redonkulous,
I don't know why you posted that link but I did watch the entire (long) video. I find the guy has an interesting face and he is very amusing and intelligent. I have decided to dub him "The New Hierophant" in my modern Tarot deck. I'm sure he will appreciate that. LOL

I would like to know if he has ever actually defined the term "God" though. I have to assume he is talking about the common religious definition of the term. (I think in order to preach that a thing does not exist one should be able to define what they are talking about that does not exist. )

In any case, he would make a good character for the new Hierophant of the future in the tarot.

Your reality has nothing to do with the truth, it's just YOUR reality. A person with a fantom limb thinks that a real limb is still there, but obviously it isn't...

Jenny, I need a card quick, "Hire an Elephant". It's for my new businesses: Sight-seeing tours in Toronto, and an escort service for the discerning gentleman with a penchant for larger-sized ladies.

In your own words: What's a "hierophant"? In 3,400 words or less**.

** I am using the wrong word for idiotic idiomatic reasons. If I designed this expression, I'd say "3,400 words or fewer." Fewer words are sometimes more, not less.

Traditionally the Hierophant is the Pope of the Tarot. He is also called a "teacher" but he is a teacher of morals and traditional spiritual, religious and occult secrets supported by religious myths.

In my own words on my website http://www.infinitevisionstarot.com/hierophant.html

"The hierophant is a revered holy man who wields power and influence in his position in society. He speaks with the authority and the wisdom of a higher power. His power influences government, education and traditional family values."

THE NEW HIEROPHANT for the new age:

He is an atheist whose higher power is logic, reason, science and education. This is Dan Dennett

Thank you for the explanation, Jenny.

I envy Dan Dennett, damit. I think I could do the job, but I am not old and I don't believe in a higher power. In fact, I think wisdom, logic and reason give nobody any power over the stupid and strong and ignorant. That's a fallacy. But never mind, I'm only bitter because when I graduated from college and got my first suit, I'd often go to seedy bars to pick up women, because I delusionally thought that a man in a clean outfit would be a world-star there. Not the least. In fact, everyone kept staring at me, and eventually I'd leave. It was amazing, all conversations stopped, the dancers on the floor stopped, they just all kept staring at me. I can't decide if it was a real-life nightmare, a real-life surreallistic experience, or just plain funny.

A man dressed sharp who is frequenting seedy bars probably just looks like some evil politician slumming who wants to get laid and is probably into weird stuff like bondage. Just a thought.

I don't think the world is quite ready for a Dan Dennett hierophant/teacher, but that is basically his role. To gradually transform the world into accepting that kind of influence is what he is working on. I captured his faces while watching one of his speeches. (I think he will make an excellent subject to paint on canvas, I love his white hair and beard.)

I watched another video by some guy who was shooting Intelligent design proponents out of the water. His role was to be a champion of science and evolution,~~ but not an enemy of religion. (I don't think he pulled it off too well, I was confused.)

And I was puzzled ~ (and I think Dan Dennett would have also been puzzled) This guy claimed to be a catholic I think. The lecture was preceded by a minister saying a prayer to God for help in the search of truth. The lecturer seemed to profess a belief in God. He either believes in God *~or else he is just a hypocrite who goes to church or a person who is afraid to come out of the closet and declare that he is an atheist.~*

I was bewildered by that .. although it was a good lecture I felt that the guy was to afraid to admit he was an atheist. If he was not an atheist, I don't know how he would personally resolve the conflict between evolution and creationism/Intelligent design. If there is a God, and he did not create us, then what's the function of that so-called God? I don't get it. I would have questioned him on this and demanded an answer if I were talking to him in person. How can he pretend that he believes in a God and then deny that God created or designed the world? It does not make any sense. It was annoying and patronizing.

A least Dan Dennett states that he is an atheist, and in a very matter-of-fact way. I respect that.

i absolutly agree with this.. everyone tends to shape ideas around their own biases and for the most part we pick an choose the facts that support our idea's and disregaurd those that don't

"How can he pretend that he believes in a God and then deny that God created or designed the world?"

That's the easiest question I had yet to explain in my life.

It was a different God who created and designed the world. The God he believes in is a Judgmental God, a God who decides who is good and who is evil, who goes to hell and who goes to heaven.

We ALL have to have SOMETHING seclusive to JUDGE as truth.
For there to even be evidence, one must have grounds to FEEL or THINK,,that THEY NEED THAT.
From faith, to murder,,,to taste........
I think we all mostly use a formula of mixes to concur that thought.

What others believe, say, or think.
What we feel we have known knowledge of.
What we can find through reading or find from past others lives lived.

Through our own reviewing the popular opinions of ALL of the above.
WE then formulate OUR evidence as (our) believed PROOF of the TRUTH
that we seek to hold the true-st!
Based solely on OUR mental breakdown and evaluations of all evidence reviewed.. THEN we JUDGE! Innocent or guilty as asked?

I think just the opposite, and that was why I posted it.

I think to claim something does exist, you need a proper definition for it, without said proper definition one should assume non existence.

The video goes into belief, how many poeple come to belief even with such a lack of evidence. I thought it was appropriate given the topic is evidence.

Cross confirmation.

If you have multiple modalities and each gives the same data, then the data has a higher confidence.

Science does not trust any single modality without a great deal of consideration.

An oar is stuck in the water, and it looks bent, you pull it back out and it is clearly not bent. You come to the conclusion that water bends objects that are placed in the water . . . but you have this nagging doubt about your observation, and so you get out of your boat and jump in the water and have your friend push the oar in the water from up above. Here underwater you clearly see that the oar is not bent under water, but above it looks bent again, but now you know that the observation you made above water having the oar look bent under and the observation below making it look bent above share a characteristic. You can have any number of different people go over this experiment over and over with the same results.

You can take a camera which capture light on 2D film plates and see the same effect. Over the course of experimentation we figure out that light itself is bent when passing through water . . . we can pass light thought other transparent materials and find the same phenomena.

This is all confirmation of the scientific kind its objective and demonstrable, and becuase it builds our knowledge like a pyramid where the foundation would crumble or give unpredictable results higher up if the foundation where found to be flawed, where if any future observation was to go against it we would then have to explain how these repeatable observations where originally mistaken and yet demonstrable, or else it would not be strong enough evidence in itself to refute the original.

That is not faith, its construction. Or if your determined to call it faith, then its the kind of faith based on demonstrably true premises. Its the same kind of faith I have that my chair will hold my weight, its the faith that this chair which does not strain under my weight will continue to not strain under my weight where each time I sit down and it continues to not strain under my weight I have reinforced the belief in its integrity. I hardly consider that faith, or perhaps its the non-blind kind of faith . . .

The only faith needed to examine reality, is the faith that reality can be examined and made sense of . . . which is also demonstrable.

I totally agree with this too. If a person declares that they "believe in God" then they should be prepared to define and describe what they mean by "God."

THEN...

The person claiming that God does not exist has some idea what he is talking about. But he cannot claim that God does not exist if he has no idea, definition or description of what that is.

What I would like Dan Denette to do is to define and describe the thing called "God" that he claims does not exist. He simply assumes that everyone knows what he is talking about. Probably the Christian God, or any other supreme beings that is getting credit for personally creating the world. Maybe he HAS discussed this in some other video, I don't know. I have not watched all of his videos.

I think he has gone over this in other videos, not sure exactly, but many modern atheists hold to the basic idea that beliefs require rational justification, and he likely can find no rational justification for any given god being someone comes up with, or random super intelligence aka Cthulhu ect . . . Green dragons live in my basement, what have you.

I think it is his opinion that beliefs "should" require rational justification, but apparently they do not.

Also what is "rational?"

Also what is "logical?"

These things depend on the person. What is rational and logical to me might NOT be the same as what is rational or logical to someone else.

A key word there is "many". I have no point other than to emphasize this fact, since not everyone pays attention to such words and some religionists like to argue that atheism is a belief system.

Yes, Everything you believe is a belief system. Therefore, the things you do not believe are not part of your belief system.

So the next time someone asks me if I believe in God (a supreme being who created the world) I would just say, "That is not part of my belief." system.

Yes, Everything you believe is a belief system. Therefore, the things you do not believe are not part of your belief system.

So the next time someone asks me if I believe in God (a supreme being who created the world) I would just say, "That is not part of my belief." system.

I am always open for proof to be presented, but first I would need a very specific definition and description of what they mean by "GOD."

Its a personal decision the standards we each create for the justification of beliefs.

I feel a structure that is amenable to demonstrable analysis is a wholly stronger position than one not so well understood or communicated.

Well in mathematics the term rational is distinct. Objective. Knowable. Exact.

Logic is the overarching name of the various systems by which rational conclusions may be reached. (well then there is fuzzy logic, which explains not so accurate things accurately hhehe)

If beliefs are strictly to be based on irrational, illogical structures of thought then only loose approximations are the best you can have, only inaccuracies shall you know, only mixtures shall you have, never shall knowledge by your guide. Rare the person is that experiences life through these strangely colored lenses. The colloquial term is crazy. We all share to some minor degree these structures, but the exception instead of the rule.

Hyper rationality may bore the many but it makes the few, the scientists, all the more accurate.

Amen the diversity of humanity.

Imagination rules the world.

Rationality alone would fall flat on its face. There would be absolutely no progress without imagination.