Joe Rogan isnt sold on the Bing Bang theory finds Jesus resurrection more plausible

Maybe you should watch more animal documentaries.

While some animals do form groups, those groups are extremely hostile towards other groups of the same species. Watch any chimp documentary and you'll see that different groups tear each other apart in competition for territory and hunting grounds. Basically their group is their siblings and relatives, and the rest are all enemies. Male lions will wander into another pride, and if they can chase of the male they will eat the existing cubs and mate with the lionesses there, with or without consent.

Solitary animals are the same, see what happens when one grizzly bear wanders into another's territory.

I understand why some humans would form a group as there is strength in numbers as well as many other advantages. The question is why don't we just wipe out all the surrounding inferior tribes. USA could easily just launch an offensive against Jamaica, or the Dominican Republic, wipe out their entire populations, and they would expand their territory and have access to a whole lot more resources, vacation spots, etc... why is this wrong tho?

I'm well aware of those things that occur in the animal kingdom. Apparently you're not aware of the history of your own species, which is vastly more disturbing. You ask why we don't wipe out other tribes?

We do.

Hitler. Stalin. Pol Pot. The Mongols. The Huns. The Crusades. Imperial Japan. The Rwandan Genocide. Milosevic. The Ottoman Empire. The genocide of the Native Americans. The Spanish conquests. The list goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on, throughout history, up to and including today.

We murder and genocide and enslave for resources. We do it for power and control. We do it for cultural differences. We do it for racial differences. We do it for religious differences. We do it for all of these reasons and more. And we do it on a scale vastly larger than that of chimpanzee tribes (though I do find it funny that the species you give as an example just so happens to be the one that's most closely related to humans).
 
I'm well aware of those things that occur in the animal kingdom. Apparently you're not aware of the history of your own species, which is vastly more disturbing. You ask why we don't wipe out other tribes?

We do.

Hitler. Stalin. Pol Pot. The Mongols. The Huns. The Crusades. Imperial Japan. The Rwandan Genocide. Milosevic. The Ottoman Empire. The genocide of the Native Americans. The Spanish conquests. The list goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on, throughout history, up to and including today.

We murder and genocide and enslave for resources. We do it for power and control. We do it for cultural differences. We do it for racial differences. We do it for religious differences. We do it for all of these reasons and more. And we do it on a scale vastly larger than that of chimpanzee tribes (though I do find it funny that the species you give as an example just so happens to be the one that's most closely related to humans).
I'm all too aware, and I have no idea what point you're trying to make, I think we're starting to talk past each other.

Let me see if I can get us back on track.

YES we did all those things you mentioned, and at the same time we all agree that those things were wrong.

MY question to you is, if nothing has a purpose or a meaning, then why do we consider some things morally wrong, even if they help us directly and help our tribe directly. If everything is just whatever, then why do we hold these moral standards?
 
1.jpg
 
I'm all too aware, and I have no idea what point you're trying to make, I think we're starting to talk past each other.

Let me see if I can get us back on track.

YES we did all those things you mentioned, and at the same time we all agree that those things were wrong.

MY question to you is, if nothing has a purpose or a meaning, then why do we consider some things morally wrong, even if they help us directly and help our tribe directly. If everything is just whatever, then why do we hold these moral standards?

You might find this interesting:

Is evolution a conscious choice and not a random effect?

Evolution (life-sustaining mutations) derives as a direct response to a traumatic environmental crisis.

From Bruce Lipton's Spontaneous Evolution, pages 241-244

Because evolution appeared to be driven solely by mutations, science concluded that randomly driven evolution has no purpose. The idea fit well with scientific materialism's belief in a purely materialistic Universe and helped shift the focus from intentional creation to merely a "throw of genetic dice." A human being is just another [of] the "accidental tourists" who materialized in the biosphere through random acts of heredity.

However, in 1988, internationally prominent geneticist John Cairns challenged science's established belief in random evolution. Cairns' novel research on bacteria, facetiously titled, "The origin of mutants," was published in the prestigious British Journal of Nature.

He chose bacteria with a crippled gene that made a defective version of the enzyme lactase needed to digest lactose, a sugar present in milk. He then inoculated these lactase-deficient bacteria into cultures in which the only nutrient was lactose. Unable to metabolize this nutrient, the bacteria could neither grow nor reproduce, so no colonies were expected to appear in any of the experiments. Yet, surprisingly, a large number of cultures expressed growth of bacterial colonies.

Sampling the bacteria he started with Cairns found that mutated forms did not exist in the original inoculum. Consequently, he concluded that lactase gene mutations followed, not preceded, their exposure to the new environment. Unlike the experiments of Luria and Delbruck, which relied on viruses killing the bacteria almost instantly, Cairns's experiment starved bacteria slowly. In other words, Cairns gave the stressed bacteria sufficient time to engage and activate innate mutation-producing mechanisms in order to survive.

In Carns's study, life-sustaining mutations appeared to derive as a direct response to a traumatic environmental crisis. Interestingly, further assays revealed that only the genes associated with lactose metabolism were affected. In addition, out of the five possible different mutation mechanisms, all of the surviving bacteria expressed the exact same type of mutation. Clearly, the results do not support the assumption of totally random mutations.

Cairns referred to this newly discovered mechanism as directed mutation. But the very idea that environmental stimuli could feed back into an organism and direct a rewriting of genetic information was an abomination to the central dogma, and the response from conventional science was swift and hostile....

Other the next decade, other researchers replicated Carns's results, which should have increased the credibility of his work. However, the scientific community still considered his notion to be shocking and unacceptable.
 
I'm all too aware, and I have no idea what point you're trying to make, I think we're starting to talk past each other.

Let me see if I can get us back on track.

YES we did all those things you mentioned, and at the same time we all agree that those things were wrong.

MY question to you is, if nothing has a purpose or a meaning, then why do we consider some things morally wrong, even if they help us directly and help our tribe directly. If everything is just whatever, then why do we hold these moral standards?

I believe it's because we are more emotionally evolved than most other species. We have the capacity for sympathy, and empathy. But I think it's far more tenuous than you'd like to believe. How many times has a group or country full of otherwise good, empathetic human beings turned on their fellow man and killed hundreds, thousands, and even millions of others?

How do you reconcile that? Because from everything I've seen, we are as terrible as we are wonderful. I do not view us as some godly creature, wholly separate from the rest of the animal kingdom. Our capacity for "evil" easily trumps that of any other animal. They hunt for food, and take what they need. We hunt species to extinction, and we do it for fun. If chimps had the intelligence and adaptability to do that, would they? Possibly! After all, that's basically what we are. 💁🏻‍♂️

And as far as your question earlier about why the US doesn't simply conquer everybody else, I would say that we are connected globally, and it would not be on our best interest to do these things and wind up pariahs or worse. That has not stopped other nations from trying.
 
Check out my avatar been there for months and I have had other elements Rogan will find his way to hell he has no moral center he supports so much evil and he posts this because he is losing fans. Remember when John Jones corner man told him go shake hands and make fans. He is desperate to find relevancy and he is losing it. You cannot be for trillions of tax cuts and cutting meals on wheels, veteran access to healthcare, early childhood education, food bank cuts and then say you support Jesus.
 
I believe it's because we are more emotionally evolved than most other species. We have the capacity for sympathy, and empathy. But I think it's far more tenuous than you'd like to believe. How many times has a group or country full of otherwise good, empathetic human beings turned on their fellow man and killed hundreds, thousands, and even millions of others?

How do you reconcile that? Because from everything I've seen, we are as terrible as we are wonderful. I do not view us as some godly creature, wholly separate from the rest of the animal kingdom. Our capacity for "evil" easily trumps that of any other animal. They hunt for food, and take what they need. We hunt species to extinction, and we do it for fun. If chimps had the intelligence and adaptability to do that, would they? Possibly! After all, that's basically what we are. 💁🏻‍♂️

And as far as your question earlier about why the US doesn't simply conquer everybody else, I would say that we are connected globally, and it would not be on our best interest to do these things and wind up pariahs or worse. That has not stopped other nations from trying.
Hmmm, interesting... it's almost as if we are not like the other animals, and we have some greater purpose.

You don't have to believe in a God, and you certainly don't have to follow any specific religion. But whether you like to admit it or not, and whether you notice it or not, judging by everything you just said (mostly things I completely agree with by the way), you seem to live your life as a good Christian.
 
You might find this interesting:

Is evolution a conscious choice and not a random effect?

Evolution (life-sustaining mutations) derives as a direct response to a traumatic environmental crisis.

From Bruce Lipton's Spontaneous Evolution, pages 241-244

Because evolution appeared to be driven solely by mutations, science concluded that randomly driven evolution has no purpose. The idea fit well with scientific materialism's belief in a purely materialistic Universe and helped shift the focus from intentional creation to merely a "throw of genetic dice." A human being is just another [of] the "accidental tourists" who materialized in the biosphere through random acts of heredity.

However, in 1988, internationally prominent geneticist John Cairns challenged science's established belief in random evolution. Cairns' novel research on bacteria, facetiously titled, "The origin of mutants," was published in the prestigious British Journal of Nature.

He chose bacteria with a crippled gene that made a defective version of the enzyme lactase needed to digest lactose, a sugar present in milk. He then inoculated these lactase-deficient bacteria into cultures in which the only nutrient was lactose. Unable to metabolize this nutrient, the bacteria could neither grow nor reproduce, so no colonies were expected to appear in any of the experiments. Yet, surprisingly, a large number of cultures expressed growth of bacterial colonies.

Sampling the bacteria he started with Cairns found that mutated forms did not exist in the original inoculum. Consequently, he concluded that lactase gene mutations followed, not preceded, their exposure to the new environment. Unlike the experiments of Luria and Delbruck, which relied on viruses killing the bacteria almost instantly, Cairns's experiment starved bacteria slowly. In other words, Cairns gave the stressed bacteria sufficient time to engage and activate innate mutation-producing mechanisms in order to survive.

In Carns's study, life-sustaining mutations appeared to derive as a direct response to a traumatic environmental crisis. Interestingly, further assays revealed that only the genes associated with lactose metabolism were affected. In addition, out of the five possible different mutation mechanisms, all of the surviving bacteria expressed the exact same type of mutation. Clearly, the results do not support the assumption of totally random mutations.

Cairns referred to this newly discovered mechanism as directed mutation. But the very idea that environmental stimuli could feed back into an organism and direct a rewriting of genetic information was an abomination to the central dogma, and the response from conventional science was swift and hostile....

Other the next decade, other researchers replicated Carns's results, which should have increased the credibility of his work. However, the scientific community still considered his notion to be shocking and unacceptable.
Interesting stuff, I was not aware of this study.

However I'm not surprised by the last part which mentions the "scientific community" finding it shocking and unacceptable lol.

Just reinforces my point that the secular types are just following another form of religion, if you try to show them evidence of the contrary they will still reject it, double down and try to hold on to their beliefs.
 
i'm pretty sure rogan supports simulation theory, not jesus or the big bang.
 
Not sure why the alternative to the story of Jesus has to be the Big Bang, or even if you are atheist/agnostic that would require a belief in the theory of the Big Bang, but if you watch the actual podcast rather than a short clip or Fox getting wet over Rogan saying this, you'll see he wasn't being completely serious. I don't think Joe has gone back to Christianity. He was raised in that shit and abandoned it a long time ago.
It's the other way around. Scientists aren't going around saying the Bible is wrong, so believe in the big bang. But religious people do this. They are the ones who scream that scientific theories are wrong therefore Christian mythology is correct. Religion is more concerned about science than science is of religion.
 
Explain how that works. How does the holy spirit generate energy? Detail the physics.

I don't have to; its a theological statement.

Likewise, I could say detail the physics of "nothing" the size of a pinhead creating our universe. And the closest you could come would require the belief in multiple alternate universes that no one can prove even exists.
 
Actually they are lol.
I mean I am sure as a religious nut you'd think that. But religious people think the mythology and morality go hand in hand so if people don't believe in the mythology, they won't be moral. Science just wants to make sure the proper processes are followed when things are studied.
 
I mean I am sure as a religious nut you'd think that. But religious people think the mythology and morality go hand in hand so if people don't believe in the mythology, they won't be moral. Science just wants to make sure the proper processes are followed when things are studied.
Not even religious, just calling it as I see it, the smug scientific community absolutely do look down on the idea of God, despite they themselves having no clue how everything got here.

"Don't believe the God hypothesis, we have a much better scientific explanation for everything... ready... here it is... everything you see around you, all the planets, the stars, the universe, it all just exploded into existence out of nothing, and for no reason or purpose".

Ok, very realistic explanation, happens all the time, nothing more to see here...
 
Not even religious, just calling it as I see it, the smug scientific community absolutely do look down on the idea of God, despite they themselves having no clue how everything got here.

"Don't believe the God hypothesis, we have a much better scientific explanation for everything... ready... here it is... everything you see around you, all the planets, the stars, the universe, it all just exploded into existence out of nothing, and for no reason or purpose".

Ok, very realistic explanation, happens all the time, nothing more to see here...
There is no smugness. There is a process for science. Tools, math, observation are all involved. The whole idea of explaining the world simply off of a static, thousands of year old book and doing nothing beyond that comes off as ridiculous. Maybe if religious people went through a thorough process of studying the natural world to actually prove their beliefs they may get more respect. I'm agnostic and I am not an astronomer so I cannot say for sure what has happened in the universe, but I will give more credence to the information that comes from proper study than someone saying look at this old ass book that has been mostly wrong. And most importantly, scientific theories change as more information is made available whereas religious beliefs do not.
 
There is no smugness. There is a process for science. Tools, math, observation are all involved. The whole idea of explaining the world simply off of a static, thousands of year old book and doing nothing beyond that comes off as ridiculous. Maybe if religious people went through a thorough process of studying the natural world to actually prove their beliefs they may get more respect. I'm agnostic and I am not an astronomer so I cannot say for sure what has happened in the universe, but I will give more credence to the information that comes from proper study than someone saying look at this old ass book that has been mostly wrong. And most importantly, scientific theories change as more information is made available whereas religious beliefs do not.
Again, you keep invoking religion, and I'm not talking about any specific religion right now, I'm simply talking about the possibility of a creator.

If you're truly agnostic then you will acknowledge that it's no more plausible that everything just came from nothing for no reason, than that there is a creator and a purpose.

Science may give you the answers to a lot of question, but no one has any clue how life began, or how the universe came into existence.
 
Last edited:
I don't have to; its a theological statement.

Likewise, I could say detail the physics of "nothing" the size of a pinhead creating our universe. And the closest you could come would require the belief in multiple alternate universes that no one can prove even exists.
Right, but you highlight your own double standard- in one instance you demand proof, in the other you rationalize that you don't need to because it's theological. When you cross the line into supernatural beliefs that require zero evidence, you don't get to put that on an even logical plane with a situation that actually requires evidence.
 
Interesting stuff, I was not aware of this study.

However I'm not surprised by the last part which mentions the "scientific community" finding it shocking and unacceptable lol.

Just reinforces my point that the secular types are just following another form of religion, if you try to show them evidence of the contrary they will still reject it, double down and try to hold on to their beliefs.
Your point is you don't know what you're talking about. Got it.
 
Back
Top