This is the natural evolution of a highly intelligent believer. Well, former believer. In this interview, the contextual history of ideas renders the ideas explicable. This is not an instance of genetic fallacy. "The genetic fallacy is committed whenever evaluation of an idea is based upon irrelevant history. How an idea came to be formulated is part of the idea's history."
"Religious beliefs were probarly created by uncertainity, which after each retelling of the stories of it slowly vanished.
People were acceptable to the claims of it because of the vunrability of the child brain."
The poor English is rather amusing. I am so glad that the claims found people acceptable. I stayed quiet about this find because the writer is Danish, and I would not even attempt to express such a complex thought in Danish.
Don’t scoff, I have seen equally poor English from Americans.
I'd agree that uncertainties prompted the invention of religions. However, religious institutions rely upon instilling even greater fears than they help, or profess to help fears that they deliberately instilled. I know that these sound like the same thing, but they are not.
The first is, "Don't be afraid, God loves you." The second is, "Don't be afraid of God's threatened punishments for your sins because God will love you if you worship him." That is, thou must love and obey He who threatens punishment. Negatively parental, isn't it?
The persistent vulnerability of childish brains in adults who have not outgrown fears permits institutions that sell idiotic notions in order to prosper.
I have been debating an agnostic in YouTube's frustrating 500 character chunks. An agnostic atheist, though he is almost as bad as a theist. I'll call him Azure because AzureFlameElk is a mouthful.
As an aside, where do people come up with these channel names? This one sounds like a cross between a flaming virgin and an antlered ungulate. I daresay that it has an interesting etymology.
(I'd better explain - a flaming virgin is not a tragically foolish Muslim girl (very sad thought, that) or an expletive about a girl who's clinging to her viginity. It's actually an alcoholic drink that has been ignited. Why would anyone want to burn off the alcohol?)
Back to Azure. He starts out with "Anyone rational is agnostic." This, of course implies that anyone who is not agnostic is irrational. (Matters get worse — he believes that everyone should be agnostic about everything. I'll get to that later. Azure has an unfortunate fondness for categorical statements, given his certainty that all is unknowable.)
"Anyone rational is agnostic" reveals more about his ego than the truth value of this claim. As an atheistic atheist, I am not in the least insulted by this provocative, categorical claim, largely because I think that it is incorrect.
Admittedly, we ought to be agnostic about proclaiming knowledge of anything for which there is no possibleevidence. That's the broader definition of agnosticism, particularly as applied to theistic claims.
However, some claims, like Russell's Teapot and religion have clearly been invented for a purpose. Many claims are falsifiable — the metaphysical claims in the Bible, for instance. Once such claims have been falsified, honest theists retreat into "it's allegorical" excuses, while dishonest theists simply resort to denial of the falsification. There are lots of both types around, and if Azure wishes to call non-agnostic and gnostic theism "irrational", then I am in full accord.
One point about deities, whether they have been protected by an invented cloak of supernaturalism or not, is that they are not worth worshipping if they cannot manifest in the physical. Animistic deities were a personification of physical manifestations such as drought, flood, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and such like. Myth inventors should have stopped there.
The second point is that it has been consistently demonstrated that all our mental and life processes are associated with the physical — including love and other emotions, such as appreciation of beauty. This monism makes it irrational to claim that we comprise dualistic body and supernatural-mind divisions. Monism denialists generally resort to ad hoc pseudoexplanations in a vain attempt to get around this huge problem.
Obviously, the dualist claim has two sources — pre-scientific difficulty with comprehending the relationship between matter and mind, and the religiously- and emotionally-motivated desire to believe in an afterlife. (If one sucks up to Jesus enough, hell is the exclusive destination of one's enemies.)
Suffer the Little Children to believe that they and their loved ones are at risk of eternal punishment in the fires of hell. Why would parents insist that their children be terrified by such images?
In the Western world, where love of children does not seem to be an anti-religious indulgence, fundamentalists believe that they are warning their children when they teach them to fear the admittedly vicious god of their literalist bible. (In Islam, parents seem to be more delighted by children who blow themselves and others to smithereens for Allah.) In Christianity, loving parents warn that, "behave and god will love you, disobey or disbelieve and your'e headed for hell, Jesus' sacrifice or no."
But, scare tactics don't necessarily help. Even though the media is probably more likely to report dalliances by hypocritical ministers and televangelists than those of the average parishioner, such reports come thick and fast.
So what about Jesus' supposed sacrifice to save us from our sins? In essence, from some sins, but not the sin of employing our reason. Why should this sacrifice apply only to those who agree to believe in god, a virgin birth, a crucifixion, and a resurrection? Why would god send his son to die to save a murderer yet not to save a disbeliever?
Why would anyone believe in, still less, worship such a god?
It is standard Christian apologetic fare to counter accusations of vicious antiscience repression (Giordano Bruno, Galileo etc) by claiming that the medieval church kept learning alive during the Dark Ages.
In fact, until the Renaissance, church authorities enforced the same sort of fundamentalist, regressive, power-mongering tactics exhibited by 'modern' Islam, which has desecrated the reputation deserved by its 'flowering'. If it had not been for Islamic scholars, much more of ancient learning would have been lost to Christianity's deflowering the tree of knowledge. Currently, Islamic science is an oxymoron.