@Cantstanya Yes and no. It's difficult to say. It's so generalised and trite that you can swing it both ways in interpretation. Take the bit where he says one of the reason people believe is because of emotions [emotional attachment]. And then proceeds to give a banal explanation of prayers. Equally unimpressive was the guff that people don't change their minds when presented with facts and logic. Stuff so general that the gist of it is true, or at least very hard to falsify.
I clearly remember one specific event when walking home from school (aged 11?) and coming to the very certain realisation that religion and supernatural concepts were complete bunkum and utter nonsense! I felt very happy when I arrived at the house! Never looked back!!
So ur walking home then... ur 11 year old brain kicks in and says religion is false! The way you wrote this makes it seem as though you believed in it before. If this was the case it is reasonable to assume your parents raised you in a religious household. Based off of personal experience I know that I made some decisions on what I believed when I was young and grew bias perspectives because I was stubborn and unwilling to look at bigger pictures. It seems as though in your case here you are saying that it was a good thing that you based your entire religious lifestyle off of an 11 year old perspective, then never looked back. It seems as though you've listened to what in my case were bias perspectives and what are bias perspectives to many other people I know. Because you were most likely raised in a slightly religious household it seems as though even growing out of your young age you still listened to your bias perspectives over what your parents or mentors may have told you. I respect the fact that you were skeptical and made your own decisions but I want to know why you wrote this as though it was a good idea to listen to "bias perspectives" created when you were 11 instead of mentors and parents even as you matured.
@@devoncoates27 you don't know what his mentors and parents believed...it would be advantageous to have backstory instead of "assuming" anything at all...I'm interested in the "specific event" OP
As someone I used to work with special needs individuals I just want to say I appreciate your respectful use of terminology. And understand your point how about them liking certain things that others half.
Prayer asks an outside force to do something for you. Instead of you doing something for yourself with your own force. Wishing things to happen won't work. Especially if you're asking an outside force. Your power is in here, not out there. Praying may initiate a wish, but action makes it come about.
Hello friend, I am Alex and I am studying psychology at UNAM, and I barely met your channel in my research for my final essay on "Study of religion for social psychology". Your video is amazing and I just had a lot of ideas while watching it, I was wondering if if possible could quote your work giving you all the credit you deserve, thank you!
Ok, I am "religious" and I love seeing other views and learning. I love your videos and explanations. I actually do not "instill" a singular belief on my children. If they decide they want to believe in something they can. I do not want them to be forced into anything. The indoctrination was spot on.
1:52 I reverted to Islam, and have increased in faith because of the pure and effective logic of it. most people that give me a hard time about it do so because (apparently) they assume I became superstitious. ٱلْـحَـمْـدُ للهِ
I’m fairly religious and have been a Christian my whole life. I quite enjoy science and the world beyond ours and I’m willing to hear out arguments and debate them. You made some good points man. Good on ya
14:40 That's all logical from a scientific standpoint and that's probably the way it is. Religious people often argue that atheists hate god or whatever deity they have because they had a bad experience like losing a loved one. Whenever I hear someone say that I get the immediate impression that they have belief because they focus on the good feelings they get from it. So removing emotions and thinking logically tends not to develop any belief. I agree with that and I say 'tend to' because there definitely are people with autism that seem to have a strong belief in gods. Here's where this argument will fall short imho when you offer it to someone who wants to deny any reasoned argument against belief, faith or whatever: "If the gods were the ones who made us and gave us a soul that is connected to the gods, missing that connection will have you unhappy and without emotion. So to heal autism these people need to reconnect with god and restore their soul with a life devoted to god so they will be rewarded in heaven." The last part is a bit over the top but some people actually say that. That's just one of the disgusting things people with faith say. Have faith and good things will happen. If not that, then at least bad things won't happen. If bad things happen, you didn't have enough faith. If bad things happen but get resolved, you had enough faith. If you think you have enough faith but bad things still happen, it's all part of god's plan. TL;DR someone doesn't die of e.g. cancer = good, faithful person someone does die of e.g. cancer = bad person, doesn't have enough faith or it was part of the gods' plan
If people actually state that if you die of cancer you were a bad person and claim to back that up with christianity, please disregard all aspects. I'm sure you've heard the phrase what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. That can relate. The bie states that God in a way tests our faith and trust in the book of job. The book of job tells a story of a man that loses everything. His wife, children, money, and social standing. He hits wrong bottom and goes down further but still trusts God and has faith. Then after he continues to trust God and have faith God returns eveything 2 fold. This story is where the idea you talk about comes from, have faith and everything will be fine. But in reality its talking about how even though we may lose things or people we have to trust that God will help us in the end. That is the message many people miss when saying if you die you didnt have enough faith, as you said people say. The real message is that even though things may loom dim and sometimes you may not pull out of your dark place God wants us to continue to trust him and rely on him. I'd also like to point out that sin is the reason for our suffering not God judging us or finding us not worthy. It was when Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil that the suffering began. According to the bible.
@@devoncoates27 I don't know how anything in your reply could be interpreted in a way that makes religion or the god of the bible look any better. That is a horrible story. And it is just a story.
I fell down a few rabbit holes and practiced a few types of meditations and religions here and there. Now that i am not currently experimenting with religion and "spirituality" i still find the simple practice of silent meditation to be helpful. Looking back, i needed some type of routine to keep myself feeling like i have a purpose. I'm pretty sure it had to do with being neuro-atypical because routine helps to keep my anxiety levels down.
@@carolinelabbott2451 A Soul is a return-ticket to infinity. Return to Forever. If you don't have one then Entropy will make you disappear - for all of time.
@@carolinelabbott2451 A contract is written on paper, but it is not the paper itself. A Soul is a guarantee - an agreement. It is a connection. A pathway.
this was an excellent video, recently deconstructed Christianity, nobody could tell me anything about my faith, i would only get defensive, only YOU can change your mind. and most of it was emotional manipulation i must say, still trying to pick up the pieces from a time i thought i had it all figured. Your video helped articulate my thoughts so precisely, thank you.
One thing about Religiosity and Mental Health, that I remember finding during my Google Scholar time on the subject is that there is a "U" shaped curve and not necessarily a linear relationship between mental health and religiosity. IIRC, the U shaped curve has on one end 1) highly confident there being a god, and on the other end 2) highly confident that there is no god. It is those that are in the middle of not being sure of either position that seem to have more mental health issues based upon religiosity. Religious sources seem to omit the high confidence there is no god portion of the U shaped curve. The religious not telling the whole truth seems common. Also, there is the study: "Cross-national correlations of quantifiable societal health with popular religiosity and secularism in the prosperous democracies: A first look" that concludes: (from the abstract) Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and anti-evolution America performs poorly.
Hey bro. You take things from a very logical angle and I appreciate that. As a Christian, I am not offended by these types of videos, just wanted to add that. Keep asking questions! Subed!
I am someone of the autism spectrum who regularly watches your videos. Thank you for mentioning our community. In my school, which is a school only for people with autism, people either have no religion, or are less religious than the average apologist. There is no one there who I would call incredibly religious. If they have a religion, they would believe it, maybe pray, maybe even go to the church occasionally, but they won't try to convert anyone. But hey, I live in the UK, which is becoming less and less religious as time goes on! I like this channel, and you're right, although I am an emotional person, I guess that I can be more logical and rational and my community is certainly less religious. Sorry this comment is so long, I just write really long comments.
Hi Patrick. I've been having a discussion about how the education system manages the needs of autistic kids (I'm from the UK too), and seeing your comment here, a question popped into my head. If you don't mind me asking - does anyone ever ask you how to best relate to you, and people at your end of the spectrum (let's face it, we are all on the same spectrum)? I think we all struggle to communicate with each other at times, because everyone has different cultural backgrounds and ways of thinking and doing things - it's often like we don't speak the same language. I hope you aren't offended by this question and will forgive my curiosity.
No, no one ever asks that. I am very well-respected, and most of the time, my autism doesn't come up. If it's relevant to a conversation, then I would bring it up, but overall, nobody notices that I have autism in a regular setting. I am having a good education and am going to sixth form this year. I am not offended by your question, and forgive me if I didn't understand it properly. I don't mind curiosity.
@@patrickb125 Thanks for replying. I suppose I didn't really give enough context to my question, so let me do so now. My friend is a teacher who has to deal with the problems of integrating a few autistic kids into school, and he was telling me about one student who needed more attention than the school could give - due to budgetry constrictions and limited resources. The point is I hear a lot about strategies and methods for approaching how to get through to "atypical" students from the point of view of those providing that care - but it occurred to me that sometimes the best way of dealing with things is to ask the people that are the subject of it all - the kids. You obviously have no problem communicating, but I'm sure you know a few kids who have a more difficult time of it. It seems to me that someone like yourself might have an easier time relating to someone who finds it more difficult to communicate and interact with the "wider public" , since (and this is perhaps an uneducated guess on my part) you would perhaps be on a closer "wavelength" - if that makes sense - in the same way that you or I would be able to understand other people from Britain more easily than someone from France or Mexico would. So- do your teachers ever come to you to gain insight about how they can relate to other kids who aren't as able to communicate - in effect act as translator.
You are right. I know a lot of people who are really quiet, shy, and unresponsive, even if they are in an environment with people on the spectrum. I actually used to have problems communicating myself which is why I moved to my current school, because I thought I would feel more confident there (And I do!), so I can relate to people who aren't really able to communicate, but did I mention that almost everyone in my school is on the spectrum? So, if this happened, they wouldn't go to me, they would go to someone more experienced in non-communicating. Still not offended!
@@patrickb125 cool - cheers, and yes you did say that all the kids at your school were autists (is that a word? seems like it should be). So, if, for instance, a kid at school started "kicking off" - do you think you might be more equipped to figure out the cause of their problem, than someone who wasn't autistic?
"If you don't want to know about the psychology of religion...why are you here?" Funnily enough, that's part of the psychology behind religion. Also, the thing with prayer is that it's very difficult to pick out times of inaction or nothingness, but it's very easy to pick out an action or occurrence. So the times when something happens that at least approaches falling in line with what you wanted are so much more easily recognized. Especially with the number of prayers a believer might put out there, of course there will be some that match up with a positive happenstance that they wanted, especially if they do things that encourage that to occur. "Let me pass this test," the person studies for said test, they pass, and then they thank God for the good grade.
I have some Asperger's in me and I've been a non-believer (atheist) since i was 13-14. Could this be the reason maybe. Glad i'm an atheist and think things through. Thanks for the video, it was interesting and food for thought.
You are strongly correct about the socio-cultural effects on one's belief, also you said that each religion will say their religion is only the truth and will most likely probably will say don't believe in other "fake religion/Gods".
I am religious because of "The Law of attraction" & how it connects with praying. To me it is not the fact that god may exist but how strongly we believe & the emotion of it all. This creates Luck. Making things more likely to happen depending on consistent thought with just the right emotion & believing almost as if it has already happened. I think there is more to it then just if there is or is not a god.
Just this morning i watched A video Tim Pool did yesterday on the subverse channel that has alot to do with new research on religions starting up or coming into effect when a civilization hits a certain size usually run a million people is when a major religion comes into effect and kind of explain why and it's really interesting I highly recommend it to anyone. Also he I passed about being more confident and not worrying about offending anyone and since I said that to you I've seen that you've done a great job with that I do respect you not wanting to offend anyone with her religion being a fellow easiest just don't give a s***. I don't watch any video you make man!! Keep up the amazing work!
I really enjoyed this video. To know why people believe in what they believe. What you said about how religion can help psychologists I think they used that information because when I started going to my psychology she ask me if I have some sort of believe and I ask her why that was important and she told me that it help people those kinds of support.
@@hellofromdavid historically speaking its incorrect. Religion has been around since the dawn of the caveman. To brainwash hunters into hunting food for the elite.
Judging by your bookshelf I believe our brains are very similar. Seriously though, even down to the details like FSM and friggin' Dianetics! I think you stole my bookshelf. Do you have the Nag Hammadi Library hiding in there somewhere too? haha
"We're the odd ones out and I don't think that's ever going to change." This is wrong. Atheism is not only on the rise but it's a reasonable possibility that Atheists become dominant over theists, numbers-wise, at some point in the future. Yes, humans have a predisposition for religiosity, but we also have predispositions for group-think and emotional responses to criminal activity, yet we've build legal systems that observe crime objectively and treat it as such. We may never be able to throw off the shackles of biology, but we can certainly get close.
I was raised Jewish. I didn't know what male sexual mutilation is until after I turned 27. But it has always been disturbing and irritating when the remains of my penis/exposed glans brush against my clothes. I realized that god is imaginary, suddenly, one day about 6 to 8 weeks after I turned 15. I perceived this fact automatically or intuitively; I didn't think of philosophical arguments. But I was afraid to admit it until I 3 months after I turned 26, and then I was still afraid to talk to non-Jewish women for another ten months. But between the time I realized that god is imaginary and the first time I came out as an atheist, I kept feeling guilty for not doing everything orthodox Judaism requires, but I was afraid to admit it because I didn't want anybody to think I was crazy. And my parents are not even orthodox. But 2 of my religious school teachers were orthodox Jewish women when I was 11-12. Another part of my brain thought I was nuts.
Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems the whole purpose of this video is to assert there is no one truth. Or maybe there are multiple truths? Or maybe our entire existence is just a sea of confusion and there is no sense in pursuing truth!What is your message son???
It kinda sucks how people refer to Hinduism as a religion, when it clearly is not. It's like saying "Europeanism" is a religion or "Americanism" is a religion. It's just multiple philosophies that have generated or grown in the Indian subcontinent and have influenced each other for millenia to form somewhat of a common superstructure, but each one interprets these aspects in their own different ways. That's clearly not the definition of a religion en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Indigenous_understanding It is more about ways of life than following a particular god, book or divine being(s)
All that is true, but in my opinion one of the main issues if not the biggest , is that not just in religion but in all the world ,it all comes down to money , think about the core of all problems , it all comes to the biggest creations of mankind money , and how we depend on it , how ppl manipulate others and device and lie , kill and so on it all resumes to money.
I'm an intellectual so I questioned and thought out my beliefs and researched it before I decided what I believed. I guess that may be where I am in the minority of believers who thought for myself. Interestingly enough autism is correlated with higher levels of aithiesm. I read that. I am autistic but a believer. But as I said the way I think makes me a minority among believers and noticed I said I questioned my belief I was always very interested in science evolution ect. But I still believed. Well if it teaches community values good morals like you absolutely. You may be interested to know there are aithiests churches where people have a place to gather play music and organize community events good works ect and have their own way of being spiritual. I think you are a very interesting person. Do you believe in values and when i say values general morality like say the golden rule?
First off, you address many issues in this video and thus probably more than can be addressed here as a comment. . It might be worth noting that psychology is a study of the psyche as the excert form the Wiki article shows.. In psychology, the psyche /ˈsaɪki/ is the totality of the human mind, conscious and unconscious. Psychology is the scientific or objective study of the psyche. The word has a long history of use in psychology and philosophy, dating back to ancient times, and represents one of the fundamental concepts for understanding human nature from a scientific point of view. The English word soul is sometimes used synonymously, especially in older texts.[1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psyche_(psychology) The other name for psyche is soul. So one can say that psychology is the study of the soul. But religion (or at least Christianity) does not so much deal with the soul but with the spirit. For the Bible treats man as be tripartite in nature having a body, soul, and spirit. For example one can read: Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And theologians and such tend to see the spirit as that which communes with God where the soul is the seat of the intellect and the will and human emotion and such. Now modern psychology may or may not make such a distinction but being a secular science (by design) likely approaches this subject differently (though I am only speculating in that regard having not kept up with the latest in Psychology and hence my knowledge is not only limited but also rather dated in that regard. So what you are discussing might be in some degree (and perhaps even to a large degree) apt in regard to the soul of man and to why one might become religious it does not seem to address the subject from the standpoint of the spirit. And yes, many claim that the holy Spirit told then this or that the Bible also warns that one need to test the spirit. 1Jo 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. As such if one doubts such claims are always indeed from the Holy Spirit well it seems thus that the Bible might agree with that and hence the admonition to test the spirit. And from a Biblical standpoint it is not clear that any religious beliefs that arise not from the spirit but say from merely the soul (such as those that you address in your video) can actually count as true faith. For there are passages such as these that suggest otherwise. Mat 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. And it seems that those who are able to do that are those that here the sound of the voice of Jesus. For it is written Jhn 10:27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; But it seems that to hear the sound of his voice one must do so through the spirit. For one reads Rom 8:5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. And it seems that the term flesh used here refers to those that only walk by the soul and not the spirit. For the soul per se is not bad but to rely souly on it is (if one can excuse my unintended pun here). For God it seems is all about saving the soul. For it is written Jas 5:20 let him know that [fn]he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. Thus (to put this in more modern terms) the soul (of psyche) may have all kinds of problems, many of them in fact can be quite bad but maybe some good as well (as psychology can attest), but it is through the spirit that God speaks to men and works to create a new man born of the spirit and not the flesh. But psychology it seems is more likely to address the soulish part of this and not so much the spiritual aspects, though perhaps it does that as well, for I have not really kept up with the latest developments in psychology so maybe it does address both. But even if so one would suspect its treatment of what the spirit is differs from the idea of actually communing with a real being such as God and falls moe in the line of only thinking one is doing hat. .And in regard to reason vs faith it seems by reason you rather mean materialism, i.e things that one can materially observe. For faith and reason need not be in opposition. But faith deals with that which cannot be seen while materialism limits one to only considering what can be seen, but both can approach the subject either rationally using reason and logic or irrationally using fears, prejudice, and emotions. But it seems that the Bible argues that one need two (or sometimes three witnesses to settle a matter and it seems that these two are truth and goodness, that is is something true (like is it true that 2+2 =4) and is it good (e.g. is it good to mistreat others). And some theologians argue that these two are convertible (e.g Aquinas) that is one can rewrite one into the form of the other so as to say it is good to think 2"2 =4 because it is true and that it is true that it is bad to mistreat others, And it seems that third witness is being which encompasses both those two and is expressed as love. For love rejoices in the truth as one reads 1Co 13:6 [love] does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; and 1Jo 3:18 Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth. and Eph 4:15 but [fn]speaking the truth in love, [fn]we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, As such it seems the intellect of man addresses truth (that is it assesses if something is true or false while the will of man addresses whether something is good or bad and the spirit of man knits them together in love. For it is written Psa 85:10 Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other. For it seems the soul left to its own devices the wil and the intellect may be at odds and one may question whether truth can lead to goodness or that it might be better to lie or somehow twist the truth to better suits one's aspirations. But the Bible seems to be saying that those that walk by the spirit (and not merely might claim to do so, but who in fcat are lead by God's spirit living in them and not the spirit of this world and such) find peace between the wil and the intellect and thus have a real sense of peace. So one might attribute any such peace as merely self deception and that in fact may be the case. But if that is the case one would expect that the truth that this is indeed teh case would eventually come to light. And the Bible seems to imply this as well in that one reads: Luk 8:17 “For nothing is hidden that will not become evident, nor anything secret that will not be known and come to light. And even those who might see them,lives as being spiritual (but who in truth or not) may be in for a rude awakening based on passages such as this Rev 3:16 ‘So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will [fn]spit you out of My mouth. Now many take cold to be not religious and such but perhaps it rather refers to cool logic while hot refers to the will being hot for God so that the passages is saying that those are neither that are being spit out. But the point here is that those reason you ascribe for people being religious might describe the very same condition that Jesus says that you are neither cold or hot but rather you are not in truth being lead by the spirit but for some psychological quirk instead. So the psychological reasons you ascribe for people being religious may not be that far off, but at the same time they may be other reasons as well such as being (in truth) lead by the spirit of God for being so. For yes, some may see patterns that do not in truth exist. but that is not to say that one can see "patterns" that in fact do exist. And yes, one the will may somehow lead the intellect into thinking something is true simply out of wishful thinking, but that does not exclude the possibility of some rude awakening that might or the intellect being puffed up and thinking it smarter that it actually is , for we read: 1Co 8:1 Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge [fn]makes arrogant, but love edifies. But neither of those it seems to exclude the possibility of road to Damascus experience happening along the way. Act 9:3 As he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; Act 9:4 and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” So perhaps people such as Paul might have a somewhat different take on why people believe what they believe. And perhaps they are merely seeing patterns that do not in fact exist and reinforcing them by selective memory and such.. or then again ... perhaps not.
Oh, and one thing I forgot to address, that idea that all religions think them,sves right. Now in regard to right and wrong if one thing is right then any others that hold a different syance are wrong 9at least in some ways 0. That is the nature of right and wrong. Thus is 2"2=4 then that excludes all other statement such as 2+ 2=1 0 as wrong. Next there is the authority of the source of the statement. is it something that men made up. Is it something that men derived from reason and observation. Or is it revelation from some higher authority such as God. Christianity does not claim to be either of the first two but rather is based on the word of God. Thus it is not a matter of we got it right and the other guys didn't but that if indeed it is from God then it is authoritative. Now other religions claim divine authorship as well. So who (if any) are one to believe? But looking at this form a somewhat different perspective, imagine that there are three authors s=who claim to be skilled mathematicians. All three right a textbook on say calculus or differential equations or such. One is by a real mathitican, one a fake one that is written n=by an imposter that really has no real understanding of math (say he is the flat earther equivalent of a mathematician) , , the third simply random gibberish, though the sentences are grammatically correct just have no logic or reason. and all there are written in English.. Now suppose all three books somehow show up on some isolated primitive island and the natives there take an interest in reading all three. And to make it even harder lets assume that none of the native speak English. The question is then is there any way that over time they could identify which of these three books is accurate? And maybe a fourth book washes up as well that is an English dictionary or such. So maybe this is not all that different than the case where multiple religions all claim to have a book written bu God (or the gods) or whatever. As such the evidence lies in the books themselves and not in any claims by those that read it. So the issue is not so much which claim is right but which book can stand scrutiny. Now many claim that the Bible fails to do that. But the point here is not whether it does or doesn't but that its claim on divine authorship rest on that and not on merely any human claim as to which is the case. And the Holy Spirit might serve much like having that english dictionary wash up as well that helps one better understand what is written in all three books, and perhaps all the more so the book that is factual. So those that claim the Holy Spirit told them this or that might better address what the insight that they claim to have received indeed does seem to be true where that being demostrable then leads credence in the claim that in fact it was the Holy Spirit from which one was in truth being lead. Thus for example those that claim the Holy Spirit tells them that the earth is flat are proven wrong if it can indeed be shown that the earth is a globe. That it seems is how one test the spirit, that is is can what it says be shown to be true. If not then the just may still be out in that regard. For the Holy Spirit is claimed by the bible to be the spirit of Truth./ For one reads Jhn 15:26 “When the [fn]Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me, This implies that if it can be shown that what a spirit says is not true then in fact it was not from the Holy Spirit. So the proof is in the pudding so to speak and not based on any mere claim. And speaking of truth and goodness I MUST end with this. ua-cam.com/video/eqt005j1dB0/v-deo.html and also this ua-cam.com/video/PnNq7bK403M/v-deo.html
And one more thing that you briefly alluded to in your video that I didn't really address in the above comments is the idea that all are affected by the same basic human nature be the religious or atheist or whatever. And to put that in terms as presented above , even if one does (at least in general) walk by the spirit one still has a soul and the soul can cause one to stray, some perhaps more than other but all to some degree. And in that regard it seems that perhaps this is what Paul alludes in this (rather long) passage. Rom 7:14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold [fn]into bondage to sin. Rom 7:15 For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. Rom 7:16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. Rom 7:17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. Rom 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. Rom 7:19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. Rom 7:20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. Rom 7:21 I find then the [fn]principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God [fn]in the inner man, Rom 7:22 but I see a different law in [fn]the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner [fn]of the law of sin which is in my members. Rom 7:23 but I see a different law in [fn]the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner [fn]of the law of sin which is in my members. Rom 7:24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from [fn]the body of this death? Rom 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. So this seems to be paul's take on what today one might call psychological hang ups that all have (regardless of what they believe or confess to believe). And thus most things are easier said than done and while all my have great intentions on starting taht diet, quitting smoking, getting more exercise, the mind may want to do these things but that does not necessarily mean one will. But in regard to walking in the spirit one might liken that to having GPS or a connection to the internet where one has that as a resource to draw upon, whether one chooses to do so or not being another matter or being able to practice what they may preach. And as such it is good that God understands our weakness and has provided a way to atone for our sins. And it seems the better one is the worse the offense, for that person should know better. As such we see Paul saying 1Ti 1:15 It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. Notice he did not say was but is. So it seems that he is both referring to the above romans 7 passage and to the fact that he in fact should know better. For he later says Phl 3:2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the [fn]false circumcision; Phl 3:3 or we are the true [fn]circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, Phl 3:4 although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: Phl 3:5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; Phl 3:6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. Phl 3:7 But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. As such it is easy to take confidence in the flesh, e.g. one's intellect, education, pedigree, will power, etc. So though many may zealously claim to be following sopiert that does not necessarily make it so. And thus , one's human nature (which it can be rightly said is to be the subject of psychology) can always play a hand and a role in what one thinks, but at the same time maybe not always the ultimately decisive one if one indeed head the kleanings of the Spirit.
As I said at the start of this series of comments that you covered many topics. as such to address each and every one may be problematic and require a multi part response as here. But let me here address yet another issue you brought up, that is the subject of apologetics. Now it seems there could be a good way of going about that and a bad way. So let me address the bad way first. That would be where one tried to prop up their beliefs. where one's mind is already made up and then one searches for reason to justify what one has already decided to believe. I alluded to that in a previous video/comment as that is like the worshippers of dagon who has to keep propping up their idol, Dagon. So that is where the will may run a bit roughshod over the intellect . Now whether the intellect will ever really be so persuaded and truly by the will is another question and those nagging doubts that maybe one can never rid the,selves may be evidence that the will really can't quite totally pull that of. . But either way this is a bad way to go about apologetic, but may also be a popular way that is easy to go down that path, regardless of one's beliefs, that being as you say human nature. Now it would see a better way to approach this would be through what may call critical thinking. And by that I don't men being critical, or even not believing anything but rather always keeping in mid that whatever one thinks may in fact not be true.For whenever one thinks something naturally one would think it truie, else they wouldn't think it to begin with. But experience can quickly show this is not the case and may even be far from the case. But here once again one might look not to the soul but to the spirit for guidance. And in that regard we read: Isa 11:2 The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and strength, The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD. So we see here three groups of two spirits, group 1: wisdom and understanding group 2: counsel and strength group 3: knowledge and fear of the LORD. with it seems the seventh Spirit being that which binds these six. As such this suggest that these may be the seven spirits that one reads in Revelation concerning the seven lamps (but that is a side issue so let me not go there any further here this comment. So in one sense it seems the Holy Spirit (somewhat like the Trinity) has seven that form a one. Thus when one says that they are full of the spirit that may not mean say like what one may mean when they say they have a full tank of gas but rather that they have all seven of these at work. So fear of the Lord seem to do with the idea that not all outcomes are equally good but some are better and to be prefered over others.Thus things matter. And as to knowledge one needs to make informed decisions and thus need knowledge to do that, not just to know but also to rightly recall what is relevant. And in regard to strength this seems to be not so much physical strength like having big muscles but strength of character such as courage, honesty, perseverance, patience, etc. And in regard to counsel that seems to refer to seeking expert advise, that is from those that are likely to be properly informed and not just whomever one might run into. But this advice seems to be not so much what one should do, for that is probably best left to the one making that decision, but arter what are the options and what are the likely consequences of those options, much like one might seek legal counsel. And in regard to understanding that seems to apply to having a good grasp on why one course of action may be better or more likely than another, or one factor or consideration more relevant or leads to something more desirable than another. And in regard to wisdom that seems to apply to having a good sense of what is true and what is false and what is yet to be proven one way or another . And that seventh seems to be the adjudication of these six to form one consensus. As such one can think of the three spirits on the left as concerning truth, while the three on the right concerning goodness and as such constituting two witnesses that can be employed to establish what is both true and desirable and the seventh being that tried witness that arbitrate between these two. Thus if one is full of the spirit one side does not overpower the other, thewill over the intellect or the intellect over the will and tha seventh might be though of as the heart. Thus if say the will and the intellect can't quite agree maybe the heart can help bring about an agreement. And if all tree are in agreement maybe that is good as one can do and that maybe is a s h=good of criteria of any as to settle a matter as being good vs bad, true vs false or the jury is still out and further inquiry is needed to settle the matter. as such these might constitute a good check list so see if one is invoking all these in regard to settling a matter one way or the other or putting it on hold until new facts and insight and opinions can be brought to bear. But this applies to the spirit and not so much it seems the soul. Thus those things that you ascribe to how psychological factors might influence one;s thinking are likely to have sway, the question is to what regard vs the spirit. And in regard to apologetics , I don't know " is a perfectly good answer, especially if in truth one doesn't know. For there are some things we can be certain, that is what we don't know. For one would image they could be quite certain they don't know how many hairs are on their head. So critical thinking it seems keeps in mind what one knows as well as what one doesn't know with the klaster sometimes being the critical thing that makes that thinking into being critical thinking. So if one approaches apologetics as such maybe it is not quite so bad and not merely an exercise is self justification but more of an inquiry as to what one might know and what one as yet does not know.
I know only a few people with autism that are religious. All of them are raised religious and almost all of them have surten beliefs that they like. Only one believes in a Christian God, where the others believe in supernatural things. But most people with autism that I know, are just like me. Raised religious but don't believe and never did even not as a child. To me it felt stupid to talk to noting. Thank noting for what you did your self! The one that believes in God, is following the rituals that he is learned and noting more. He still follows the story that he is learned as a child, what makes that he doesn't go to church any more. Church is changed where he didn't change in his beliefs. All the others believe things that they want to be true and they believe the stories that there family told them them. Like someone I know told me that she was health when she was very young by a doctor that only placed a hand on her head. She can't remember it, but here mother told that it worked and so she believes it. Other things she doesn't believe but there are things that she hopes are true. That is for most people the reason to believe. They want it to be true.
My logical argument against Christianity is, why would a perfect God create the human race with so much redundancy? I mean that, Christians believe that only Christians will go to heaven, and everyone else will go to hell. My generous etimate of those humans in history, and the future, who will go to hell by those rules is around 90%. That's a lot of redundancy; that's a lot of God's creation that will go to waste. Also Calvanism is fucked up; Christians must make a nuisance of themselves evangelising to everyone they meet, while God already knows that most of their effort is in vain. That aside; I was brought up as a Christian and can't bring myself to be convinced that a god wasn't responsible for the universe. And in my mind that god might as well be the god I was brought up to "know". I know that isn't logical.
It's quite a juxtaposition, isn't it? We are called to preach the gospel, convert or evangelize and practice freewill, yet everything is predetermined and known by God from the get go. So what's the point? Either people believe it or they don't, and God already knows who. It is my understanding everyone will see the truth at death, so I'll keep my 10% income until then.
It seems as though your saying that God is perfect so his creation should be perfect, if that's not what your saying then I guess I just dont understand. But based off of this it seems as though you haven't realized that humans were perfect and there was no redundancy. It was when, as portrayed in the bible, Adam and eve ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil that they lost their perfection. It also seems as though your saying predestination is a thing and you might be misunderstanding that. You stated God already knows where people are going to go so why does he let us waste our time preaching the gospel to those who dont believe it. The answer to that is he has us spread the gospel because if we didnt, nobody would be converted. The bible says there is a celebration in heaven for each person that repents or turns to God. With this in mind, according to your logic, even if only one person was converted each year, God would see that as worth it. The bible states God wants us all in heaven and it is because of sin that not all of us are permitted. I would also like to point out it was only since Darwin times that atheism became a thing, so before then a majority of religious people were Christian and that is still the case, the only difference is that atheism is growing in popularity. Your estimate of 90% of people go to hell would more likely be 60% of people go to hell. And according to the bible God would want his followers to be a nuisance to save that 40% which is why Christians spread the gospel. If I misunderstood your argument please correct me because I feel like I might have.
@@devoncoates27 I appreciate your answer. I was brought up in a strict evangelical household, basically Welsh Presbyterian, so I have all this as head knowledge. I used to be a sunday school teacher lol. If God is omniscient then he would have known about the fall before it happened. It's not like it caught Him by suprise. This always struck me as strange, but when I used to ask such questions growing up the default answer was something like "it's not for us to know; it's for us to find out". I don't see myself as a faithless person, but Christianity requires too much faith for me to muster up. I need something more to want to devote most of my energy to it. I used to think I had a personal experience of God, but now I can't honestly say that it wasn't just an emotional response, or the benefts of meditation during prayer. I can't convince myself I wasn't faking it. I remember the first time I was introduced to the concept of election/predestination. I was terrified that I wasn't one of the elected. I confided this fear to one of my elders and was told that the very fact I had this fear proved I was elected. This is tenuous logic if ever I saw it.
@@carolinelabbott2451 I'm a true agnostic; I simply don't know, and I believe that no one really knows. But if someone says they know I'm not going to argue. Deism requires too much conviction for me ;)
I understand those who rely in God and religion to feel contort in knowing that after death they may see again old relatives and friends or just not being completely obliterated from existence, but I don't understand extremism, and I don't mean just islamic extremists or KKK Christians (like those who burned the Beatles records in the 60s) but also normal Christians that believes that "if you don't pay taxes you go to hell". My mother is very religious but I know she does because she's just scared of death. I don't particularly think that Jesus makes her happy, probably that's a barrier against even crossing certain thought (even is she's incredibly racist). In the end everyone "invent" own God to fit owns agenda, just like us, atheists have an agenda too: freedom, still, we judge religious people … I just did it, except I don't hate anybody for using God as an exude to kill, I just see that person as a psychopath.
This video explains why numbers online don't always match up: ua-cam.com/video/RY_2gElt3SA/v-deo.html Yes, Tom talks about numbers changing inconsistently, but the same principle applies here.
Is it fair to say you don't want to either? I think that's one thing hiith ignores in the video. A lot of ppl have explored and questioned their faith, found faults, and proceeded to believe anyway. I also have because I want to, and it really can be as simple as that.
There is hindu religion and hindu dharma (sanatana dharma )and i follow sanatana dharma..called a hindu..but i m really not..i dont belive in God but that doesnt mean ,i m hindu i mean a real hindu..follower of sanatana dharma. I m vegiterian and.not a pure vegan i sometimes drink milk and tea most times..but the way.we hindus.cattle a cow are very very.. kind we dont force cows to give their milk we respect them so so much..!!not like a god but like a mother who feds us with her milk..i belive no God
Seems to me that people with a moderate level of religiosity can be more mentally sound. Then you get into the fundamentalist Thumpers... quite a few of them are not screwed down tight in the noggin. Anti-social to others that are not in their cult, even.
It's not a change in my world-view over the last 4 decades but a refinement of definition. I'm not religious... there's no doctrine or organization I follow. I reject such. I'm hostile to those shoving their "brand of god" (or whatever... e.g. Astrology) upon me. That doesn't mean I am incurious about such. I've come to use the term Agnostic Irrational Diest-candidate. Any Higher Being that may possibly be is not personified or objectified. Not active or even interested in mankind's daily doings. Irrational: I don't know there is and don't believe there is a Higher Being. I've sort of a "feeling" there's something bigger than individuals. Maybe it's collective/cultural/social consciousness... perhaps it's something more. I know and accept it's a feeling and not logical, not rational. It doesn't worry my daily life... there's enough real stuff. "I don't know who's cranking. I'm just glad He doesn't stop." -- Rbt. Heinlein
@@hellofromdavid But is ... what exactly? To prove if something exists, one has to be able to define its parameters so to be able to look for it and to test it.
I think, you totally underestimate the power of religion, becoming religious _is_ a cold, hard fact decision. Ok, this may be even more offensive to beliefers, I applogize. Lets put psychology aside for a minute and try to look at it from an economic / biological standpoint. Religion is around for a long, long time, and it is so successful, that the large majority of humanity is religious in some way. Usually religious societies overcome none-religious ones, and within a society, religious populations easily outperform none-religious parts of the population, by reproduction (biology, right :) or economic dominance (economy), so in both economic and biological sense they are more fit. There are studies, that religious people also live longer, and may be more happy, anyway, I'm not sure, how well reasearched these numbers are. Now, what could be the cause of this? One of the hardest things to do, and most costly one is to take decisions. Taking the right, or just any decision, quickly can be the difference between gaining the benefit of an early adopter vs the cost for being a late follower. So how do we take decision? We can research, think it through, wait to see how it evolves, or, which is probably much quicker, base your decision of wisdom of past generations, and take a decision immediately based on this. Then it boils down to, how good is this past knowledge compiled and usable for you, which os probably why religions evolve, too. One example from game theory: The best strategy according to game theory probably is a forgiving start, but harsh retaliation for cheaters. Guess what, this sounds pretty much to what Christianity and Islam are trying to do. Tit-for-tat, the next best strategy, got outcompeted... In summary: Religions are a tool to take the best decision quickly, instead of spending energy and time on researching a decision, which you could use for say reproduction :) Now what does that mean to psychology? Religious people feel, they are more fit in a biological or economical point fo view. They may not be aware (and this may be part of the trick actually), but they "feel" they are. It is quite obvious, they would reject your idea harshly to do away with their winning strategy.
I'm autistic and I think 'emotional correctness' has very little value. More than likely you are just trying to protect yourself from the reality of a situation by stuffing your fingers in your ear. I see it all the time in the art community. Generally most of us are fairly practical. We point out flaws in the art to help you become better. But you will get upset because we pointed out that you drew the hand backwards. Or one leg is shorter than the other. People get upset because it's 'rude' to point it out. It's not. It's art and anyone who puts their art out in the public need to be aware that if they aren't keeping their work private and passing around only to their friends, they're not going to get only mindless praise. You can call my father an asshole. I know he is. I don't hate my father. I don't think much of anything about him. Did I deny things when my mother and maternal grandmother tell me terrible things about him that happened before I was born? No. I suspended my belief in their claims until I heard him casually threaten to slit the throat of his current wife when they were having a drunk argument. If someone tells you something that is 'emotionally incorrect' it just means you're likely desperately trying to fool yourself and wallow in ignorance. Emotion only makes you lash out and causes you to be a more caustic person to deal with in many situations. That's not to say that I am not guilty of this myself. Far from it. I still have emotions and can still be affected by them. I just have a lower quantity of it than most people. But it's the leading cause of a lot of strife and hurt in my life and it's something I have to be aware of when dealing with the more emotional creatures that are neurotypical individuals.
I would disagree with that . Except from the wars that have taken place because of religion , if you believe in something for no reason, you're more likely to believe in other stuff which you have no proof of and get used by other people who feed you with these lies.
Reading the books of the New Testament, we probably asked ourselves more than once: *"Why 2000 years we do not see those miracles that accompanied the Сhurch of Christ in the I century, as described in the New Testament?"* Why do the so-called preachers of Christ have to prove that Jesus really existed and atheists boldly deny the historicity or divine origin of Christ? Maybe because the Сhurch of Christ has not existed for 2000 years? The Сhurch does not exist in the form in which it is presented in the books of the New Testament, but there are Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and other christian sects claiming to be the place of the Church, but they not have the only thing that distinguishes the divine from the human and is characteristic of just the Сhurch of Christ -the reinforcement of the word with signs, that is, miracles (Mark 16:15-20). Therefore, some researchers doubt the historicity of Christ, and some of them are not opposed to declaring him a an ordinary philosopher, teacher. But even if Jesus were an ordinary philosopher, his disciples would be ordinary followers of Jesus. And they would not dare to write about the miracles that not only Jesus, but also his disciples, could perform. In this world, the great fertility of atheism can be explained by the fact that there is no main opponent of critics of the Bible - the Church. If there were the Church in our time as described by the authors of the New Testament books, where miracles are performed, the sick are healed, where prophesied, and the dead are raised, no one would doubt the historicity of Christ. Then there would be the same controversy throughout the world as in the first century - Jesus the Son of God or the false prophet who seduces the world by miracles. As a result, we can say that the emergence and development of christian sects and atheism was the result of the fact that over the 2000 years the Сhurch of Christ did not exist. Find *"The Mystery about the Church of Christ"* video on UA-cam. The video reveals the prophecy of the disappearance and reappearance of the Church of Christ before the End of the World. Watching this video will give hope to all who sincerely seek God and will interest those who are not too lazy to think freely. Click on my name to watch the video (The video is in Russian, but English subtitles are included).
I love the scientific approach you took while also giving your opinion, feelings, and beliefs. Great video!
Eh? He looked up a few articles and regurgitated tired old stuff. There is nothing new here. And it is pretty lame. Mostly just confirmation bias.
@Cantstanya Yes and no. It's difficult to say. It's so generalised and trite that you can swing it both ways in interpretation.
Take the bit where he says one of the reason people believe is because of emotions [emotional attachment]. And then proceeds to give a banal explanation of prayers.
Equally unimpressive was the guff that people don't change their minds when presented with facts and logic.
Stuff so general that the gist of it is true, or at least very hard to falsify.
I clearly remember one specific event when walking home from school (aged 11?) and coming to the very certain realisation that religion and supernatural concepts were complete bunkum and utter nonsense! I felt very happy when I arrived at the house! Never looked back!!
So ur walking home then... ur 11 year old brain kicks in and says religion is false! The way you wrote this makes it seem as though you believed in it before. If this was the case it is reasonable to assume your parents raised you in a religious household. Based off of personal experience I know that I made some decisions on what I believed when I was young and grew bias perspectives because I was stubborn and unwilling to look at bigger pictures. It seems as though in your case here you are saying that it was a good thing that you based your entire religious lifestyle off of an 11 year old perspective, then never looked back. It seems as though you've listened to what in my case were bias perspectives and what are bias perspectives to many other people I know. Because you were most likely raised in a slightly religious household it seems as though even growing out of your young age you still listened to your bias perspectives over what your parents or mentors may have told you. I respect the fact that you were skeptical and made your own decisions but I want to know why you wrote this as though it was a good idea to listen to "bias perspectives" created when you were 11 instead of mentors and parents even as you matured.
"one specific event" would you care to elaborate? I'm not trolling, I am genuinely interested
@@devoncoates27 you don't know what his mentors and parents believed...it would be advantageous to have backstory instead of "assuming" anything at all...I'm interested in the "specific event" OP
This is type of quality rant I subbed for...I like your perspective sir! Thx for the video 👍
I try to prove to my mom that religion is BS. She gets it and then a random lucky thing(miracle) happens and she goes back to religion.
Ask her if its a miracle when someone is born an amputee
@@pjanoo6973 well obviously not
Tell her she can't pick and choose what is God's work and what isn't. Either God creates her miracle and also human suffering or he does neither.
Right! “Oh I made it thru that red light. Praise the lord!”
Snootches Bootches Jeremiah 33:6. Psalm 103: 2-4. James 5:15. Could give dozens more, but that’s enough to show your claim is bullshit
"Another religion you don't agree with" should cause people to think. But I'm not going to hold my breath.
Did you just say the t word?
As someone I used to work with special needs individuals I just want to say I appreciate your respectful use of terminology. And understand your point how about them liking certain things that others half.
Prayer asks an outside force to do something for you. Instead of you doing something for yourself with your own force. Wishing things to happen won't work. Especially if you're asking an outside force. Your power is in here, not out there. Praying may initiate a wish, but action makes it come about.
Yup it’s like outsourcing your power …..
Hello friend, I am Alex and I am studying psychology at UNAM, and I barely met your channel in my research for my final essay on "Study of religion for social psychology". Your video is amazing and I just had a lot of ideas while watching it, I was wondering if if possible could quote your work giving you all the credit you deserve, thank you!
Ok, I am "religious" and I love seeing other views and learning. I love your videos and explanations. I actually do not "instill" a singular belief on my children. If they decide they want to believe in something they can. I do not want them to be forced into anything. The indoctrination was spot on.
1:52 I reverted to Islam, and have increased in faith because of the pure and effective logic of it. most people that give me a hard time about it do so because (apparently) they assume I became superstitious. ٱلْـحَـمْـدُ للهِ
I’m fairly religious and have been a Christian my whole life. I quite enjoy science and the world beyond ours and I’m willing to hear out arguments and debate them. You made some good points man. Good on ya
You should try watching MythVision Podcast.
14:40
That's all logical from a scientific standpoint and that's probably the way it is. Religious people often argue that atheists hate god or whatever deity they have because they had a bad experience like losing a loved one. Whenever I hear someone say that I get the immediate impression that they have belief because they focus on the good feelings they get from it.
So removing emotions and thinking logically tends not to develop any belief. I agree with that and I say 'tend to' because there definitely are people with autism that seem to have a strong belief in gods.
Here's where this argument will fall short imho when you offer it to someone who wants to deny any reasoned argument against belief, faith or whatever:
"If the gods were the ones who made us and gave us a soul that is connected to the gods, missing that connection will have you unhappy and without emotion. So to heal autism these people need to reconnect with god and restore their soul with a life devoted to god so they will be rewarded in heaven."
The last part is a bit over the top but some people actually say that. That's just one of the disgusting things people with faith say. Have faith and good things will happen. If not that, then at least bad things won't happen. If bad things happen, you didn't have enough faith. If bad things happen but get resolved, you had enough faith. If you think you have enough faith but bad things still happen, it's all part of god's plan.
TL;DR
someone doesn't die of e.g. cancer = good, faithful person
someone does die of e.g. cancer = bad person, doesn't have enough faith or it was part of the gods' plan
If people actually state that if you die of cancer you were a bad person and claim to back that up with christianity, please disregard all aspects. I'm sure you've heard the phrase what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. That can relate. The bie states that God in a way tests our faith and trust in the book of job. The book of job tells a story of a man that loses everything. His wife, children, money, and social standing. He hits wrong bottom and goes down further but still trusts God and has faith. Then after he continues to trust God and have faith God returns eveything 2 fold. This story is where the idea you talk about comes from, have faith and everything will be fine. But in reality its talking about how even though we may lose things or people we have to trust that God will help us in the end. That is the message many people miss when saying if you die you didnt have enough faith, as you said people say. The real message is that even though things may loom dim and sometimes you may not pull out of your dark place God wants us to continue to trust him and rely on him. I'd also like to point out that sin is the reason for our suffering not God judging us or finding us not worthy. It was when Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil that the suffering began. According to the bible.
@@devoncoates27 I don't know how anything in your reply could be interpreted in a way that makes religion or the god of the bible look any better.
That is a horrible story. And it is just a story.
I fell down a few rabbit holes and practiced a few types of meditations and religions here and there. Now that i am not currently experimenting with religion and "spirituality" i still find the simple practice of silent meditation to be helpful. Looking back, i needed some type of routine to keep myself feeling like i have a purpose. I'm pretty sure it had to do with being neuro-atypical because routine helps to keep my anxiety levels down.
Hug
good video, insightful and educational. you're a smart kid.
Very well put! Thanks for your research and making this video. New subscriber!
i wish believers could be this respectful when going off on a topic like this.
_"Believers are atheists when it comes to all other religions. Atheists only go one step further "_ C. Hitchens.
Atheists have no Soul
@@hellofromdavid Maybe because no one has dude
Some do. Some sell. Some lose theirs. Some have it stolen
@@hellofromdavid Proof for any of this ?
Do you have a Soul?
Well done, and speaking as someone who is on the Austistic spectrum you handled that bit quite well.
I just couldn't go on trying to justify religious faith in my mind after reading extensively about cosmology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, etc.
Science has stolen your Soul
@@hellofromdavid Define " Soul ".
@@carolinelabbott2451
A Soul is a return-ticket to infinity. Return to Forever. If you don't have one then Entropy will make you disappear - for all of time.
@@hellofromdavid How does one gain or lose a Soul? And where does a Soul reside?
@@carolinelabbott2451
A contract is written on paper, but it is not the paper itself. A Soul is a guarantee - an agreement. It is a connection. A pathway.
this was an excellent video, recently deconstructed Christianity, nobody could tell me anything about my faith, i would only get defensive, only YOU can change your mind. and most of it was emotional manipulation i must say, still trying to pick up the pieces from a time i thought i had it all figured. Your video helped articulate my thoughts so precisely, thank you.
One thing about Religiosity and Mental Health, that I remember finding during my Google Scholar time on the subject is that there is a "U" shaped curve and not necessarily a linear relationship between mental health and religiosity. IIRC, the U shaped curve has on one end 1) highly confident there being a god, and on the other end 2) highly confident that there is no god. It is those that are in the middle of not being sure of either position that seem to have more mental health issues based upon religiosity. Religious sources seem to omit the high confidence there is no god portion of the U shaped curve. The religious not telling the whole truth seems common.
Also, there is the study: "Cross-national correlations of quantifiable societal health with popular religiosity and secularism in the prosperous democracies: A first look" that concludes: (from the abstract) Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and anti-evolution America performs poorly.
Hey bro. You take things from a very logical angle and I appreciate that. As a Christian, I am not offended by these types of videos, just wanted to add that. Keep asking questions! Subed!
I imagine Doctor and Mrs Doom are loving parents, not nefarious parents, regardless of their day jobs.
I am someone of the autism spectrum who regularly watches your videos. Thank you for mentioning our community. In my school, which is a school only for people with autism, people either have no religion, or are less religious than the average apologist. There is no one there who I would call incredibly religious. If they have a religion, they would believe it, maybe pray, maybe even go to the church occasionally, but they won't try to convert anyone. But hey, I live in the UK, which is becoming less and less religious as time goes on! I like this channel, and you're right, although I am an emotional person, I guess that I can be more logical and rational and my community is certainly less religious. Sorry this comment is so long, I just write really long comments.
Hi Patrick.
I've been having a discussion about how the education system manages the needs of autistic kids (I'm from the UK too), and seeing your comment here, a question popped into my head.
If you don't mind me asking - does anyone ever ask you how to best relate to you, and people at your end of the spectrum (let's face it, we are all on the same spectrum)?
I think we all struggle to communicate with each other at times, because everyone has different cultural backgrounds and ways of thinking and doing things - it's often like we don't speak the same language. I hope you aren't offended by this question and will forgive my curiosity.
No, no one ever asks that. I am very well-respected, and most of the time, my autism doesn't come up. If it's relevant to a conversation, then I would bring it up, but overall, nobody notices that I have autism in a regular setting. I am having a good education and am going to sixth form this year. I am not offended by your question, and forgive me if I didn't understand it properly. I don't mind curiosity.
@@patrickb125
Thanks for replying. I suppose I didn't really give enough context to my question, so let me do so now.
My friend is a teacher who has to deal with the problems of integrating a few autistic kids into school, and he was telling me about one student who needed more attention than the school could give - due to budgetry constrictions and limited resources.
The point is I hear a lot about strategies and methods for approaching how to get through to "atypical" students from the point of view of those providing that care - but it occurred to me that sometimes the best way of dealing with things is to ask the people that are the subject of it all - the kids.
You obviously have no problem communicating, but I'm sure you know a few kids who have a more difficult time of it.
It seems to me that someone like yourself might have an easier time relating to someone who finds it more difficult to communicate and interact with the "wider public" , since (and this is perhaps an uneducated guess on my part) you would perhaps be on a closer "wavelength" - if that makes sense - in the same way that you or I would be able to understand other people from Britain more easily than someone from France or Mexico would.
So- do your teachers ever come to you to gain insight about how they can relate to other kids who aren't as able to communicate - in effect act as translator.
You are right. I know a lot of people who are really quiet, shy, and unresponsive, even if they are in an environment with people on the spectrum. I actually used to have problems communicating myself which is why I moved to my current school, because I thought I would feel more confident there (And I do!), so I can relate to people who aren't really able to communicate, but did I mention that almost everyone in my school is on the spectrum? So, if this happened, they wouldn't go to me, they would go to someone more experienced in non-communicating. Still not offended!
@@patrickb125
cool - cheers, and yes you did say that all the kids at your school were autists (is that a word? seems like it should be).
So, if, for instance, a kid at school started "kicking off" - do you think you might be more equipped to figure out the cause of their problem, than someone who wasn't autistic?
"If you don't want to know about the psychology of religion...why are you here?"
Funnily enough, that's part of the psychology behind religion.
Also, the thing with prayer is that it's very difficult to pick out times of inaction or nothingness, but it's very easy to pick out an action or occurrence. So the times when something happens that at least approaches falling in line with what you wanted are so much more easily recognized. Especially with the number of prayers a believer might put out there, of course there will be some that match up with a positive happenstance that they wanted, especially if they do things that encourage that to occur.
"Let me pass this test," the person studies for said test, they pass, and then they thank God for the good grade.
EXACTLY. This is actually precisely what woke me from the hypnosis of religion
I love your info. Also, you sound like Hank from "Crash Course"
Thanks for a very interesting video. You have obviously worked hard on this one!
I have some Asperger's in me and I've been a non-believer (atheist) since i was 13-14. Could this be the reason maybe. Glad i'm an atheist and think things through. Thanks for the video, it was interesting and food for thought.
Are u implying believers cant or dont think things through? If so, why? If not disregard.
@@devoncoates27 I'm not implying anything. I took what the video said and thought that it might apply to me and my non belief.
You are strongly correct about the socio-cultural effects on one's belief, also you said that each religion will say their religion is only the truth and will most likely probably will say don't believe in other "fake religion/Gods".
I am religious because of "The Law of attraction" & how it connects with praying. To me it is not the fact that god may exist but how strongly we believe & the emotion of it all. This creates Luck. Making things more likely to happen depending on consistent thought with just the right emotion & believing almost as if it has already happened. I think there is more to it then just if there is or is not a god.
Another common lament... speaking it into existence, as it were.
Good
Could you make a video on how big a Lego earth would be compared to the actual earth?
The thickness will be one Lego block. The diameter, though, depends on the radius.
Just this morning i watched A video Tim Pool did yesterday on the subverse channel that has alot to do with new research on religions starting up or coming into effect when a civilization hits a certain size usually run a million people is when a major religion comes into effect and kind of explain why and it's really interesting I highly recommend it to anyone. Also he I passed about being more confident and not worrying about offending anyone and since I said that to you I've seen that you've done a great job with that I do respect you not wanting to offend anyone with her religion being a fellow easiest just don't give a s***. I don't watch any video you make man!! Keep up the amazing work!
Very good insight on the topic, i wish we could speak with an open mind with everyone and get along.
I really enjoyed this video. To know why people believe in what they believe. What you said about how religion can help psychologists I think they used that information because when I started going to my psychology she ask me if I have some sort of believe and I ask her why that was important and she told me that it help people those kinds of support.
Hug
I'm interested to know how religion started in the first place and why
Authoritarianism , fear and war.
@@biostephan1685 don't forget the 💰
It was when humans became aware that people die and they wondered what happened next. Animals don't think in this way.
@@humb1s3rvant indeed
@@hellofromdavid historically speaking its incorrect. Religion has been around since the dawn of the caveman. To brainwash hunters into hunting food for the elite.
Very nicely put, kudos.
Judging by your bookshelf I believe our brains are very similar. Seriously though, even down to the details like FSM and friggin' Dianetics! I think you stole my bookshelf. Do you have the Nag Hammadi Library hiding in there somewhere too? haha
your like the ChubbyEmu channel but for science, I like it
Great stuff hiith!
Great video!
"We're the odd ones out and I don't think that's ever going to change." This is wrong. Atheism is not only on the rise but it's a reasonable possibility that Atheists become dominant over theists, numbers-wise, at some point in the future. Yes, humans have a predisposition for religiosity, but we also have predispositions for group-think and emotional responses to criminal activity, yet we've build legal systems that observe crime objectively and treat it as such.
We may never be able to throw off the shackles of biology, but we can certainly get close.
AI will steal our souls
Great video realy enjoyed!
"The denial of death" great read
I was raised Jewish. I didn't know what male sexual mutilation is until after I turned 27. But it has always been disturbing and irritating when the remains of my penis/exposed glans brush against my clothes. I realized that god is imaginary, suddenly, one day about 6 to 8 weeks after I turned 15. I perceived this fact automatically or intuitively; I didn't think of philosophical arguments. But I was afraid to admit it until I 3 months after I turned 26, and then I was still afraid to talk to non-Jewish women for another ten months. But between the time I realized that god is imaginary and the first time I came out as an atheist, I kept feeling guilty for not doing everything orthodox Judaism requires, but I was afraid to admit it because I didn't want anybody to think I was crazy. And my parents are not even orthodox. But 2 of my religious school teachers were orthodox Jewish women when I was 11-12. Another part of my brain thought I was nuts.
oooooo just hit play!
hiith, if I may ask, do you have people around you irl that you discuss all these topics with, or is it pretty much, or exclusively, online?
What a interesting video with excellent points even if I am a believer.
Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems the whole purpose of this video is to assert there is no one truth. Or maybe there are multiple truths? Or maybe our entire existence is just a sea of confusion and there is no sense in pursuing truth!What is your message son???
It kinda sucks how people refer to Hinduism as a religion, when it clearly is not. It's like saying "Europeanism" is a religion or "Americanism" is a religion. It's just multiple philosophies that have generated or grown in the Indian subcontinent and have influenced each other for millenia to form somewhat of a common superstructure, but each one interprets these aspects in their own different ways. That's clearly not the definition of a religion
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Indigenous_understanding
It is more about ways of life than following a particular god, book or divine being(s)
Excellent hiith.
We're does your UA-cam name come from ?
"The Tube" is a now little used slang name for Television,TV used to use Cathode Ray Tube as the screen, so literally YOU TELEVISION
@@leebennett4117 lol that's not what he meant.
@@leebennett4117 I meant hiith
All that is true, but in my opinion one of the main issues if not the biggest , is that not just in religion but in all the world ,it all comes down to money , think about the core of all problems , it all comes to the biggest creations of mankind money , and how we depend on it , how ppl manipulate others and device and lie , kill and so on it all resumes to money.
ohhhh there's still debate about psychology and religion lmaooooooo
22:05 We're all James.
I suggest the book „Belief“ by James Alcock
I'm an intellectual so I questioned and thought out my beliefs and researched it before I decided what I believed. I guess that may be where I am in the minority of believers who thought for myself. Interestingly enough autism is correlated with higher levels of aithiesm. I read that. I am autistic but a believer. But as I said the way I think makes me a minority among believers and noticed I said I questioned my belief I was always very interested in science evolution ect. But I still believed. Well if it teaches community values good morals like you absolutely. You may be interested to know there are aithiests churches where people have a place to gather play music and organize community events good works ect and have their own way of being spiritual. I think you are a very interesting person. Do you believe in values and when i say values general morality like say the golden rule?
First off, you address many issues in this video and thus probably more than can be addressed here as a comment. . It might be worth noting that psychology is a study of the psyche as the excert form the Wiki article shows..
In psychology, the psyche /ˈsaɪki/ is the totality of the human mind, conscious and unconscious. Psychology is the scientific or objective study of the psyche. The word has a long history of use in psychology and philosophy, dating back to ancient times, and represents one of the fundamental concepts for understanding human nature from a scientific point of view. The English word soul is sometimes used synonymously, especially in older texts.[1]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psyche_(psychology)
The other name for psyche is soul. So one can say that psychology is the study of the soul. But religion (or at least Christianity) does not so much deal with the soul but with the spirit. For the Bible treats man as be tripartite in nature having a body, soul, and spirit. For example one can read:
Heb 4:12
For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
And theologians and such tend to see the spirit as that which communes with God where the soul is the seat of the intellect and the will and human emotion and such.
Now modern psychology may or may not make such a distinction but being a secular science (by design) likely approaches this subject differently (though I am only speculating in that regard having not kept up with the latest in Psychology and hence my knowledge is not only limited but also rather dated in that regard.
So what you are discussing might be in some degree (and perhaps even to a large degree) apt in regard to the soul of man and to why one might become religious it does not seem to address the subject from the standpoint of the spirit. And yes, many claim that the holy Spirit told then this or that the Bible also warns that one need to test the spirit.
1Jo 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
As such if one doubts such claims are always indeed from the Holy Spirit well it seems thus that the Bible might agree with that and hence the admonition to test the spirit.
And from a Biblical standpoint it is not clear that any religious beliefs that arise not from the spirit but say from merely the soul (such as those that you address in your video) can actually count as true faith. For there are passages such as these that suggest otherwise.
Mat 7:21
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
And it seems that those who are able to do that are those that here the sound of the voice of Jesus. For it is written
Jhn 10:27
“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
But it seems that to hear the sound of his voice one must do so through the spirit. For one reads
Rom 8:5
For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
And it seems that the term flesh used here refers to those that only walk by the soul and not the spirit. For the soul per se is not bad but to rely souly on it is (if one can excuse my unintended pun here). For God it seems is all about saving the soul. For it is written
Jas 5:20
let him know that [fn]he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
Thus (to put this in more modern terms) the soul (of psyche) may have all kinds of problems, many of them in fact can be quite bad but maybe some good as well (as psychology can attest), but it is through the spirit that God speaks to men and works to create a new man born of the spirit and not the flesh. But psychology it seems is more likely to address the soulish part of this and not so much the spiritual aspects, though perhaps it does that as well, for I have not really kept up with the latest developments in psychology so maybe it does address both. But even if so one would suspect its treatment of what the spirit is differs from the idea of actually communing with a real being such as God and falls moe in the line of only thinking one is doing hat.
.And in regard to reason vs faith it seems by reason you rather mean materialism, i.e things that one can materially observe. For faith and reason need not be in opposition. But faith deals with that which cannot be seen while materialism limits one to only considering what can be seen, but both can approach the subject either rationally using reason and logic or irrationally using fears, prejudice, and emotions. But it seems that the Bible argues that one need two (or sometimes three witnesses to settle a matter and it seems that these two are truth and goodness, that is is something true (like is it true that 2+2 =4) and is it good (e.g. is it good to mistreat others). And some theologians argue that these two are convertible (e.g Aquinas) that is one can rewrite one into the form of the other so as to say it is good to think 2"2 =4 because it is true and that it is true that it is bad to mistreat others, And it seems that third witness is being which encompasses both those two and is expressed as love. For love rejoices in the truth as one reads
1Co 13:6
[love] does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;
and
1Jo 3:18
Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.
and
Eph 4:15
but [fn]speaking the truth in love, [fn]we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,
As such it seems the intellect of man addresses truth (that is it assesses if something is true or false while the will of man addresses whether something is good or bad and the spirit of man knits them together in love. For it is written
Psa 85:10
Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.
For it seems the soul left to its own devices the wil and the intellect may be at odds and one may question whether truth can lead to goodness or that it might be better to lie or somehow twist the truth to better suits one's aspirations. But the Bible seems to be saying that those that walk by the spirit (and not merely might claim to do so, but who in fcat are lead by God's spirit living in them and not the spirit of this world and such) find peace between the wil and the intellect and thus have a real sense of peace.
So one might attribute any such peace as merely self deception and that in fact may be the case. But if that is the case one would expect that the truth that this is indeed teh case would eventually come to light. And the Bible seems to imply this as well in that one reads:
Luk 8:17
“For nothing is hidden that will not become evident, nor anything secret that will not be known and come to light.
And even those who might see them,lives as being spiritual (but who in truth or not) may be in for a rude awakening based on passages such as this
Rev 3:16
‘So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will [fn]spit you out of My mouth.
Now many take cold to be not religious and such but perhaps it rather refers to cool logic while hot refers to the will being hot for God so that the passages is saying that those are neither that are being spit out. But the point here is that those reason you ascribe for people being religious might describe the very same condition that Jesus says that you are neither cold or hot but rather you are not in truth being lead by the spirit but for some psychological quirk instead.
So the psychological reasons you ascribe for people being religious may not be that far off, but at the same time they may be other reasons as well such as being (in truth) lead by the spirit of God for being so. For yes, some may see patterns that do not in truth exist. but that is not to say that one can see "patterns" that in fact do exist. And yes, one the will may somehow lead the intellect into thinking something is true simply out of wishful thinking, but that does not exclude the possibility of some rude awakening that might or the intellect being puffed up and thinking it smarter that it actually is , for we read:
1Co 8:1
Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge [fn]makes arrogant, but love edifies.
But neither of those it seems to exclude the possibility of road to Damascus experience happening along the way.
Act 9:3
As he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him;
Act 9:4
and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”
So perhaps people such as Paul might have a somewhat different take on why people believe what they believe. And perhaps they are merely seeing patterns that do not in fact exist and reinforcing them by selective memory and such.. or then again ... perhaps not.
Oh, and one thing I forgot to address, that idea that all religions think them,sves right.
Now in regard to right and wrong if one thing is right then any others that hold a different syance are wrong 9at least in some ways 0. That is the nature of right and wrong. Thus is 2"2=4 then that excludes all other statement such as 2+ 2=1 0 as wrong.
Next there is the authority of the source of the statement. is it something that men made up. Is it something that men derived from reason and observation. Or is it revelation from some higher authority such as God.
Christianity does not claim to be either of the first two but rather is based on the word of God. Thus it is not a matter of we got it right and the other guys didn't but that if indeed it is from God then it is authoritative.
Now other religions claim divine authorship as well. So who (if any) are one to believe?
But looking at this form a somewhat different perspective, imagine that there are three authors s=who claim to be skilled mathematicians. All three right a textbook on say calculus or differential equations or such. One is by a real mathitican, one a fake one that is written n=by an imposter that really has no real understanding of math (say he is the flat earther equivalent of a mathematician) , , the third simply random gibberish, though the sentences are grammatically correct just have no logic or reason. and all there are written in English..
Now suppose all three books somehow show up on some isolated primitive island and the natives there take an interest in reading all three. And to make it even harder lets assume that none of the native speak English. The question is then is there any way that over time they could identify which of these three books is accurate?
And maybe a fourth book washes up as well that is an English dictionary or such.
So maybe this is not all that different than the case where multiple religions all claim to have a book written bu God (or the gods) or whatever. As such the evidence lies in the books themselves and not in any claims by those that read it. So the issue is not so much which claim is right but which book can stand scrutiny. Now many claim that the Bible fails to do that. But the point here is not whether it does or doesn't but that its claim on divine authorship rest on that and not on merely any human claim as to which is the case. And the Holy Spirit might serve much like having that english dictionary wash up as well that helps one better understand what is written in all three books, and perhaps all the more so the book that is factual. So those that claim the Holy Spirit told them this or that might better address what the insight that they claim to have received indeed does seem to be true where that being demostrable then leads credence in the claim that in fact it was the Holy Spirit from which one was in truth being lead. Thus for example those that claim the Holy Spirit tells them that the earth is flat are proven wrong if it can indeed be shown that the earth is a globe. That it seems is how one test the spirit, that is is can what it says be shown to be true. If not then the just may still be out in that regard. For the Holy Spirit is claimed by the bible to be the spirit of Truth./ For one reads
Jhn 15:26
“When the [fn]Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,
This implies that if it can be shown that what a spirit says is not true then in fact it was not from the Holy Spirit. So the proof is in the pudding so to speak and not based on any mere claim.
And speaking of truth and goodness I MUST end with this.
ua-cam.com/video/eqt005j1dB0/v-deo.html
and also this
ua-cam.com/video/PnNq7bK403M/v-deo.html
And one more thing that you briefly alluded to in your video that I didn't really address in the above comments is the idea that all are affected by the same basic human nature be the religious or atheist or whatever. And to put that in terms as presented above , even if one does (at least in general) walk by the spirit one still has a soul and the soul can cause one to stray, some perhaps more than other but all to some degree. And in that regard it seems that perhaps this is what Paul alludes in this (rather long) passage.
Rom 7:14
For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold [fn]into bondage to sin.
Rom 7:15
For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.
Rom 7:16
But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good.
Rom 7:17
So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
Rom 7:18
For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.
Rom 7:19
For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.
Rom 7:20
But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
Rom 7:21
I find then the [fn]principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.
For I joyfully concur with the law of God [fn]in the inner man,
Rom 7:22
but I see a different law in [fn]the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner [fn]of the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:23
but I see a different law in [fn]the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner [fn]of the law of sin which is in my members.
Rom 7:24
Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from [fn]the body of this death?
Rom 7:25
Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.
So this seems to be paul's take on what today one might call psychological hang ups that all have (regardless of what they believe or confess to believe). And thus most things are easier said than done and while all my have great intentions on starting taht diet, quitting smoking, getting more exercise, the mind may want to do these things but that does not necessarily mean one will.
But in regard to walking in the spirit one might liken that to having GPS or a connection to the internet where one has that as a resource to draw upon, whether one chooses to do so or not being another matter or being able to practice what they may preach. And as such it is good that God understands our weakness and has provided a way to atone for our sins. And it seems the better one is the worse the offense, for that person should know better. As such we see Paul saying
1Ti 1:15
It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.
Notice he did not say was but is. So it seems that he is both referring to the above romans 7 passage and to the fact that he in fact should know better. For he later says
Phl 3:2
Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the [fn]false circumcision;
Phl 3:3
or we are the true [fn]circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,
Phl 3:4
although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more:
Phl 3:5
circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee;
Phl 3:6
as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.
Phl 3:7
But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ.
As such it is easy to take confidence in the flesh, e.g. one's intellect, education, pedigree, will power, etc. So though many may zealously claim to be following sopiert that does not necessarily make it so. And thus , one's human nature (which it can be rightly said is to be the subject of psychology) can always play a hand and a role in what one thinks, but at the same time maybe not always the ultimately decisive one if one indeed head the kleanings of the Spirit.
As I said at the start of this series of comments that you covered many topics. as such to address each and every one may be problematic and require a multi part response as here. But let me here address yet another issue you brought up, that is the subject of apologetics. Now it seems there could be a good way of going about that and a bad way. So let me address the bad way first. That would be where one tried to prop up their beliefs. where one's mind is already made up and then one searches for reason to justify what one has already decided to believe. I alluded to that in a previous video/comment as that is like the worshippers of dagon who has to keep propping up their idol, Dagon.
So that is where the will may run a bit roughshod over the intellect . Now whether the intellect will ever really be so persuaded and truly by the will is another question and those nagging doubts that maybe one can never rid the,selves may be evidence that the will really can't quite totally pull that of. . But either way this is a bad way to go about apologetic, but may also be a popular way that is easy to go down that path, regardless of one's beliefs, that being as you say human nature.
Now it would see a better way to approach this would be through what may call critical thinking. And by that I don't men being critical, or even not believing anything but rather always keeping in mid that whatever one thinks may in fact not be true.For whenever one thinks something naturally one would think it truie, else they wouldn't think it to begin with. But experience can quickly show this is not the case and may even be far from the case. But here once again one might look not to the soul but to the spirit for guidance. And in that regard we read:
Isa 11:2
The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him,
The spirit of wisdom and understanding,
The spirit of counsel and strength,
The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.
So we see here three groups of two spirits,
group 1: wisdom and understanding
group 2: counsel and strength
group 3: knowledge and fear of the LORD.
with it seems the seventh Spirit being that which binds these six. As such this suggest that these may be the seven spirits that one reads in Revelation concerning the seven lamps (but that is a side issue so let me not go there any further here this comment.
So in one sense it seems the Holy Spirit (somewhat like the Trinity) has seven that form a one. Thus when one says that they are full of the spirit that may not mean say like what one may mean when they say they have a full tank of gas but rather that they have all seven of these at work.
So fear of the Lord seem to do with the idea that not all outcomes are equally good but some are better and to be prefered over others.Thus things matter.
And as to knowledge one needs to make informed decisions and thus need knowledge to do that, not just to know but also to rightly recall what is relevant.
And in regard to strength this seems to be not so much physical strength like having big muscles but strength of character such as courage, honesty, perseverance, patience, etc.
And in regard to counsel that seems to refer to seeking expert advise, that is from those that are likely to be properly informed and not just whomever one might run into. But this advice seems to be not so much what one should do, for that is probably best left to the one making that decision, but arter what are the options and what are the likely consequences of those options, much like one might seek legal counsel.
And in regard to understanding that seems to apply to having a good grasp on why one course of action may be better or more likely than another, or one factor or consideration more relevant or leads to something more desirable than another.
And in regard to wisdom that seems to apply to having a good sense of what is true and what is false and what is yet to be proven one way or another .
And that seventh seems to be the adjudication of these six to form one consensus. As such one can think of the three spirits on the left as concerning truth, while the three on the right concerning goodness and as such constituting two witnesses that can be employed to establish what is both true and desirable and the seventh being that tried witness that arbitrate between these two. Thus if one is full of the spirit one side does not overpower the other, thewill over the intellect or the intellect over the will and tha seventh might be though of as the heart. Thus if say the will and the intellect can't quite agree maybe the heart can help bring about an agreement. And if all tree are in agreement maybe that is good as one can do and that maybe is a s h=good of criteria of any as to settle a matter as being good vs bad, true vs false or the jury is still out and further inquiry is needed to settle the matter.
as such these might constitute a good check list so see if one is invoking all these in regard to settling a matter one way or the other or putting it on hold until new facts and insight and opinions can be brought to bear.
But this applies to the spirit and not so much it seems the soul. Thus those things that you ascribe to how psychological factors might influence one;s thinking are likely to have sway, the question is to what regard vs the spirit. And in regard to apologetics , I don't know " is a perfectly good answer, especially if in truth one doesn't know. For there are some things we can be certain, that is what we don't know. For one would image they could be quite certain they don't know how many hairs are on their head. So critical thinking it seems keeps in mind what one knows as well as what one doesn't know with the klaster sometimes being the critical thing that makes that thinking into being critical thinking. So if one approaches apologetics as such maybe it is not quite so bad and not merely an exercise is self justification but more of an inquiry as to what one might know and what one as yet does not know.
Because truth is singular.
@Please Complete All Fields He meant singularity
I know only a few people with autism that are religious.
All of them are raised religious and almost all of them have surten beliefs that they like. Only one believes in a Christian God, where the others believe in supernatural things.
But most people with autism that I know, are just like me. Raised religious but don't believe and never did even not as a child.
To me it felt stupid to talk to noting. Thank noting for what you did your self!
The one that believes in God, is following the rituals that he is learned and noting more. He still follows the story that he is learned as a child, what makes that he doesn't go to church any more. Church is changed where he didn't change in his beliefs.
All the others believe things that they want to be true and they believe the stories that there family told them them. Like someone I know told me that she was health when she was very young by a doctor that only placed a hand on her head. She can't remember it, but here mother told that it worked and so she believes it. Other things she doesn't believe but there are things that she hopes are true.
That is for most people the reason to believe. They want it to be true.
Thank you
yep... true talk my friend
My logical argument against Christianity is, why would a perfect God create the human race with so much redundancy? I mean that, Christians believe that only Christians will go to heaven, and everyone else will go to hell. My generous etimate of those humans in history, and the future, who will go to hell by those rules is around 90%. That's a lot of redundancy; that's a lot of God's creation that will go to waste. Also Calvanism is fucked up; Christians must make a nuisance of themselves evangelising to everyone they meet, while God already knows that most of their effort is in vain.
That aside; I was brought up as a Christian and can't bring myself to be convinced that a god wasn't responsible for the universe. And in my mind that god might as well be the god I was brought up to "know". I know that isn't logical.
It's quite a juxtaposition, isn't it? We are called to preach the gospel, convert or evangelize and practice freewill, yet everything is predetermined and known by God from the get go. So what's the point? Either people believe it or they don't, and God already knows who. It is my understanding everyone will see the truth at death, so I'll keep my 10% income until then.
FriedEgg, are you a Diest? Not sure if I spelled that one correctly, but I am curious about that position held by folks.
It seems as though your saying that God is perfect so his creation should be perfect, if that's not what your saying then I guess I just dont understand. But based off of this it seems as though you haven't realized that humans were perfect and there was no redundancy. It was when, as portrayed in the bible, Adam and eve ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil that they lost their perfection. It also seems as though your saying predestination is a thing and you might be misunderstanding that. You stated God already knows where people are going to go so why does he let us waste our time preaching the gospel to those who dont believe it. The answer to that is he has us spread the gospel because if we didnt, nobody would be converted. The bible says there is a celebration in heaven for each person that repents or turns to God. With this in mind, according to your logic, even if only one person was converted each year, God would see that as worth it. The bible states God wants us all in heaven and it is because of sin that not all of us are permitted. I would also like to point out it was only since Darwin times that atheism became a thing, so before then a majority of religious people were Christian and that is still the case, the only difference is that atheism is growing in popularity. Your estimate of 90% of people go to hell would more likely be 60% of people go to hell. And according to the bible God would want his followers to be a nuisance to save that 40% which is why Christians spread the gospel. If I misunderstood your argument please correct me because I feel like I might have.
@@devoncoates27 I appreciate your answer. I was brought up in a strict evangelical household, basically Welsh Presbyterian, so I have all this as head knowledge. I used to be a sunday school teacher lol.
If God is omniscient then he would have known about the fall before it happened. It's not like it caught Him by suprise. This always struck me as strange, but when I used to ask such questions growing up the default answer was something like "it's not for us to know; it's for us to find out".
I don't see myself as a faithless person, but Christianity requires too much faith for me to muster up. I need something more to want to devote most of my energy to it. I used to think I had a personal experience of God, but now I can't honestly say that it wasn't just an emotional response, or the benefts of meditation during prayer. I can't convince myself I wasn't faking it.
I remember the first time I was introduced to the concept of election/predestination. I was terrified that I wasn't one of the elected. I confided this fear to one of my elders and was told that the very fact I had this fear proved I was elected. This is tenuous logic if ever I saw it.
@@carolinelabbott2451 I'm a true agnostic; I simply don't know, and I believe that no one really knows. But if someone says they know I'm not going to argue. Deism requires too much conviction for me ;)
great vid.
I understand those who rely in God and religion to feel contort in knowing that after death they may see again old relatives and friends or just not being completely obliterated from existence, but I don't understand extremism, and I don't mean just islamic extremists or KKK Christians (like those who burned the Beatles records in the 60s) but also normal Christians that believes that "if you don't pay taxes you go to hell". My mother is very religious but I know she does because she's just scared of death. I don't particularly think that Jesus makes her happy, probably that's a barrier against even crossing certain thought (even is she's incredibly racist).
In the end everyone "invent" own God to fit owns agenda, just like us, atheists have an agenda too: freedom, still, we judge religious people … I just did it, except I don't hate anybody for using God as an exude to kill, I just see that person as a psychopath.
Good
Well i think that the story of the flood actually was the flood that occurres around 12,000 yeara after a comwt hit greenland ending the last ice age
I have aspergers and am an atheist. So there's a point for ya there.
1 view, 4 likes and 2 comments. Gotta love youtube
This video explains why numbers online don't always match up:
ua-cam.com/video/RY_2gElt3SA/v-deo.html
Yes, Tom talks about numbers changing inconsistently, but the same principle applies here.
My view does not count. I can see a zero view video several times and it still count zero view.
@@Tairneanach that was a nice video. Thank you
My God shall forever be Aslan.
You realise that Aslan is supposed to be jesus, right?
22 Min?! ... Seriously dude?
meh happy that you believe personally I can't.
Is it fair to say you don't want to either? I think that's one thing hiith ignores in the video. A lot of ppl have explored and questioned their faith, found faults, and proceeded to believe anyway. I also have because I want to, and it really can be as simple as that.
Oh silly hiith.
We're here for you.
There is hindu religion and hindu dharma (sanatana dharma )and i follow sanatana dharma..called a hindu..but i m really not..i dont belive in God but that doesnt mean ,i m hindu i mean a real hindu..follower of sanatana dharma.
I m vegiterian and.not a pure vegan i sometimes drink milk and tea most times..but the way.we hindus.cattle a cow are very very.. kind we dont force cows to give their milk we respect them so so much..!!not like a god but like a mother who feds us with her milk..i belive no God
You should read the psychology of the Atheist ;-)
We believe in nothing after death... instresting lol.
Seems to me that people with a moderate level of religiosity can be more mentally sound. Then you get into the fundamentalist Thumpers... quite a few of them are not screwed down tight in the noggin. Anti-social to others that are not in their cult, even.
Boredom is dangerous.
i guess religion does have it's uses
i only just heard of a religion, and i know nothing about it, i'm hoping you can educate us on Iglesia ni Cristo
It's not a change in my world-view over the last 4 decades but a refinement of definition. I'm not religious... there's no doctrine or organization I follow. I reject such. I'm hostile to those shoving their "brand of god" (or whatever... e.g. Astrology) upon me. That doesn't mean I am incurious about such.
I've come to use the term Agnostic Irrational Diest-candidate.
Any Higher Being that may possibly be is not personified or objectified. Not active or even interested in mankind's daily doings.
Irrational: I don't know there is and don't believe there is a Higher Being. I've sort of a "feeling" there's something bigger than individuals. Maybe it's collective/cultural/social consciousness... perhaps it's something more. I know and accept it's a feeling and not logical, not rational. It doesn't worry my daily life... there's enough real stuff.
"I don't know who's cranking. I'm just glad He doesn't stop." -- Rbt. Heinlein
Don't stop make flat earth debunk videos. Debunk videos isn't affected by UA-cam's restriction on conspiracy videos.
Nice
I didn't know shaggy qas a atheist
I have never been religious and
Can science prove that Love exists ?
Define " Love ".
@@carolinelabbott2451
Love is - all that matters
@@hellofromdavid But is ... what exactly?
To prove if something exists, one has to be able to define its parameters so to be able to look for it and to test it.
@@carolinelabbott2451
Can you measure Morality - or just the effect of it? Can you measure Dark Matter?
@@hellofromdavid So you don't have an idea what Love is? Curious.
Do you always speak like this?
SKY CAKE!
I just don't believe in religion overall.
Got an advert for muslim singles before the vid
I think, you totally underestimate the power of religion, becoming religious _is_ a cold, hard fact decision. Ok, this may be even more offensive to beliefers, I applogize.
Lets put psychology aside for a minute and try to look at it from an economic / biological standpoint. Religion is around for a long, long time, and it is so successful, that the large majority of humanity is religious in some way. Usually religious societies overcome none-religious ones, and within a society, religious populations easily outperform none-religious parts of the population, by reproduction (biology, right :) or economic dominance (economy), so in both economic and biological sense they are more fit. There are studies, that religious people also live longer, and may be more happy, anyway, I'm not sure, how well reasearched these numbers are.
Now, what could be the cause of this? One of the hardest things to do, and most costly one is to take decisions. Taking the right, or just any decision, quickly can be the difference between gaining the benefit of an early adopter vs the cost for being a late follower. So how do we take decision? We can research, think it through, wait to see how it evolves, or, which is probably much quicker, base your decision of wisdom of past generations, and take a decision immediately based on this. Then it boils down to, how good is this past knowledge compiled and usable for you, which os probably why religions evolve, too. One example from game theory: The best strategy according to game theory probably is a forgiving start, but harsh retaliation for cheaters. Guess what, this sounds pretty much to what Christianity and Islam are trying to do. Tit-for-tat, the next best strategy, got outcompeted...
In summary: Religions are a tool to take the best decision quickly, instead of spending energy and time on researching a decision, which you could use for say reproduction :)
Now what does that mean to psychology? Religious people feel, they are more fit in a biological or economical point fo view. They may not be aware (and this may be part of the trick actually), but they "feel" they are. It is quite obvious, they would reject your idea harshly to do away with their winning strategy.
Paradolia is a powerful drug
*If you can not explain it, is is not correct.*
Not necessarily
I'm autistic and I think 'emotional correctness' has very little value. More than likely you are just trying to protect yourself from the reality of a situation by stuffing your fingers in your ear. I see it all the time in the art community. Generally most of us are fairly practical. We point out flaws in the art to help you become better. But you will get upset because we pointed out that you drew the hand backwards. Or one leg is shorter than the other. People get upset because it's 'rude' to point it out. It's not. It's art and anyone who puts their art out in the public need to be aware that if they aren't keeping their work private and passing around only to their friends, they're not going to get only mindless praise.
You can call my father an asshole. I know he is. I don't hate my father. I don't think much of anything about him. Did I deny things when my mother and maternal grandmother tell me terrible things about him that happened before I was born? No. I suspended my belief in their claims until I heard him casually threaten to slit the throat of his current wife when they were having a drunk argument. If someone tells you something that is 'emotionally incorrect' it just means you're likely desperately trying to fool yourself and wallow in ignorance.
Emotion only makes you lash out and causes you to be a more caustic person to deal with in many situations. That's not to say that I am not guilty of this myself. Far from it. I still have emotions and can still be affected by them. I just have a lower quantity of it than most people. But it's the leading cause of a lot of strife and hurt in my life and it's something I have to be aware of when dealing with the more emotional creatures that are neurotypical individuals.
I mean if you believe in a religioun you are not losing anything
I would disagree with that . Except from the wars that have taken place because of religion , if you believe in something for no reason, you're more likely to believe in other stuff which you have no proof of and get used by other people who feed you with these lies.
You lose rationality
How can you lump the Bible in with the rest of these books? lol
Dude you're what the world needs lmao
All those books need to be burnt,then they shall never return.
Nahh. It's better to know our mistakes than do them all over again
He thinks he is Allan Watts.
cool
Reading the books of the New Testament, we probably asked ourselves more than once: *"Why 2000 years we do not see those miracles that accompanied the Сhurch of Christ in the I century, as described in the New Testament?"* Why do the so-called preachers of Christ have to prove that Jesus really existed and atheists boldly deny the historicity or divine origin of Christ? Maybe because the Сhurch of Christ has not existed for 2000 years?
The Сhurch does not exist in the form in which it is presented in the books of the New Testament, but there are Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and other christian sects claiming to be the place of the Church, but they not have the only thing that distinguishes the divine from the human and is characteristic of just the Сhurch of Christ -the reinforcement of the word with signs, that is, miracles (Mark 16:15-20). Therefore, some researchers doubt the historicity of Christ, and some of them are not opposed to declaring him a an ordinary philosopher, teacher. But even if Jesus were an ordinary philosopher, his disciples would be ordinary followers of Jesus. And they would not dare to write about the miracles that not only Jesus, but also his disciples, could perform. In this world, the great fertility of atheism can be explained by the fact that there is no main opponent of critics of the Bible - the Church. If there were the Church in our time as described by the authors of the New Testament books, where miracles are performed, the sick are healed, where prophesied, and the dead are raised, no one would doubt the historicity of Christ. Then there would be the same controversy throughout the world as in the first century - Jesus the Son of God or the false prophet who seduces the world by miracles. As a result, we can say that the emergence and development of christian sects and atheism was the result of the fact that over the 2000 years the Сhurch of Christ did not exist.
Find *"The Mystery about the Church of Christ"* video on UA-cam. The video reveals the prophecy of the disappearance and reappearance of the Church of Christ before the End of the World. Watching this video will give hope to all who sincerely seek God and will interest those who are not too lazy to think freely. Click on my name to watch the video (The video is in Russian, but English subtitles are included).
At last.
I am just waiting for the 666 likes ^^
Epic
magic mushrooms !
The only religion that works, books are crap.
If I didn't need a job so bad, I'd be totally on board with that, friend!
Harris Maria Wilson Brenda Hernandez Karen