Do Human Beings Need a Religion?

This clip is taken from an episode of the Triggernometry Podcast, available in full here: • The Moral Case Against...
If you like Cosmic Skeptic content, please consider supporting the channel at / cosmicskeptic

[@NoInjusticeLastsForever]

Being a fan of a sports team gives you a feeling of community, minus the belief in a fairy tale, even if my sports team will never win a championship. 😢

[@jamesclerk815]

As long as you have faith, I'm sure they will win one day. 😅😅

[@kubad2012]

And as a fan you can still make false claims why your team is actually the best

[@Elnegro..]

"The cowboys are a good team" Fairytale

[@therougesage7466]

Chicago bears

[@lukasabcdefg5606]

Even that Fandom leads to violence and division from time to time

[@demesminp]

Man, I'm 40 years and admire this kid so much. I always listen to what he has to say!

[@therougesage7466]

Sad

[@spitz5183]

He’s an adult, not a kid.

[@tahaymvids1631]

He's 22 lmao

[@therougesage7466]

@@saywhat303 I’m 20

[@therougesage7466]

@@saywhat303 say what ?!?

[@corb5654]

Three of my absolute favourites in one room! Love it!

[@Volatile-Tortoise]

I would love to see Alex in parliament. How about we take those 26 seats from the Church of England that are reserved for Bishops in the upper parliamentary house, and instead reserve them for philosophers, scientists, and historians? We would get a lot of more wisdom. Premier public intellectuals could receive an official honorary invite, even while knowing most of them probably won't turn up most of the time, but perhaps for major debates about seriously consequential issues. Politicians can be very smart in their narrow fields and have a good understanding of the issues being discussed, but they often lack the broader perspectives and challenging of underlying assumptions that comes from highly intelligent individuals in other fields of human endeavour. Don’t get me wrong, finance and economics are an important degree, but it shouldn’t be the only perspective in the house of commons.

[@castlesandcuriosities]

The house of Lord needs major reforms in my view and one of the first things to tackle is removing the church seats. We either scrap religion from the house entirely, or grant every religion representation... I prefer the former option, but the later is still better than what we have now.

[@skindred1888]

It's hilarious, it gets brought up wlevery few years...whoever brings it up gets dumped on as unpatriotic and left to support themselves

[@calonstanni]

I'm liking these cosmic clips

[@PilsnerGrip]

People often use the "religious" label on things they don't like, because what they mean is extremist and zealous, while at the same time claiming we need more religiousity

[@hiking1388]

I don't think humans need religion, but we do have a natural tendency to form tribes based off ____ (politics / ethnicity / whatever). I would love to see awareness of this taught in schools, so that people can slowly start to recognize these impulses and biases for what they are. The thing is though, a lot of people are quite content to be tribalistic, nationalism and all that make people feel good when they have a group they want to be part of.

[@hiking1388]

@Indrid Cold Not sure where you're from, but I'm from the US, where we were taught to sing for a school assembly, "Yes I'm proud to be an American where at least I know I'm free..." Practically everyone at my school was of European descent as well. I also taught for four years in Central Europe, and they were very proud of their national identity. Tribal allegiance in the US is arguably the worst because of how much of an effect we have on the rest of the world.

[@hiking1388]

@Indrid Cold why does that matter? I was taught growing up: this (America) is your tribe, love it cuz we're better than everywhere else. My fourth/fifth grade teacher would repeatedly tell us: America is the best country in the world especially for immigrants. (Though I believe Canada is the best place currently to achieve the "American dream") My mother listened to a lot of talk radio when I was growing up, which is basically a continuous reiteration of what my fifth grade teacher said (except with more anger towards the thought of immigrants). Tribalism is detrimental to society and the world, especially considering how it leads to prioritizing national interests over global. Eg promoting coal to help coal miners instead of focusing on what we need to do to fight global warming.

[@hiking1388]

@Indrid Cold I honestly don't care about white people reproducing. Nor about whether people are 'allowed' to feel 'proud' of their kin. In my observation, the more people need to feel pride in their family / tribe, the less they have going on in their own lives to bring them pride and satisfaction. Someone in my town concerned like you about white people 'disappearing' was unhappy that I, a white female, will not reproduce. Can't say I'm losing any sleep over this. I care about the environment foremost. Therefore, reducing the amount of people reproducing is important, especially lowering the population in developed countries. Climate change is mostly caused by rich countries, and yet it is the poorer nations which will have to suffer the most.

[@RevilHermes]

You are one of my favourites :) Strong arguments.

[@SubstanceP888]

Also love how Alex ends it on a Hitchens quote.

[@lumbratile4174]

Harari, who was mentioned, offers a definition of religion I adopted myself: An (1) organic system of values and norms that (2) claims to be originated from overhuman laws

[@mazetoeden9334]

overhuman like a deity?

[@lumbratile4174]

@@mazetoeden9334 not necessarily! That's the neat part. Overhuman is anything different and higher than human. So deities but also natural law and similar concepts.

[@lumbratile4174]

@@mazetoeden9334 i suggest you to read Sapiens. It is wrecking and rebuilding the way I look at the world in every damn chapter.

[@Zirrad1]

I've defined religion as something that involves a disembodied mind somewhere in its principles and practice.

[@lumbratile4174]

@@Zirrad1 but this doesn't even apply to ancient Greek religion. neither to polytheism nor to animism

[@unamejames]

I considered learning more about Buddhism, but I got to the part where I realized there were several fractures and forks in it and competing geopolitical factions that were all Buddhist and I decided I'd basically be throwing a dart at a board picking which one to go with. Then it'd probably take me all of a few weeks to decide I didn't like my fellow practitioners for some reason.

[@slevinchannel7589]

Hope Humans can overcome this Religion-Stuff.

[@Dewstend]

This bit is very relevant considering Alex O'Connor's recent debate with Ben Shapiro on the Big Conversation.

[@laalki80]

Civilization (1991) the game again shows its insight. Build a Temple to soothe the masses. It's idiotic. Not the game, the people. We seem to need that kind of certainty and comfort.

[@istvansipos9940]

especially back in the days when the gods of the gaps found bigger gaps to live in.

[@damienschwass9354]

Love this Civ reference. And then in Civ 2... if you built "The Oracle" wonder it doubled the effect of temples in your cities. 👍👍

[@bjorsam6979]

Well, Konstantine, that which is good for an individual isn't necessarily good for society as a whole. Theft could also be defended by saying "it helps me".

[@justanotherhomosapian5101]

Will we ever hear u sing again?

[@thomasthompson6378]

"To teach a man religion is like a parent teaching a child to be loyal, or sober, or honest. If loyalty, or sobriety, or honesty become the sport of public debate and public contradiction, their moral force is weakened for those who wish to weaken them. And if the truth of religion becomes a matter of public debate in newspapers, the effect is not like a debate on the truth of utilitarian philosophy. Once religious beliefs are equated with philosophical opinions and so become matters of purely intellectual argument, skepticism has won. . . . To the religious mind qua religious mind the historical question hardly matters, or matters only in special circumstances and for special reasons. The historical mind qua historical mind needs to know, or at least to guess. What happened? is his vocation. "Human society knows many occasions where what happened is less momentous than what is believed to have happened. If the enquirer spends his time deciding whether a maiden stood bound for a dragon to eat, or whether a George rode to the rescue, he may miss the myth that bears truth for the moral being and for the spirit. "Historians of the later Enlightenment made themselves ridiculous by explaining wonder, by unquenchable prosiness, by “rationalizing” the “sandwiches” of five thousand or the walking upon water . . . " -- Owen Chadwick

[@laurajarrell6187]

Cosmic Skeptic, Alex, your points are always spot on. And they show just how shallow we, as a species, tend to think. It seems, all of the 'big' questions have pithy, shallow answers that when you dissect them, don't hold up. Love these!👍💖🥰✌

[@truebomba]

No dogma can hold up to rational critique. This is known from the time of Kant. But "does this means we can live practically without dogmas?" is another question. Alex is just preaching other dogmas (such as secular liberalism) which can not hold to scrutiny either and its best argument are just based on certain historical reading and metanarratives that pretend to be scientific, but the empirical element in them is near to none.

[@laurajarrell6187]

@@truebomba But true liberals, not political but those who want the most freedom and happiness for the most beings, realize that 'dogmatism' is bad. As Alex has stated many times, ritual and 'practices' are fine, unless you let them become 'dogmatic' and they interfere with your or anyone else's life. And, if you can't toss them away, if they aren't conducive to well being. 🥰✌

[@truebomba]

​@@laurajarrell6187 I agree about trying to reduce dogmatism, however, as I said there is secular dogmatism as well. When it comes to liberal theory. Let me provide this critique using the models of identity construction. I don't want to go deep inside what is the definition of happiness and what can cause alienation. But as a side note, a religious can say that secularisation is one of the causes of alienation because religiosity is natural in human beings, as well as a Marxist will say that capitalism is the cause. Your perception of freedom presupposes that by nature humans construct their identity using what we can call "authentic" mechanism. That means that it presupposes that if you look deep down there are some aspects that constitute your true self and then your outside should represent this "authentic" self or else you are not "liberated" or you are fake in some sort. However, traditional thinking constructs their identity around another mechanism which can be called "sincerity", which presuppose a social order and roles and see freedom of the individual in filling his/her role sincerely and wholeheartedly, or else, if it isn't sincere then it is fake and hypocritical and not "liberated". Who got human nature right? And what produces the most happiness and less alienation? Are you sure that the response to these questions is as easy/clear as Alex and you folks make them sound?

[@laurajarrell6187]

@@truebomba Of course, you are right. It is something we must work at. As thinking creatures, we recieve a mixed bag of natural responses, instict and upbringing affecting us, plus what we want. We are constant works in progress. And that is somewhat new, as up until the last 500 years or so, the majority of humanity spent most of the time just surviving. This, of course, is just my opinion. And, I'm neither well educated nor extremely 'smart'. But I do realize we all have bias and presupposition. And that, is why I feel we all are 'works in progress'. We are a relatively young species, and evolution is a very slow process. Christopher Hitchens once said our frontal lobes are too small and our adrenal glands too big. This explains a lot, even if it was sort of a joke, lol. 💖✌

[@batman-sr2px]

@@laurajarrell6187 rituals are pretty much always habitual and dogmatic.

[@mrj3nk044]

Collectivist ethics like altruism or egalitarianism have a mystical basis. Modern politics and religion share these ethical underpinnings and likewise share in mystical bases.

[@therougesage7466]

What are you a subjectivist?

[@mrj3nk044]

@@therougesage7466 Nope.

[@therougesage7466]

@@mrj3nk044 okay...

[@mrj3nk044]

@@therougesage7466 Are you?

[@therougesage7466]

@@mrj3nk044 nah

[@NoInjusticeLastsForever]

Why would we want to be bound together around lies when the truth could bring us together just the same?

[@ga4214]

Interesting; and how exactly are you going to reach the truth when your mind isn’t created to find it?

[@martinmartin1363]

The problem of society today is nobody really believes in religion anymore and it doesn’t bind us anymore we make up our own values and form groups with like minded people, so atheist vegans will group together and carnivore atheists will stick together and these groups will disagree and form new groups etc, and religion is doing the same thing, it’s now how you feel on any given day, Catholic Sunday, Monday atheist, Tuesday Buddhist, Wednesday satanic, etc etc Atheism for the common man means no fear for life and death that’s why crime and murder is on the rise its all about self gratification life means nothing, so get what you can while you can to make yourself happy, otherwise it’s poverty, misery and death.

[@intensepete430]

My conclusion is that religion is a good thing as a moral compass for yourself and it falls apart as soon as you start applying it to anyone else.

[@manfredpolster1732]

Comming too terms with mortality eludes the majority of humanity. The elusion of an afterlife is the foundation of religion.

[@therougesage7466]

Word generator

[@istvansipos9940]

I think, ignorance is the foundation. If some1 is ignorant, mortals (with 0 expereince at dying) can convince him/her about an afterlife. A wise people (maybe just in their heads, and not face to face) ask those "holy" people: "How da fakk do you know?"

[@gorgzilla1712]

I just want to be part of something that I care about, that’s bigger than me

[@ivanos_95]

Considering that religion is primarily a set of moral principles/formalized method of conduct, which is crucial for a group of individuals to form a complex social-structure and compete with other structures, so religion is absolutely necessary, especially in case of a civilization that consists of various cultures or where religion is the only guarantor of cohesion, and it's ridiculous how those atheists with higher IQ doesn't understand or chose to ignore this basic fact due to personal prejudices.

[@damienschwass9354]

You need to demonstrate that religion is the only thing we have to form a set of moral principles and a code of conduct. Only then does it become a necessary tool. the only way necessary for that implies that it's the only way to achieve that goal. As for religion being a guarantor of social cohesion... thats just laughable. It's has consistently been a cause of conflict throughout history. And you seem to ignore the fact that the existence of various cultures is something that is influenced by no small degree by different religions. Yeah, let's just have just one religion LOL I can see all the worldwide cohesion and social order that will result from that proposal 🙄

[@ivanos_95]

@@damienschwass9354 If you look at our western civilization as an example, religion like Christianity have been the foundation at establishing every serious nation in Europe, while religious institution like the Church have been the unifying body for those nations during conflicts with other civilizations like the Mongolian or Islamic one.

[@damienschwass9354]

@Iwanvs 95. 1) still waiting for you to demonstrate, or just explain, how religion is the only thing we have to establish a set of moral principles / "formalised method of conduct", making it "absolute necessary". 2) lets use Islam as that absolutely necessary tool to achieve that aim, shall we? What do you think? Socially cohesive enough for you? Or lets go with your fave, Christianity, and we'll put you in charge of explaining to the billions of Muslims and Hindus that it's for their cohesion and it's a "guarantor". 3)... and then you can tell them that their countries need to "serious nations" like the christian ones in Western Europe. 4) can't you see how foolish it is to use examples of people fighting a war under the banner of one religion against people of another religion? How does this help your moral and social cohesion argument?! If I were you, I'd steer well clear of examples of war if you're looking to promote the idea of religion for morals and social cohesion.

[@ivanos_95]

@@damienschwass9354 Simply because the second thing which supposed to unify the foreigners as a society outside religion is the secular state, which is based on enforcement of the law, or rather a piece of unclear document and a bunch of parties with shaky ideologies, who either compete over interpretation of that document or aim to abolish the present structure altogether, so it's obviously not a solid foundation like in the case of religion, which can unify the foreigners and allows them to organize functional communities, maintain the present order, or shape a whole new political structure without enforcement by an organized state, while the wars between civilizations is just a result of the fundamental differences between all the existing religions, sad truth.

[@damienschwass9354]

" a bunch of parties with shaky ideologies, who either compete over interpretation of that document"... hmmm, sounds familiar..... let me get my bible, my Torah and my Quran and find the answer. Or maybe I'll just gather a representative of each of the Christian doctrines and get them to explain their unified interpretation. Thanking for acknowledging the role religion plays in wars. Now, what were you saying about unifying under a banner? Remember your original argument (how religion is absolutely necessary as a means for social order/ system of moral principles/ social cohesion) and see how you haven't made a case... in fact, you've weakened it. You're floundering.

[@amf8551]

I think the question should be....should humans beings need spiritual guidance. Religión is misjeading as we use Religión to pin people against each other to say my Religión is better because is the true Religión. Thus spiritual guidance is a compass of physical and mental well being by incorporating clear and similar defining valles and moral compass.

[@iseriver3982]

Spirits are real so no need to guide them.

[@amf8551]

@@iseriver3982 can you elaborate on your statement. Are you saying that spirits are real...as I am referring to my spiritual state of mind and body. Our starting point is the same fir all and as we journey through life we mold our spiritual values based on prescribed right and wrong compass

[@iseriver3982]

@@amf8551 starting point isn't the same for all. And there's no spirit to guide.

[@nagranoth_]

ehm. no... that's not what spiritual means. Physical and mental wellbeing have nothing to do with supernatural crap.

[@amf8551]

@@nagranoth_ I did not say super natural I said spiritual guidance I super natural is a god or a ghost

[@slevinchannel7589]

Definetly No.

[@skeptischism1324]

Religion IMHO really is just an attempt to reconcile some type of spiritual, metaphysical concepts. Or to try and explain the unexplainable, Its a means to quell the fear of death, or make one feel more important and grandiose than we really are. But like most things that are nebulous and somewhat ambiguous in their interpretations and varying beliefs, you get conflict and fanaticism. Religion has done some good, but its really just a guise. Its ppl enacting those beliefs which we have whether religion induced those actions/choices are not. Someone who changes their life for the better, and puts in work to do so, does themselves a disservice when they attribute said changes to god or religions influence.

[@damienschwass9354]

Good comment 👍 People can do themslves a disservice, and it's sad, but it becomes irritating when they do it others e.g. people who recover from serious illness and thank their god, with little or no acknowledgement of the doctors/ nurses/ medicine/ science involved.

[@skeptischism1324]

​@John Goodrest "Sounds great, but very, very few humans have done that in the last 100,000 or so. I am constantly entertained by those who pontificate rationally, only to completely cut across the evidence from history" I too am constantly entertained, by sweeping assertions and broad assumptions, such as the ones you've declared. Why dont you tell me what "evidence" it is i've cut across from history?All you've done is made a broad vague statement, and shown nothing to back up said assertion. I'm coming from a place of opinion, i'd say thats clear, yet you ta;lk as if you are coming from a place of fact, or evidence. Please enlighten me with this evidence i';ve so carelessly missed. "Religion is a thing, and it will not be eradicated or replaced by thinking." Well of course its a thing, an unneeded one imho, and how else do good ideas proliferate and bad ones diminish? Througth THOUGHT. Its only those that throw logic aside in favor of dogmatic comfort that wont let go of clearly antiquated notions. that arent needed in this day and age. But please, present your "evidence" of what im missing, and i will be as honest and objective as i can about it, and will admit if i;m wrong. Though im under the impression you'rre just another sanctimonious theist who feels slighted by my comment and felt compelled to give your vague assertions. Prove me wrong though, please.

[@00lovepeace00]

i really hope one day to see Alex and Jordan Peterson discussing ideas

[@alinebaruchi1936]

We kind of do. We think the same way about protecting the vulnerable. No matter what.

[@TheBaconWizard]

I notice how little people care about the vulnerable every single minute of every single day. Antimaskers are in the news RIGHT NOW, during a global pandemic, not to mention people actively supporting, almost worshipping, politicians who are very clearly narcissists and/or psychopaths.

[@alinebaruchi1936]

@@TheBaconWizard I guess that people are scared of masks. I guess that asking them why is good.

[@TheBaconWizard]

@@alinebaruchi1936 they aren’t scared of masks (I exclude from that statement people with a medical reason for not wearing one) they are offended by the concept that they are required (either morally OR legally) to cater to the very serious needs of other people in society before their own very, very, very minor discomfort and in some cases subscribe to the theory that total selfishness is a virtue (which comes back to the adulation of narcissists)

[@alinebaruchi1936]

@@TheBaconWizard They know it's not a virtue. They know right from wrong. What I am asking you is to let them go. Because you know better.

[@TheBaconWizard]

@@alinebaruchi1936 To what end? If people are permitted to cause undue suffering for others, then we are complicit.

[@evanstowers8529]

Maybe the world would be better if people studied the moral codes and community ethos of religions rather than stick to their own belief system completely without learning from religions. For example: the world may be a much better place for humans and animals alike if people simply studied the moral codes of Jainism. And I guess it's interesting that those who partake or ascribe to religions perpetuate their moral codes and histories. You could say modern the modern Orthodox Christianity has largely attempted to preserve much of the history of Christianity or that many monks have attempted to preserve manuscripts with historical value... ...many moral codes have been very well preserved through our history even in the face of militaristic or social domination by opposing forces that sought to destroy the manuscripts and/or practices of the moral codes... ....people were willing to die for something in order to pass it down as a form of knowledge or wisdom. You can always say that mankind can figure out his morals without the religions but having them still here as study materials to reflect and discuss upon essentially means you have points of view on our morality that have withstood the test of time to survive and can play a great role in our ever-ongoing development of morality as an evolutionary advantage.

[@ramadadiver59]

There were Chrsitians supporting the origins of species when it first came about also

[@mazetoeden9334]

back in the day Christianity what just what one believed, there was nothing else. scientists also were Christians therefore anyone who believed anything also happened to be Christian

[@nightprowler6336]

@@mazetoeden9334 not true. There were deists and agnostics and spiritualists.

[@ryanfouts1200]

The great thing about Science is that whether you believe in it or not, it's still true.

[@yep33whalesbebig60]

Is that why it changes so much? Science is only useful not truth.

[@ryanfouts1200]

@@yep33whalesbebig60 The Science isn't changing, only our interpretation and understanding of it.

[@Thomas-nc9fz]

The fact that it changes is the reason why it's the best path we have to truth. We have a theory and if new evidence comes along which provides a better, more accurate explanation grounded in reality, the scientists will change their mind and we get closer to truth. There is no such thing as a fact in science, only theory because scientists are humble enough to acknowledge that we don't know everything and the only path to truth of reality is observation, and experimentation - science.

[@moonshoes11]

@@yep33whalesbebig60 It gets refined more so than changes. And it is science that corrects science. It’s more than useful, it is our single most reliable set of methods in measuring reality. Peace and reason.

[@itsJPhere]

@@yep33whalesbebig60 Science is like a camera. When you point the camera at something, the image looks blurry at first. But when you focus the lens, the image becomes sharper and sharper. We don't have a perfectly sharp image yet, but we begin to have some idea what the image looks like. If we didn't adapt our thinking according to the image, then we most likely would be wrong about what we are looking at.

[@manueltrueba8399]

So he'd sign for a religion rhat doesn't require belief in god. Anyone familiar with Pastafarianism? Maradonianism? Satanism? There's a bunch which, unlike Budism, don't even have a spiritual basis.

[@batman-sr2px]

Satanism isn't a religion.

[@carnivorous_vegan]

The average person doesn't give a fuck about philosophy, let alone the rational thinking required to analyze it. While I agree philosophical concepts should be introduced more often to the average person's life, the fact of the matter is - the average person just wants to live their lives, work their jobs, have a family, occasionally indulge in pleasures, then enjoy retirement. Religion acts as a placeholder for the average person's ethos, their sense of community, the general principles you get from religious storytelling, among other things. If you want to throw that away, what do you replace it with? This is basic Nietzsche. Alex says you replace it with reason and rationality. That isn't going to work. You don't go up to a long-established family and tell them to throw out their family tradition of practicing a religion that gives them necessary tools to engage with society by telling them, "Yeah, throw out your religion. Oh, how do we replace what religion provides to us? Well, start by reading these 20 books on philosophy, like I did." Nobody will want that, nor it is plausible to expect them to.

[@Noblility]

I'm curious. If someone were to perform the suggested act in replacing their religion with rational analysis and research and at the end of it returned their religion, how would that person be perceived? Would it be assumed the person went in with an immovable bias? Or that the person lacked the level of intelligence required to grasp their studies and research? Or the person was indoctrinated beyond repair? The person was lazy or lying? Or would it be concluded that religious belief can at times come at the end of rational analytical thought after thorough research and comparison? And if it's the latter and religious belief can be grounded rationally, then could all possible issues religion brings with it be considered as the results of human nature and not issues innate to the religion?

[@Noblility]

@@keithboynton "likely false". So not actually false? How can rationality be viewed so in decisively? Either the thought is shown to be rational by good arguments and proper research or its irrational. I cannot see a middle ground. Remember you don't have to agree with a rational claim but your disagreement doesn't turn it into an irrational claim. Do you have an example of what a middle ground between irrational and rational would look like? I'm genuinely curious.

[@batman-sr2px]

And not even all the philosophers agree on everything so you'd be still stuck.

[@ga4214]

Also philosophy gives no meaning to life nor morality only religion do that

[@Zepheron]

@ga4214 I mean not really. Look at existentialism for example.

[@martinmartin1363]

Atheism is for the rich and religion is for the poor.

[@animefurry3508]

I think religion has never been separate from politics, religion has always been a type of politics.

[@therougesage7466]

Huh

[@mazetoeden9334]

yes that's one of the reasons religion is still affecting life today. If you have a certain belief, a certain religion, your way of thinking is going to affect the way you vote. Religion is never a private thing because it affects all people as soon as your actions are guided by those believes

[@jakecostanza802]

@ValentineF it's medieval but kinda came before the Middle Ages. Only God knows why.

[@ga4214]

Yup it is stupid to separate the two actually; they are a two sides of one coin

[@ga4214]

@ValentineF humanism is a satanic religion 😪

[@bourbonyoung6237]

That’s not even a rational question. How can you need something that is detrimental? The only type of person who could ask that question is someone who doesn’t understand consequences.

[@therougesage7466]

🤦🏻‍♂️

[@bourbonyoung6237]

@@therougesage7466 Hmm.

[@joshuakohlmann9731]

Any addict feels a need for something that is detrimental - at least in the quantities they crave it.

[@anzov1n]

7:20 - you wouldn't be doing comedy if you didn't think you were funny. These lies to boost confidence are useful when they are slight distortions, tightly constrained. You'd be considered insane if your beliefs about yourself were significantly inaccurate and you continued to act on them.

[@jakecostanza802]

On the other hand, you could be the only one that was right. It depends on the context.

[@anzov1n]

@@jakecostanza802 that's sort of a different topic. IF your actual competence is low, believing a positive lie about yourself isn't going to magically change that (beyond the psychological effects). What you're proposing is the scenario where your actual competence is high but it simply isn't recognized by others. Interestingly enough, in the particular example of comedy, and social skills in general, if others don't agree with your self-assessment then I'm not sure what it would mean to be "right". If you're actually really funny but no one else thinks you are... what does it mean to be funny?

[@istvansipos9940]

no. they don't. I survived many years without religion. My parents survived even more years with 0 religion. And yes, we are a human family. DID humans need religion? No. But it helped a lot (placebo, community, crowd control), just like fairy tales help children. Time to grow up, though.

[@ga4214]

You are surviving now but not for long as no atheists made civilizations only theists do 🥱 atheists usually come at the end when the civilization is about to fall; read history and you would know what I mean

[@mohammedphilonous6856]

what about buddhism? sound nice to you? LOL

[@ilovenature9077]

Buddhism does not necessarily have to be considered a religion. Everyone, atheists, agnostics, theists could also be Buddhists.

[@mohammedphilonous6856]

@@ilovenature9077 yes the concept of nirvana sounds better than all the pictures of heaven in all religion

[@ilovenature9077]

@@mohammedphilonous6856 I don't know, I'm an agnostic. Anyway, one can arrive at Nirvana in this life, it depends on the interpretation of Nirvana. Alex could easily be a Buddhist, as skepticism also guides Buddhist thought and is compatible with all positions, for or against, regarding the existence of a god. But I think Alex, despite being skeptical, still has a lot of preconceptions to take an interest in Eastern cultures, unless they are religions he rightly wants to criticize. I'm sorry for him because Buddhism could offer him a lot, requiring no faith.

[@beefyogurt]

people just need psychedelics so we can tap back into being extremely empathetic, say once a month. people seem to use their religion as a moral template but are so hypocritical to anyone that doesn't practice their own religion. we need to dissolve boundries

[@SubstanceP888]

Love how whenever Alex is talking, dude just constantly goes, “Mmmmm.... mmmm... mmmmm... mmmm...”. as if he’s scratching his chin in deep, deep thought, but doesn’t have a fucking clue how to respond to the obvious irrefutable refutations. Lol.

[@Lumalee]

Hes.. politely listening?

[@nagranoth_]

No.

[@francmittelo6731]

Religion is a "system of beliefs and behaviors mainly about how to become an ideal individual and/or build an ideal community." Yes, all humans have a religion. This is what separates us from other living things. We have systems of beliefs and behaviors (that sometimes even override survival reactions), and we transmit these to other people.

[@skindred1888]

Not the only thing that separates us. One's ability for imagination is a big one though

[@XraynPR]

"religion /rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/ noun the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." Lets play the definition game?

[@francmittelo6731]

@@XraynPR There is no consensus on the definition of religion.

[@XraynPR]

@@francmittelo6731 then I can just ignore yours? Ok. Still disagree

[@francmittelo6731]

​@@XraynPR Of course we disagree. That is a given. LOL The argument is why do we disagree? I disagree with you because your definition of religion will exclude a lot of cults who don't believe in "a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods," but they believe and worship a human being who they claim is "enlightened." Also, your definition of religion excludes a lot of people who say "I am not religious. I am spiritual," and all the people who believe in "woo woo" based on misunderstanding of science. Basically, your definition excludes A LOT of non-traditional religions, while mine includes all religions that have existed and could possibly exist, while excluding beliefs and behaviors that on their own are not necessarily religious. For example, if you defecate and use your left hand to wipe your anus, this act is not necessarily a religious act. But, if you say you use your left because Prophet Muhammad told me that is what a better human being does, then it becomes a religious act. Simple!

[@therougesage7466]

Most people don’t know what they’re attacking when they attack “religion “ how broad can you be

[@therougesage7466]

Religion means reconnect

[@FlyingSpaghettiJesus]

Who said it means that?

[@therougesage7466]

re-ligare

[@therougesage7466]

@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus every time I reply it never posts but re-ligare

[@therougesage7466]

@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus weird how I wrote reply’s and when I refresh the page they don’t show up

[@iseriver3982]

Trigger-idiots - I have a vague opinion! Alex - got an example of that? Trigger-idiots - ..... No.

[@ChillAssTurtle]

Religious ppl are just desperate to call everyone else a religious dummy

[@edgarmorales4476]

People usually turn to religion for comfort and reassurance and because of their non-comprehension of the laws of existence; such people will remain static in their meekness till the end of their time on earth. Indeed, because of Jesus' words recorded in the gospels: "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth", the churches have taught that meekness is to be commended, that is why religious people feel that their "meekness" is the way to the LIGHT. However, if the meek were to find the TRUTH concerning their "being" and find the right way to make contact with Universal Consciousness - the meek will eventually be told inwardly and clearly that, spiritually, they are the equal of everyone else. The meek will be inspired to express themselves well. The meek will be given the strength to speak "their truth" in a more confident and attractive way. People will begin to respect this new person and the meek will be manifesting their inner spiritual development gained during their times spent in meditation. Remember, we are not on earth to "please" God, as the churches may tell us. We are on earth to express God and to make ever closer and closer contact with Universal Consciousness until we become free of the magnetic-emotional bondage. It must be clear that Jesus' words have been mistranslated in the gospel. Jesus said: "Blessed are those with peaceful hearts for they will inherit the earth". If we contemplate the world, we will see that those countries with peaceful hearts prosper and live in harmony with their neighbors. Where there are upheavals and genocide, this turbulence is the direct manifestation of the consciousness of the inhabitants. Such a consciousness destroys a country and begets poverty and illness.

[@georgeandrerwwilesmith8559]

pompous, conceited, posh, know-it-all, pretentious, precocious

[@mazetoeden9334]

who?

[@georgeandrerwwilesmith8559]

@@mazetoeden9334 this bloke talking

[@georgeandrerwwilesmith8559]

@@keithboynton the posh one

[@damienschwass9354]

@George Andrew Wilesmith. Mate, look at your name- George Andrew Wilesmith- now that's posh! I saw someone the other day called "funky sak". No class.

[@nightprowler6336]

Also extremely arrogant hag who calls himself a philosopher

[@truebomba]

So we should believe in liberal democracy and enlightenment metanarrative to replace traditional religion. For some reason, this will produce less superstition or is more tolerant to dissidents. Nice western-centric move Alex. I hoped someone with more historical background to break from the echo chamber you had in this dialogue.

[@jamesclerk815]

Could you explain your take a bit further?

[@AshtonEbs]

I cringe when I hear Dawkins name now a days.

[@NoInjusticeLastsForever]

Especially after going vegan.

[@daviddeida]

Yeah his pro genital mutilation is abhorrent ,

[@ps5622]

Why so ?

[@x97s]

Dawkins is insane

[@ps5622]

@@x97s for holding what position ?