Unbelievable

[2bme]

 

[Matthias]

The power of conversation isn’t the answer; the power of Jesus of Nazareth is.

 

[Matthias]

 

[Matthias]

 

[SocraticAli]

The power of conversation isn’t the answer; the power of Jesus of Nazareth is.

how does that work brother?

 

[Matthias]

how does that work brother?

You and I are engaged in a casual conversation about Jesus. What do you think about him?

Jesus was sent from God to preach the gospel / word of the kingdom. The word of Jesus is the expression of his wisdom, power and authority.

War and peace. The only solution is Jesus.

 

[SocraticAli]

You and I are engaged in a casual conversation about Jesus. What do you think about him?

Jesus was sent from God to preach the gospel / word of the kingdom. The word of Jesus is the expression of his wisdom, power and authority.

War and peace. The only solution is Jesus.

Well, I agree with some of his teachings about kindness and helping each other out and the poor. I think that's a good message, but people are still going to be people. They are capable of both love and destruction. Many people across different faiths don't let God get in the way of their goals and ambitions.

 

[Matthias]

Well, I agree with some of his teachings about kindness and helping each other out and the poor. I think that's a good message …

Among other things, Jesus is a teacher. But his message goes beyond being kind, helping each other out, and caring for the poor.

… but people are still going to be people.

What is your hope for your future?

They are capable of both love and destruction. Many people across different faiths don't let God get in the way of their goals and ambitions.

I agree.

Have you been agnostic your entire life?

 

[Eternal Entity]

Core Thesis: The Escalation of Violence and the Scientific Complicity in War​

The video traces the history of human conflict from simple fisticuffs to nuclear weapons, highlighting the asymmetry and escalating scale of violence. It argues that while war is often perceived as necessary, it is made possible and increasingly devastating through the direct complicity of science and technology. The central question becomes whether humanity can overcome its conflict-driven nature through rationality and common purpose.

Key Themes and Arguments​

1. The Escalating Scale of Violence

• The video chronicles the technological progression of warfare: fists and clubs → bows and arrows → muskets and automatic weapons → missiles → atomic bombs (kilotons of TNT) → hydrogen bombs (megatons).
• This escalation creates a highly unstable situation, where one person (e.g., a president) can kill millions with the push of a button.

2. The Science of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and Nuclear Winter

• MAD was the Cold War realization that a first strike would trigger a total nuclear exchange, ensuring the destruction of both sides.
• The concept of nuclear winter emerged from climate modeling: soot from burning cities and forests would block sunlight, drop global temperatures, and collapse food chains. This science built confidence that the dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid impact.

3. Scientists' Role in Warfare

• Governments have always sought the ingenuity of scientists to gain military advantage.
• Physicists specialize in matter, motion, and energy—the fundamental basis of all military conflict. Biologists and chemists contribute to biological and chemical weapons.
• War is defined as a process of transferring energy from one location to another. Scientists provide the means to do this ever more efficiently.

4. The Psychology of Conflict and Belief Systems

• While rational arguments and data can resolve disagreements between scientists, belief systems are different. Because they lack empirical evidence, disagreements over beliefs cannot be resolved through reason.
• This leads to coercion, force, and threats of violence. The more abstract and intangible the reason for fighting (e.g., an ideology), the more willing people are to die for it.
• This is why some of history's most violent conflicts are driven by clashing belief systems.

5. Hope for Resolution: Common Purpose and Conversation

• The video acknowledges the grim reality but suggests a potential path forward.
• It notes President Reagan's idea that a common external threat—like an alien invasion—might unite humanity.
• However, it concludes on a more positive note, expressing belief in the power of conversation and coexistence. The ultimate hope is that humanity can find common, rational, and sensible goals that ensure its future health, wealth, and security, rather than destroying itself.

 

[ScottA]

Some kind of "Scientist" he is...he didn't factor in the possibility of both enemies foreign and domestic! That would be like not factoring in returning home from a space mission.

 

[Eternal Entity]

Some kind of "Scientist" he is...he didn't factor in the possibility of both enemies foreign and domestic! That would be like not factoring in returning home from a space mission.

Are you suggesting then that the omission invalidates the video's primary arguments?
If so, you are misinforming.

The Video's Core Theme is Broader. The video's central thesis is about the escalation of destructive power through science and technology, and the psychological nature of belief-driven conflict. While it uses international examples (World Wars, the Cold War, Hitler), these are illustrations of a universal human problem - the tendency to resolve unresolvable differences through violence - which applies equally to domestic and foreign conflicts.

The "Enemy" is Implicitly Broad. The video mentions "bad actors" whose interests don't comport with civilization, and "waring factions" with differing belief systems. This could easily encompass domestic actors (like militant groups, or even an authoritarian government turning on its own people). The video's discussion of belief systems causing violence is a general principle, not limited to foreign nations.

Your Analogy is Flawed. The comparison to not factoring in "returning home from a space mission" implies a fatal oversight in the core logic. However, the video's core logic - that science enables war and that belief systems resist rational resolution - does not depend on the origin of the enemy. A domestic threat is still a threat, and the principles of MAD or the complicity of scientists apply regardless of whether the target is across a border or across a street. The video's failure to explicitly mention domestic enemies is an omission of scope, not a logical error.

 

[ScottA]

Are you suggesting then that the omission invalidates the video's primary arguments?
If so, you are misinforming.

The Video's Core Theme is Broader. The video's central thesis is about the escalation of destructive power through science and technology, and the psychological nature of belief-driven conflict. While it uses international examples (World Wars, the Cold War, Hitler), these are illustrations of a universal human problem - the tendency to resolve unresolvable differences through violence - which applies equally to domestic and foreign conflicts.

The "Enemy" is Implicitly Broad. The video mentions "bad actors" whose interests don't comport with civilization, and "waring factions" with differing belief systems. This could easily encompass domestic actors (like militant groups, or even an authoritarian government turning on its own people). The video's discussion of belief systems causing violence is a general principle, not limited to foreign nations.

Your Analogy is Flawed. The comparison to not factoring in "returning home from a space mission" implies a fatal oversight in the core logic. However, the video's core logic - that science enables war and that belief systems resist rational resolution - does not depend on the origin of the enemy. A domestic threat is still a threat, and the principles of MAD or the complicity of scientists apply regardless of whether the target is across a border or across a street. The video's failure to explicitly mention domestic enemies is an omission of scope, not a logical error.

No, and you too have not factored in all. You have only considered all war as "destructive power." As if war, and warring against war, were the same. As if the cause does not also "escalate"--even first. So typical. --Well, it's not. And both your positions are quite telling...because there is also war in heaven, and God has stated it all far better than you or the scientist.

 

[Eternal Entity]

No, and you too have not factored in all. You have only considered all war as "destructive power." As if war, and warring against war, were the same. As if the cause does not also "escalate"--even first. So typical. --Well, it's not. And both your positions are quite telling...because there is also war in heaven, and God has stated it all far better than you or the scientist.

That is an interesting argument. You appear to be arguing that as a scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson does not include a comprehensive understanding of the beliefs he critiques as "If you come from a belief system, then what you believe doesn't have the evidence that science would normally require to establish what is objectively true. That's why they're called belief systems because you believe that something is true... And since it's based on belief, rational arguments tend to not work. You need methods of coercion or force, ultimately threat of violence, perhaps even threat of death. And so some of the most violent encounters civilization has ever had with itself is when one waring faction has a belief system that differs from that of their adversary."
Tyson's entire section on belief systems is an analysis of how causes (beliefs) escalate conflict. He explains that because beliefs are not empirically testable, rational resolution fails, and force becomes the primary method of resolving differences. This directly addresses the "cause" of war.

Tyson doesn't just mention beliefs; he provides a causal mechanism. He links the nature of belief (its lack of empirical grounding) to the escalation of violence. This is a more substantive analysis than simply noting that causes escalate.

Your objection is based on a misreading of the video. Tyson does not treat all war as merely "destructive power." He specifically argues that the content of belief systems, and their resistance to rational argument, is a primary reason why conflicts become so violent and intractable. This is a central and substantial part of his thesis, not an omission. Therefore, your critique is not accurate.
As to your use of ancient concepts (There is an ongoing war in heaven) - given that Tyson critiques scientists using their escalating knowledge to help create weapons of warfare - perhaps your own critique should include staying with the ancient weapons that were around when folk thought wars in heaven were enough justification to have wars on earth. -- meaning, such ancient beliefs contribute evidence in favor of Tysons critical observations in said video...

Tyson's analysis of belief systems applies to any cause - whether it is "for" war or "against" it - if that cause is held as an unexamined belief rather than a testable proposition. As the saying goes - warring for peace is like fornicating for virginity.
Tyson's point is not that causes are static, but that the nature of belief makes the escalation of commitment to a cause (and thus the violence used to defend it) more likely, precisely because rational argument cannot easily de-escalate it.
This is not to argue that rational discussion can actually derive from an irrational beastial creature intent on destructive "solutions". (This acknowledges the real-world challenge of dealing with actors who are not open to reason, which further supports Tyson's point about the limitations of rationality in the face of belief.)

 

[ScottA]

That is an interesting argument. You appear to be arguing that as a scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson does not include a comprehensive understanding of the beliefs he critiques as "If you come from a belief system, then what you believe doesn't have the evidence that science would normally require to establish what is objectively true. That's why they're called belief systems because you believe that something is true... And since it's based on belief, rational arguments tend to not work. You need methods of coercion or force, ultimately threat of violence, perhaps even threat of death. And so some of the most violent encounters civilization has ever had with itself is when one waring faction has a belief system that differs from that of their adversary."
Tyson's entire section on belief systems is an analysis of how causes (beliefs) escalate conflict. He explains that because beliefs are not empirically testable, rational resolution fails, and force becomes the primary method of resolving differences. This directly addresses the "cause" of war.

Tyson doesn't just mention beliefs; he provides a causal mechanism. He links the nature of belief (its lack of empirical grounding) to the escalation of violence. This is a more substantive analysis than simply noting that causes escalate.

Your objection is based on a misreading of the video. Tyson does not treat all war as merely "destructive power." He specifically argues that the content of belief systems, and their resistance to rational argument, is a primary reason why conflicts become so violent and intractable. This is a central and substantial part of his thesis, not an omission. Therefore, your critique is not accurate.
As to your use of ancient concepts (There is an ongoing war in heaven) - given that Tyson critiques scientists using their escalating knowledge to help create weapons of warfare - perhaps your own critique should include staying with the ancient weapons that were around when folk thought wars in heaven were enough justification to have wars on earth. -- meaning, such ancient beliefs contribute evidence in favor of Tysons critical observations in said video...

Tyson's analysis of belief systems applies to any cause - whether it is "for" war or "against" it - if that cause is held as an unexamined belief rather than a testable proposition. As the saying goes - warring for peace is like fornicating for virginity.
Tyson's point is not that causes are static, but that the nature of belief makes the escalation of commitment to a cause (and thus the violence used to defend it) more likely, precisely because rational argument cannot easily de-escalate it.
This is not to argue that rational discussion can actually derive from an irrational beastial creature intent on destructive "solutions". (This acknowledges the real-world challenge of dealing with actors who are not open to reason, which further supports Tyson's point about the limitations of rationality in the face of belief.)

You did it again. You defaulted to omitting the opposite of what you believe could even be true as if nothing more exists.

Like Tyson, you simply limited things to suit your own limited logic. And in doing so, you both have revealed your failure. You assumed that "belief" is all that is in the equation. It's not. Your error is not including what you yourselves do not know even exists. Which you can continue to do until you are rudely awaken to the reality--by God--that "belief" is limited to the masses, while there are many who actually do not "believe" but "know" what is true above and beyond what you have even allowed a seat at the table of your limited reasoning.

You are out of your league. Unqualified to actually say, and you don't get a vote, it doesn't work that way. This is not an open discussion, and it sure is not limited to your closed-circuit lesser realm of knowledge.

What is actually true, is that God created both good and evil and drew a line between the two for each individual to gravitate to and side with by their own freewill; and the beauty of it--the war--is won or lost for the masses...by what one "believes." And your freewill--is evident. Which some on the fence will eventually see, and some not, basest solely on what is within them to do. But we who are among those who "know", are only allowed to provide the missing information, limiting everyone to their own destiny of choice.

As it is written, "I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live" (Deuteronomy 30:19). Believe it or not.

 

[Eternal Entity]

While ScottA's argument is rhetorically forceful, it is logically problematic in several ways:

Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Authority): He grounds his entire position in an unproven claim of divine revelation and personal, privileged "knowledge." He offers no mechanism for how this knowledge is obtained or verified, other than asserting its existence. This is a classic appeal to a higher authority that cannot be tested or debated within the existing framework.

The No True Scotsman Fallacy: By distinguishing between the "masses" who believe and the elite who "know," he creates a closed, self-validating circle. Anyone who disagrees with him is, by definition, part of the ignorant "masses." This makes his position unfalsifiable.

Self-Referential Inconsistency: He condemns others for "omitting" what they don't know exists, but he does the same thing. He omits the possibility that his "knowledge" is itself a belief, and that his confidence in it is precisely the kind of unexamined, empirically ungrounded conviction that Tyson's analysis identifies as dangerous.

He Confirms Tyson's Thesis: His entire argument is a perfect real-time demonstration of Tyson's point. He holds a belief system that is:

Not empirically testable: His claims about God, cosmic war, and true knowledge cannot be verified by the methods he dismisses.
Resistant to rational argument: He explicitly rejects the framework of open discussion and logic, stating that such "don't get a vote."
Potentially a driver of conflict: His rhetoric is dismissive and combative, framing the debate as a cosmic war between those who "know" and those who are ignorant.

In essence, ScottA has provided a case study of the very phenomenon Tyson described. His belief system, by its nature, cannot be resolved through rational methods.. He has moved the debate to a ground where his position is, by his own definition, immune to critique, which ironically reinforces the video's central thesis about the limitations of rationality in the face of unshakable belief.

Productive dialogue is not possible under his stated conditions.

 

[ScottA]

While ScottA's argument is rhetorically forceful, it is logically problematic in several ways:

Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Authority): He grounds his entire position in an unproven claim of divine revelation and personal, privileged "knowledge." He offers no mechanism for how this knowledge is obtained or verified, other than asserting its existence. This is a classic appeal to a higher authority that cannot be tested or debated within the existing framework.

The No True Scotsman Fallacy: By distinguishing between the "masses" who believe and the elite who "know," he creates a closed, self-validating circle. Anyone who disagrees with him is, by definition, part of the ignorant "masses." This makes his position unfalsifiable.

Self-Referential Inconsistency: He condemns others for "omitting" what they don't know exists, but he does the same thing. He omits the possibility that his "knowledge" is itself a belief, and that his confidence in it is precisely the kind of unexamined, empirically ungrounded conviction that Tyson's analysis identifies as dangerous.

He Confirms Tyson's Thesis: His entire argument is a perfect real-time demonstration of Tyson's point. He holds a belief system that is:

Not empirically testable: His claims about God, cosmic war, and true knowledge cannot be verified by the methods he dismisses.
Resistant to rational argument: He explicitly rejects the framework of open discussion and logic, stating that such "don't get a vote."
Potentially a driver of conflict: His rhetoric is dismissive and combative, framing the debate as a cosmic war between those who "know" and those who are ignorant.

In essence, ScottA has provided a case study of the very phenomenon Tyson described. His belief system, by its nature, cannot be resolved through rational methods.. He has moved the debate to a ground where his position is, by his own definition, immune to critique, which ironically reinforces the video's central thesis about the limitations of rationality in the face of unshakable belief.

Productive dialogue is not possible under his stated conditions.

A fancy, a seemingly intellectual way of claiming to understand what they know nothing about. The typical words of a mocker.

 

[Wrangler]

I used to like Tyson but the more I learned about him, the more he turned me off.

First, Capital-Science is his god.​

Second, he denies his Capital-Science is also a belief system.​

Third, he advances a utopia that denies the reality that unscientific brutes still have the capacity to destroy civilization.​

 

[Lambano]

Thinking about Heinlein's theory that wars are caused by internal population pressures. Wars are about obtaining lebensraum, resources, power, and prestige for one's own social group. Are ideologies then just one of the boundary-markers that identify various social groups, like ethnicity, economics, religion, or even just lines on a map?

If this is true, war is inevitable. (Heinlein thought so.) Rationality can't fix what's flawed in humanity; it can only attempt to control it. And the control measures may be as bad as the disease.

 

[Matthias]

Thinking about Heinlein's theory that wars are caused by internal population pressures. Wars are about obtaining lebensraum, resources, power, and prestige for one's own social group. Are ideologies then just one of the boundary-markers that identify various social groups, like ethnicity, economics, religion, or even just lines on a map?

If this is true, war is inevitable. (Heinlein thought so.) Rationality can't fix what's flawed in humanity; it can only attempt to control it. And the control measures may be as bad as the disease.

Good points.

If the control measures are as bad as the disease, then God assigning that role to Caesar and his worldly government in this age makes Romans 13 understandable to me.

I don’t believe that Jesus and the apostles had in mind Christians living in nation X killing Christians living in nation Y to control the disease.