

Many languages don’t distinguish between the two liquid ( /r/ and /l/) sounds.

Because idols are stupid lol

Like jesus the sun God, God was really mad the first time people worshipped the sun, don't think he's gonna be too happy this time

Counterpoint: Michael Malice

Malice is a gem, watch for him

True. He also has a very narrow-minded view of the DMT experience and denies it has any basis in reality, of course he's just giving an opinion but he states it as fact. In the larger interview you will see this guy's arrogance more on display as Malice lets him walk all over him.

This

His entire line of reasoning boils down to "I dont need it, therefore NO ONE should need it".

What should Lex debate JP on? robotics?

You said you're not religious, are you also a rationalist materialist? If not what are you?

doesnt matter. point is religion is not doing any good to humanity anymore. its just divides people.

@@jovial5286 that's quite the claim. No good at all eh?

@@JimmyDThing no good, we cant do without religion.

Agreed. He's so bloody annoying. I have heard him criticize JBP before somewhere and I feel he's just envious. No one knows who this Yaron guy is.

@@ettvanligtkonto haha agreed.

@@abhishektandel5569 Yeah was gonna say this as well its not the first time hes done it, clearly envious that JBP's message is hitting home for a lot more people than his does.

The most effective way of navigating through this delusional world imo.

Bro I died when I read your comment lol. Rand is like Sam Harris, they think their reasoning is above all previous philosophy.

It is always interesting listening to people who are.overly sure of their own intellect

@@bucksfan77 Bit different when that person has reason to be sure of their intellect and can back It up.

@@jac9301 He literally argued that in order to defemd American self interests abroad we should use nuclear weapons. Which is what you'd expect from someone who says the virtues of Christ's messages of peace are really just weakness

I've studied Kant and I actually somewhat agree with Yaron. I've heard your opinion stated by many freshmen students that have yet to pay their dues. By placing the matters of God, the soul and ethics in Noumena (since we are not able to experience them), Kant made them unavailable for rational and empirical investigation. They can be speculated about, sure, and Kant even provided a method for this "rational" speculation. Still, it is nothing but speculation and the existence and nature of God cannot be truly *known* by us, and it cannot proven or disproven. As such Kant was polemical both against the Thomists and rationalist idealists (like Spinoza) and their rational proofs for God and against the atheists that tried to use their (from his view) phenomenal reason and knowledge in order to disprove or discount God. Many protestant theologians are greatly influenced by Kant. They believe that reason cannot inform us about the existence and nature of God, just like Kant did. As such, they mostly reject reason in all philosophical matters - instead turning to blind faith since reason cannot know true, noumenal, reality. Even calling noumena "reality" is a bit off since "reality" is one of the categories of understanding. Anyways, Kant separated faith from reason more forcefully than perhaps any thinker before him - but he did not do it in order to destroy religion, he did it in order to save religion from the critique of reason. Some argue that Kants rescue of religion was just a by-product of his trancendental idealism (his synthesis of metaphysics and epistemology) and that it wasn't his explicit purpose to save religious belief. But after having studied him, I'm unsure of this take. Kant is guilty of many inconsistencies, some even approaching the level of cheap cop-outs, and my interpretation is that Kant from the very beginning had one thing clear in his mind: his system must not in any way invalidate religious belief (more precisely christian religious beliefs).

@@corybraga518 🤝

How did you came up with that conclusion.

@@vedranandric700 which part?

@@travismckinnon2494 For a start - Jesus came to destroj religion.

@@vedranandric700 The religious system of the day was the pharisees and the Synagogues. But Jesus came against them saying you but heavy yokes around people and parade yourself like you holy. But Jesus said my yoke is light and throught Him we are holy. He didn't come with all these different denominations which cause division. He came to bring unity and relationship for us to our Father God. But religion will keep you sick and poor were as Jesus gives life and life more abuntly. So you really see how religion has been used by satan to deceive and divide people. They act holy but denie the power of God.

@@travismckinnon2494 religious system of that age was Judaisam and Synagogs were places of worship. Jesus spoke bad about pharisees because a lot of them were preaching but not doing what they preached they were the hypocrites. Jesus didnt came to destroy religion and he says - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." And that claim that religion is of the satan is false.

That’s like asking a homeopath crystal sage about medicine. Let me know when a homeopath invents the next equivalent of antibiotics.

Thank you. Totally agree 🙏🏻

I'm not even religious in a traditional sense, but this guy's arrogance was hard to listen to.

Agrred

The fact that they invented it to explain the unexplainable is an assumption from the start.

"pure rationality is much more destructive" you sure about that? I think religious inspired war and killing still has a much higher death toll lol

mate, I don't think he knows anything about the soviet union or nazi Germany because they banned religion in both cases and were the result of this reductionist and arrogant thinking. The problem with intellectuals is, they always make this moronic assumption that they can calculate all the possible outcomes of an action which they are obviously wrong about, and then the rest of the society has to pay for their ignorance.

He's speaking as a whole. Religion has caused more destruction than anything else.

I had the same thought...lol.

*stifles laughter*

He's overreaching to domains outside of his narrow competence. Exactly the type of intellectual Thomas Sowell advocates to be wary of.

Science doesn't teach us anything, it's simply a set of tools we use to figure things out. Why is it inconceivable that we should be able to figure out morality?

If 13 year olds actually cared about and thought about things like this, the world would be a better place. Don't know what genius kids you're hanging around with, but tell them to keep up the great work.

Your comment reminded me more of a 13 year old than anything they said

maybe you’re just offended because you’re a theist?

@@troymash8109 Nah, the state is trash and everyone (including atheists) knows it lol. And yes atheists are not exempt from being just as moronic as religious people. Religion is so core to your identity that you interpret criticisms of it as annoying and arrogant; these really were just criticisms without going too far.

you will reference your consciousness.

None of these people are connected to a supreme force so just be nice to people and live your life.

@@jovial5286 Talking to yourself about yourself makes no sense.

@@jac9301 lol. I don't think you talking to anyone will ever make any sense.

@@jac9301 yep, you always need an arbiter. Its how you come to the conclusion of what is real, in truth. Hence, communion.

*hi five*

Now THAT I can support

I did not hear him use the word "worship" in that entire clip. Are you even sure of what you heard?

and what are those religious values based on in your opinion? Divine guidance or a nebulous collection of reflections of lessons learned through thousands of generations of genetic and cultural selection?

@@countdooku75 xdxd these guys who believe anything that JP spits out

Brother in-law

Wut

Judgment of the Nephilim by Ryan Pitterson and Unseen Realm by Michael Heiser

there are also other purposes for religion. There are neural pathways that you don't even know you'd be better off with. Religion isn't primarily about ethics.

Religion is simply a value system. Everybody has a religion whether they like to admit it or not.

@@MicahMicahel It should be. Whenever religion isn't primarily about ethics it is manipulative

@@DanielSanchez_dsanc89 no... a value system has no spiritual element. Woke culture is maybe a religion because it has everything that religion does except for a transcendent God. Most people that follow woke are moral idiots because they can't see the moral flaws inherent in their philosophy. Religions that last deal with eternity.

@@oninoyakamo I think it's more manipulative when it is about ethics. Think about rulers using religious texts to control people. They had to make sure people couldn't read the Bible to manipulate them. The Islamic ethical system logically leads to dictatorships. Isn't that manipulative? It's the ethical elements governments exploit. Christianity has the absolute forgiveness of sins so the manipulative power is much less if the Christians are literate. I don't agree with your assessment of people craving freedom. Most people want to follow. Freedom is scary to modern people.

@@devilsadvocate7389 nah. Never spoke of validity or truth. I basically said he's boring and unoriginal and that's why he's not attractive in the idea marketplace. He could be correct in everything and that would just make the truth boring and unattractive.