You're assuming your interpretation of what is real constitutes as the universal objective blueprint of "real". You might not believe in god, but you act like god :P
We don’t only rely on belief tho, we rely on logic, common sense and facts. The signs of God’s exist is his creation, the Quran his message and the prophet his messenger. I look at the world God created and I read his Quran and I think to myself that it’s impossible that the Quran is from anyone else than God himself. Atheism is the stupidest thing ever, I swear.
On the contrary, everything we think we know with the possible exception of Descartes 'Cogito ergo sum' relies on our beliefs. We can't know the ultimate reality, we can merely know that what we perceive and construct a model we believe to be true about the real world based on those perceptions. So there you have a contra argument, do you even have an argument to substantiate your opposing claim?
Alex, you blow me away with this video. I’ve watch many of your videos. And I’m still stunned by this exquisite, ah, thing. I’ve run out of words. Seriously. Your argument covers so much ground in so few words. However you were educated, you should be full of gratitude. Whatever skills you developed on your own should make you proud. Honestly. I’m struggling to explain how impressed I am. That was effin’ amazing. Excuse my crudeness.
Its quite ironic that ALEX o'CONnor never questions his own faith in what he believes... a call to be disingenuous and fervently attack believers and live a life revolving around attacking God? Gods people? Design of Science? Math, Reasoning? Why would it have to be created in a way we could understand it to choose to be curious about it? Alex bumps around as a bright crayon with a dull outlook that is similar to a hater of God to deny his creator. He lives in a world were you are with him or against him if you question ALEX THE OCONNOR... so his followers, like the ones who follow JESUS, Alex wants them to put their faith in his Unbelief belief of a intolerant hate filled belief system that says he doesn't believe. That is the real delusion.. and ALEX is preaching to follow this. CHOICE TO DO GOOD AND FOLLOW GOD, OR CHOICE TO IGNORE AND BE DISOBEDIENT AND BE LIKE ALEX AND GO TO HELL even if you dont believe.. AS AN ATHEIST MYSELF... I PICK TO FOLLOW ALEX FOR HE WILL HELP THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE DOING GOOD BY DISOWNING GOD and JUMPING ON OUR ATHEIST BAND WAGON OF FAITH AND NON FAITH OR WHATEVER... ENSURING PEOPLE GIVE UP HOPE FOR A DRUG OF HATE AGAINST GOD AND WHAT GOD? OR HATE AGAINST HIS BELIEVERS... YAY! WE WILL GET WHAT WE DESERVE. EVEN IF WE DONT THINK WE WILL.
Why are you particularly impressed? Alex is, by his own argument in this video, simply a product of evolutionary forces over which neither he nor anyone else had any control. He should not take credit for any of it. He was lucky to be born in a time and place where he could receive historically good medical care, food, shelter, and education... again, none of which is of his doing, and all of which was also the result of humans responding to their evolutionary programmed mandates to spread the genetic material as efficiently as possible. If anyone is to be thanked, it should be that meteor that collided with that comet 5 billion years ago that sent the material for life on a collision course with Earth. Without that, according to Alex, none of this would ever have happened.
Sometimes swearing is the appropriate, best response. After all, they're designed to convey a certain level of meaning and expression in as few words as possible.
@@smith6907 Have you read it? The book emphasises creating new thing via inspiration from predecessors, but a majority of Alex's arguments are verbatim copied from the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens, he's literally adding nothing new
@@michaelh13 You really don't know Alex all too well considering he considers Dawkins and Hitchens to be some of the worst public atheist speakers. Or are they the only atheist speakers you can name?
Apart from any agreement or disagreement with his discourse, what a delight it is to hear eloquent and reasoned views and to mull them over in patient and rational ways. Sadly, there is so little appetite for such intellectual process in our modern world.
I suspect that there is precisely as much appetite for such discussions in the present day as there has been at any given point in history, at least any point during or after the Enlightenment. The difference is that those who are openly and unabashedly uninterested are far more visible to those who are than they once were, thus creating the impression that our age is somehow uniquely anti-intellectual.
This comments thread is interesting. It illustrates Alex's point of "What would you expect the world to look like if there was a god?" In this thread, good people are describing how faith changed their life for the better. Others describe how faith damaged them. This randomness is better explained by god being a human construct then by there actually being a god. I never had such a decision point. I was born a skeptic and the god concept never seemed rational to me, as far back as I can remember. However, my wife was raised in an intensely religious environment which she found extremely damaging and her deconversion was liberating. For others, faith is liberating and life changing for the better. This random effectiveness of faith is much better explained by what humans attach to faith then by the actual efficacy of faith.
You do realize you can categorize this randomness into two categories right? Faith positives and negatives. Two. Not haphazardly random distribution of debris in space, which chaos theory would absolutely wreck. But aligned into two columns that present some semblance of order. I would argue this orderly randomness is better explained by the existence of God The result is better explained by their attachment to truth and untruth.
Truly, I don't understand what you are saying. What are faith positives and negatives? What is orderly randomness? Do you mean a rules-based randomness as in a simulation program that utilizes RNGs?
The talk is OKAY but methodologically flawed. Characterising God, or his non-existance, through human behaviour and errors, is like characterising humans by describing ants or octopuses.
@@PatrikWesterlund definitely. But free choice means we can act both ways. That's what Christianity is all about. Since sin entered, we at times tend to do wrong, but we act on free will. A Saviour came to the rescue to turn this around. But we are no robots, we have freedom of choice which is a wonderful gift from a non-tyrannical God. And there will be an end to all this pain and cruelty. This is not the final stage yet. In my view.
@@tomangochapati i funny hilarious that in the same breath religists can describe gods attributes, immaterial etc and then two seconds later say "you can't understand god, your mind is too small" you talk tripe mate, all the time it's drivel.
Alex doesnt have his charisma tho and so would never be as popular. Hitchens also had a much wider breadth of knowledge. This is a scripted talk. Hitchens could hold his own without prep in any debate. Sorry but alex doesnt compare despite being more philosophically consistent or whatever.
@@xsuploader Give Alex a bit of time. He is only in his 20's. We watch most of Hitchens religious stuff when he was in his late 40's and 50's. Alex will get there, with tactful bravado and style. 😉
@@xsuploader With all due respect, Hitchens is all thorns no fruit. If you remove all his insults and jokes, sarcasm and mockery, misdirection and deconstruction, what do you have? He debated to debate. To win the debate was his agenda and nothing else.
@@blackwiddowflainfrost6705he was not completely without substance, but telling people to take away the wit, sarcasm, humour and charisma is reductive. That’s why Hitchens was so popular. He was no philosopher, but he just had a way with the English language that not many ever possess.
stephen woodford of rationality rules gave a speech to a room full of theists the other day that is also well worth watching, one of the best atheist addresses in a long time.
"It's truly valuable for religious individuals to acknowledge atheism, not as something to be feared or instantly rejected, but as a different perspective on life and existence. Atheism, in its essence, prompts us to question and reflect upon our beliefs, challenging us to delve deeper into our worldview. Understanding atheism doesn't necessarily mean adopting it, but rather embracing the opportunity to critically examine our own faith and principles. The coexistence of differing beliefs encourages open dialogue and nurtures mutual understanding, enriching our quest for meaning and truth."
christianity questing f0r truth ? The coexistence of differing beliefs encourages open dialogue and nurtures mutual understanding, enriching our quest for meaning and truth." is n0t christian d0ctrine christianity is cIaiming it has the t0taI and c0mpIete truth "The coexistence of differing beliefs" is entireIy hampered by said reIigi0ns cIaims that they aI0ne have the c0rrect g0d
Great speech. I have seen some people claiming its method was flawed and, don't get me wrong, I can see why. But I think it is worth pointing that, when trying to prove the inexistence of God, many debates fall on that boring argument about atheists not having any burden of proof, as it is not possible to prove inexistences in this sense. Alternatively, Alex's speech, while not methodically proving the inexistence of God, presents many scenarios that question the both the "racional" character of religious belief and its coherence as an explanation of reality. That is what makes it a great speech, in my view.
The problem with the argument is the assumption that God wants the physical well-being and survival of humans and animals above all else. The Bible never says that. God's purposes for us may very well be beyond mere survival and physical well-being.
All well and good, but if nobody can intuit god's motivations for anything, it's unclear why any particular religious claim ought to be more compelling than another.
@@shassett79 that's understandable. As with anything, when confronted with many options, it is best to choose the one that better aligns with evidence. Just don't be too hasty to discard off all religions at once based on incorrect assumptions or poor arguments. That is like choosing blindly.
@ChumX100 I am confused by your perspective now, as you seem to indicate that there is no meaningful correlation between evidence humans can perceive and the manner in which god reasons or acts.
@@shassett79 I mean evidence about his existence. As to his will and ways there is a lot we cannot grasp fully, but there is a lot about God and his plan that we can learn and know, be it by observing the things created or by revelation.
Way to go Alex. I'm relieved that an articulate and intelligent young man has "risen" to fill Hitch's wellies. My only alarm is that he has the appearance, speech and restrained mannerisms of John Cleese.
Do you guys not realize that all of Hitchens’s arguments against God were nothing but sophism? Alex made a video on the topic. Most if not all atheist arguments are the same. Dawkins, Shermer, Harris, Barker, et. al. I’m glad that Ayaan has taken her departure. I listened to Shermer’s appeal to lure her back. He was willing to make candid admissions I’ve never heard these guys make previously.
So. Sophism. So, who can you point me to giving clear evidence of God's reality? And please, by "evidence" I don't mean philosophical arguments ala Cosmological arguments. And what about Alex? More sophism?@@samdg1234
@@samdg1234 Ayaan was after a comforter and something to 'battle' her previous life. Not after religious truth, as it were. Her choice and still a brave woman..
This was the closest ive ever seen someone come to sounding exactly like Christopher Hitchens. If only Peter wasnt so adamant in having a sibling rivalry against his brother
Its quite ironic that ALEX o'CONnor never questions his own faith in what he believes... a call to be disingenuous and fervently attack believers and live a life revolving around attacking God? Gods people? Design of Science? Math, Reasoning? Why would it have to be created in a way we could understand it to choose to be curious about it? Alex bumps around as a bright crayon with a dull outlook that is similar to a hater of God to deny his creator. He lives in a world were you are with him or against him if you question ALEX THE OCONNOR... so his followers, like the ones who follow JESUS, Alex wants them to put their faith in his Unbelief belief of a intolerant hate filled belief system that says he doesn't believe. That is the real delusion.. and ALEX is preaching to follow this. CHOICE TO DO GOOD AND FOLLOW GOD, OR CHOICE TO IGNORE AND BE DISOBEDIENT AND BE LIKE ALEX AND GO TO HELL even if you dont believe.. AS AN ATHEIST MYSELF... I PICK TO FOLLOW ALEX FOR HE WILL HELP THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE DOING GOOD BY DISOWNING GOD and JUMPING ON OUR ATHEIST BAND WAGON OF FAITH AND NON FAITH OR WHATEVER... ENSURING PEOPLE GIVE UP HOPE FOR A DRUG OF HATE AGAINST GOD AND WHAT GOD? OR HATE AGAINST HIS BELIEVERS... YAY! WE WILL GET WHAT WE DESERVE. EVEN IF WE DONT THINK WE WILL. Perhaps we can even use the bible as ATHIEST to turn peole away from it and destroy peoples eternal salvation from pain of this earth. ITS a war for souls and SINCE we serve ALEX OCOONNOR and SATAN, we should get spots as preachers and bishops to use our athiest ideas and sow doubt by writng books and help encorage hate against churches. the more we can manipulste the christians the more people we can have join athiesm and satan and we can see them join us. Believe in dawkins dennet and ALEX OCONNOR over some savior who may protect you from hell. we serve the true great deciever and beautiful one. ALEX is a great guy!
Haha I’ve my mind my up so long ago about this topic. That all religion and belief systems are bollocks. But it’s so commendable to see someone articulate this in such an eloquent and bulletproof way.
@@rafd3593 or because you’ve already also made up your mind, just about something else 🤷♂️ , and that’s totally fine. There’s a non-zero probability that whatever anyone believes is true 🫡.
It’s horrifying to hear people claim God gives us value, and yet many of us die in the most disrespectful and gruesome ways. Why a god would give us complex bodies, only to refuse to protect said bodies from harm is beyond me. Guess I watched too many insane clips on Twitter.
Its quite ironic that ALEX o'CONnor never questions his own faith in what he believes... a call to be disingenuous and fervently attack believers and live a life revolving around attacking God? Gods people? Design of Science? Math, Reasoning? Why would it have to be created in a way we could understand it to choose to be curious about it? Alex bumps around as a bright crayon with a dull outlook that is similar to a hater of God to deny his creator. He lives in a world were you are with him or against him if you question ALEX THE OCONNOR... so his followers, like the ones who follow JESUS, Alex wants them to put their faith in his Unbelief belief of a intolerant hate filled belief system that says he doesn't believe. That is the real delusion.. and ALEX is preaching to follow this. CHOICE TO DO GOOD AND FOLLOW GOD, OR CHOICE TO IGNORE AND BE DISOBEDIENT AND BE LIKE ALEX AND GO TO HELL even if you dont believe.. AS AN ATHEIST MYSELF... I PICK TO FOLLOW ALEX FOR HE WILL HELP THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE DOING GOOD BY DISOWNING GOD and JUMPING ON OUR ATHEIST BAND WAGON OF FAITH AND NON FAITH OR WHATEVER... ENSURING PEOPLE GIVE UP HOPE FOR A DRUG OF HATE AGAINST GOD AND WHAT GOD? OR HATE AGAINST HIS BELIEVERS... YAY! WE WILL GET WHAT WE DESERVE. EVEN IF WE DONT THINK WE WILL. Perhaps we can even use the bible as ATHIEST to turn peole away from it and destroy peoples eternal salvation from pain of this earth. ITS a war for souls and SINCE we serve ALEX OCOONNOR and SATAN, we should get spots as preachers and bishops to use our athiest ideas and sow doubt by writng books and help encorage hate against churches. the more we can manipulste the christians the more people we can have join athiesm and satan and we can see them join us. Believe in dawkins dennet and ALEX OCONNOR over some savior who may protect you from hell. we serve the true great deciever and beautiful one. ALEX is a great guy!
Interesting whenever people attempt to discredit the existence of God, they frequently refer to some type of "evil". If the argument, the existence of evil, is a proof of the lack of God, then what does the existence of "good" in the world prove? That God does exist. The existence of evil must be accompanied by a belief in the existence of good. If there is no good, there is no standard by which evil can be judged. The argument from evil is a very poor argument because it can be turned around like I just showed.
According to Christian theology, you would see that death is not the end, gruesome or not. Even the Son of God himself has suffered a gruesome death. If you read the first chapter, God has meant for man to live in a perfect world forever. However, man, using the free will God gave him, had disobeyed the only thing that God told him not to do, and that is where all the death and suffering came from. It really makes sense whether you believe or not.
@@dadofgio You do realize, do you not, that the silly story of Adam and Eve in the Bible paints "God" as a cruel, calculating, evil being? He's supposedly all knowing, so he creates man and sets us an entrapment scenario in which he KNOWS man will fall for the trap, only to punish him for doing so. He creates man both fallible and curious, he puts temptation into the garden, then allows a tempter to exacerbate the situation. Why would god not want humans to know the difference between good and evil in the first place? And since they hadn't eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil up to that point, how could they know that disobeying god was evil? They literally did not know right from wrong. And as for the other tree - the tree of eternal life - why put that there, when originally Adam and Eve were meant to live eternally? What purpose would it serve? And why would god not want humans to eat its fruit, when they were already eternal? The story, like everything in the Bible, is ridiculous, illogical and just basically stupid. Just a bunch of silly, bizarre fables made up by primitive, superstitious people.
I got sober from an 8 year long drug addiction in January of 2022, and moved into a Christian sober living house for 1 year. While I was there I witnessed many men completely turn their lives around, and it all appeared to be due to adopting Christianity. Men who spent 20+ years in jail for bank robberies and assault, terribly dark stories. I was an atihest during my entire 1 year stay. It was not until about 3 months after leaving that I began to get really deep into Carl Jungs work, along with reading a few Dostoevsky novels, that I had a thought which almost brought me to my knees. "Either everything is as if the body and blood of Christ, or nothing is. If everything is, then the limitless potential for goodness is so vast that is it beyond me. If nothing is as if the body and blood of Christ, then nothing matters, and I mayaswell return to my addiction." But there is the important nuance, everything is AS IF the body and blood of Christ. I am not a biblical fundamentalist, and I do not belive that the scriptures are intended to be understood in a literal manner. The way I understand it is that, when the sacred stories, the symbols, and all that they stand for are turned outward, they become superstition; but, when turned inward, they become wisdom. So, do I belive Christ was born of a virgin? No, of course not; but, inwardly, it is the only thing that makes sense. The redemptive figure in ones life must be born of a virgin, that is, of one parent; this part of the mind which gives rise to the birth of new life is feminine in its nature (Jungian theory of Eros), and the order that is called forth by the redeemer is masculine, represented in Christ (theory of Logos being symbolic of masculinity). After receiving "a message from the heavens," symbolically illustrated in the annunciation, where the archangel Gabriel comes down to announce to Mary that she will give birth to the Messiah, she then becomes pregnant and eventually gives birth. The story of the annunciation is symbolic of the religous experience; how an experience of ineffable wholeness that "comes from above," or "comes from the angels," can be potent enough to give rise to the creation of a new redemptive figure in ones life. Sorry if I'm rambling here, I'm commenting on mobile. Sometimes I even find it hard to call myself a Christian. I often feel very alienated from my Christian friends, as they are all wholeheartedly living in the Christian myth, while I am not. Although, I still pray, I still go to mass and read the scriptures, because the psychological reality of Christ is what I seek, not the corporeal reality of Christ. "Physical" is not the only criterion of truth, there are psychological, immaterial truths, too. I wish more religonists were not literalists... that it the only thing that will save religion.
I don’t think people honestly care about the belief. People are concerned when the claim is the belief describes reality and the only evidence turns out not to be about whether the belief is true but if the belief has utility.
If the car breaks down because of misuse then it’s the fault of the person who misused it. Obviously. If it’s inherently faulty, regardless of how it’s used, it’s the manufacturers fault. What was the point of these questions? Is a car like the universe? Is a car manufacturer like an all-powerful deity?!
Brilliant. It got me thinking that religion as a whole needs a replacement speaker, but then I asked myself to what end because science asks all the same questions that religion does but gives answers that are demonstrable and backed up with evidence.
@@scottm4975 You mean questions like: How was the universe created? Why do we have consciousness? Where do we fit in the cosmos? Why are we here? Science does awnser those. Just FYI.
@@E.J.Crunkleton nope. I don’t mean that. I mean what is right and wrong. Also if you think science answers the origin of the universe and why humans/life exist you haven’t gone deep enough. Seems like a lot of you atheists just haven’t thought deep enough on these things. Please tell me how science explains the origin of the universe without using untested theories that rely on “faith”?
@@scottm4975 You were not aware that we observe the red shift in the universe nor that our most powerful telescopes can observe back to plank time? If you are intrigued, there is an entire academic field called astronomy that focuses on things we can observe and test to be true. Unlike supernatural claims from the bronze age.
In a ridiculous world where we can’t just say, “god is BS”, and we move on to work actual progress, here we have a guy like Alex doing all the heavy lifting combating BS which is religion. …religion is an ongoing cancer of humanity, always evolving, always menacing, and drag down our progress as a species.
You said it’s always dragging us down. I’m assuming the always applies to all the things mentioned afterwards. Can you show me examples of how religion has “always” dragged us down? To add onto this what about the progress we made as humans under religious rule? Do we just ignore that? Seems like your looking at things in terms of binary. I agree religion is harmful. However, to put it all under one umbrella seems a bit harsh.
As much as Christianity for example makes my brain hurt with the stupidity that is presented I can’t deny it has helped many people find comfort even if it is in delusion, is that worth nothing? And those who have turned their lives around with the story of Jesus, there are people who have done terrible things who have truly changed under the flag of Christianity. I think people can change without religion of course but the ones that did need religion needed religion.
Its quite ironic that ALEX o'CONnor never questions his own faith in what he believes... a call to be disingenuous and fervently attack believers and live a life revolving around attacking God? Gods people? Design of Science? Math, Reasoning? Why would it have to be created in a way we could understand it to choose to be curious about it? Alex bumps around as a bright crayon with a dull outlook that is similar to a hater of God to deny his creator. He lives in a world were you are with him or against him if you question ALEX THE OCONNOR... so his followers, like the ones who follow JESUS, Alex wants them to put their faith in his Unbelief belief of a intolerant hate filled belief system that says he doesn't believe. That is the real delusion.. and ALEX is preaching to follow this. CHOICE TO DO GOOD AND FOLLOW GOD, OR CHOICE TO IGNORE AND BE DISOBEDIENT AND BE LIKE ALEX AND GO TO HELL even if you dont believe.. AS AN ATHEIST MYSELF... I PICK TO FOLLOW ALEX FOR HE WILL HELP THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE DOING GOOD BY DISOWNING GOD and JUMPING ON OUR ATHEIST BAND WAGON OF FAITH AND NON FAITH OR WHATEVER... ENSURING PEOPLE GIVE UP HOPE FOR A DRUG OF HATE AGAINST GOD AND WHAT GOD? OR HATE AGAINST HIS BELIEVERS... YAY! WE WILL GET WHAT WE DESERVE. EVEN IF WE DONT THINK WE WILL.
People who don't believe in God still live in a world with people who do and they are often impacted by things that these people do that are based on their religious beliefs.
I am new to faith like many others... and it's hard not to feel like a bit of an imposter at times, as I compare myself to others that know all the scriptures, speak with conviction and appear more devout. However, I have felt myself pulling closer towards God through reading and prayer, however silly I felt about it initially. I recently read the book Imitations of Christ, and it approaches faith in a more pragmatic way, despite it being so old... at the end of the day, everyone is human and we should never compare ourselves to others. Faith is not performative, because our relationship with God is personal. We will always be tested, we may find times it's easy to believe, and other times find it hard. Faith is simply something that takes work like anything else of value. I honestly don't know what I believe about things so beyond me... but I have found that shedding my ego a bit, and however illogical, giving meaning to my suffering is a transcending feeling that fills a void in my heart.
Why do you think your path isn't filled with the same delusions of those whose gods you reject as false? And why do you think that spending a lot of time thinking and practicing religious methodologies doesn't lead to well-established methods of engendering belief? Literally, the same types of things you're doing, the same feelings you're having have been had by billions of people whose gods you know to be lies. So if religious "feelings" lead them to false beliefs, what besides hubris allows you to believe that you're walking a path any different than theirs? Because you're doing "religion" better? Because their religious texts are lies, and yours aren't? Funny... they believe that about you too.
The truth is this kind of cognitive dissonance is buried deep within their biases and minds and ways of thinking. It's honestly sickening and I feel such immense empathy for them, even though I know it really doesn't matter. The truth is that most people just don't care about the value of logic and evidence. Even though they use it for every other belief. They will simply digest your logical argument, grounded in reality, and then tell themselves in their mind that they're supposed to be winning the argument, and the possibility of being wrong becomes so insanely frightening to them. And then they cowardly take offense to your questioning of their faulty reasoning, as if that's suddenly become a crime or something. Why be so sensitive? Wouldn't they question the "evidence" of a flat-earther? What about a different religion? I'm not afraid to be wrong. I've been wrong about things before, we all have. My beliefs aren't perfect. But for many religious people, this just isn't allowed to be the case. The truth is that due to our massively improved quality of life, understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, and the scope of the universe; something as illogical and baseless as religious theism looks absolutely silly in current society, and they know it. They know it intuitively. They know it the way they have utter conviction that Brahma didn't create the world and that Alexander the Great was not a demigod son of Zeus. Even though the same evidence exists for all three. To be honest, it's just amusing to me at this point lol. cheers.
@@zoomingby It's a fair point! My path may very well be false! I suppose that's entirely the point... to believe in spite of what your eyes can see. I'm not arrogant enough to assume I am correct in anything... for lack of a better word, I would say it's probably a bit closer to the concept of manifestation, whereby participation is the mechanism in which it has revealed itself to me. I know religions are full of taboo and contradictions, which make the discussions and criticisms of it unnecessarily defensive and passionate. The collective wisdom within texts have been filtered over the years, and I don't think the 'true meaning' of any religious text can ever be perfectly distilled, which means I don't think it's ever possible to "religion" better than anyone else. I find value in what people say about these complex topics, but I would not trust any mind but my own to interpret what I find to be true... and while everyone might arrive at different ends in the realm of religions, at the end of the day all we have is our internal compass which hopefully directs us toward what is good and true. There is so much more that connects us between religions than what divides us. I've known so many people that have switched faiths entirely because they know in their hearts what is true, despite whatever a book, or priest had told them... and that change is a reflection of what resonated within them. What resonates within us is enough. Christ resonates with me, and that is enough... that may change some day. I need to follow this resonance further to find out.
@@TheCalendarClub So you don't care if what you believe is actually true, or grounded in reality, you basically care about whether it "works" for you (leads to good feelings, spirituality, kinship, etc)?
@@zoomingby I do care if what I believe is true.. I just have a very real apprehension speaking about my belief in absolutes. When we use the word 'true', we generally think of that word as it pertains to facts... and in that regard you are correct, I don't think I'm interested in truth as a tangible concept grounded in reality. I think of 'truth' more in a biblical or metaphorical sense of what leads you towards the Divine, the sublime, goodness etc. In a way, I don't think the concept of belief as we are discussing it, even functions the same way in the face of grounded reality. I think religion is fulfilling because there isn't any proof, (if that makes sense). Crude analogy, but it's similar to trust. Sure you could look through your partners emails, and text history to know for sure if they're cheating on you... but we don't because believing in someone, gives the relationship meaning. Trust is something that you enact in a very real way, to give the concept of trust it's actual meaning in spite of reality. I don't fully understand the mechanisms of spirituality, but after all is said and done, I would hope lived in such a way to maximize meaning in all things around me. While I do feel that, in general, following my internal compass does lead to good feelings, kinship etc... I don't know if that's necessarily what is motivating me. It's more a sense of duty, or obligation to some day be the type of person capable of spreading 'good' in others. I don't think existence, humanity, the world etc are really about "me", despite that being all I literally know, haha. It feels more about passing the torch... that's what my compass is telling me. I appreciate the questions!
I'm a firm believer of a nuanced, detailed, and expressive use of language as part of a speech or an argument. His speech is good. It is intellectually honest and is well crafted at its core. Yet, in my opinion, it suffers from that all too common inefficient use of language that we so often bump into in academia. Pinker has a great speech about it somewhere on UA-cam, even if this doesn't quite reach as bad of a territory as Pinker's examles in his speech do. In that (having seen so many comments here referring to him) O'Connor really differs from Hitchens, who's use of language was creative and playful but always very efficient and, in the end, direct. Even where he crafted his sentences and paragraphs with linguistic and intellectual care, his speeches always had full focus on delivering something you can immediately grasp. With this speaker here, a bit too much gets lost in the linguistic acrobatics/detours that serve little purpose.
All religious texts are humans searching for their origins, including the most ridiculous, primordial soup turned into humans via random mutations lmao.
Ask him to bring a decent vegan debater to his podcast to discuss the ethics of animal rights and you'll have a good belly laugh looking back at your comment.
@@garretts431 Since when did Christian defenders place a lot of value on something being brand new? By that metric the Bible is thousands of years out of date.
Compare this presentation to any of the endless blathering ones by John Lennox in this same forum or anywhere else for that matter. Simple, precise, cohesive, reasoned, compelling and illustrative Vs endless droning and spinning about "The Logos"...... Just excellent Alex.
Terrific speech, Alex. I admire Hirsi Ali for her honest reason for becoming a Christian. Including that secular version of the culture in her life will reveal many more political opportunities and allow her to create a following. Imagine taking the best ethical parts of all religions, mythology and ideologies then merging them into a unified system of possible behavior-with examples and cross references. I would enjoy reading something like that and realize that most people follow tenets and traditions handed down throughout the ages, irrespective of their origins.
There's nothing that the best of religions can provide that can't be achieved through reason. Every pragmatic (non-batshit crazy) religious tenet can be derived from critical thought. We don't need lies spun up as truth to aid the process. Besides, there's already such a thing that relies on no fairytales or magical sky men: secular humanism.
Why would you need the religions for that? Take the best examples of human behaviour and create a system of ethics that needs no background irrationality or appeals to the supernatural?
@@paulrawlinson8653 They need religion for that because they've all been sold that religion is an essential part of life, perhaps the most essential part. It's now a primal part of their operating system. To no small extent because it's been beaten into their heads that ever deviating from this belief system will end in eternal torment. Well played, religion. Well played.
@@zoomingby Indeed, if these parts are ethical then religion is not needed for them to be good. If they help society then that is all the motivation to incorporate it we need
My mother's conversion story from atheist to Christian is that when she saw her newborn (me, actually!), she felt it was a miracle, and for her that was a proof of God's existence. While I am deeply flattered, today I am no longer a believer myself. And I remember saying to my mother when I was still a pre-school child that the story about the Fall and the idea of original sin were totally wrong. And when she told me that Jesus saved humanity, I responded: "No, he didn't save us, but he showed us the way". I still wonder where I got my strong opinions from.
Evolution back the claim of original sin! We are animals after all.. and if you want to whiteness rape, murder torture etc. etc just go into the animal kingdom. It’s all right there😅(1 example is Gorillas; if the alpha male suspects the child is not his, he will murder the child and sometimes eat it). Our very close relative. Maybe you don’t think eating children is sinful! Well I do, regardless if there is a God or not🤔🫣
I'm sure you got your strong opinions from a divine power, God. Really no other rational explanations possible... cough (culture, education, social mimicry, logic...) cough cough.
I have always loved listening to Alex, such a clarity of thoughts and precise to the point. We are a group of ex-muslims/atheists (technically agnostics) who challenge the fundamental issues within Islam but mostly taking a philosophical bend to it and only citing scriptures in support of our arguments only if needed. It is indeed the case that Islam is yet to go through the same phase that Christianity has gone through in past couple of centuries. Time is neigh that someone dealt with it in Islam from a subcontinental perspective.
Does your group have a channel on UA-cam? I'm a Christian believer but I've been slowly learning about Islam. What "fundamental issues" do you consider in your arguments against Islam? When I profess my beliefs regarding Jesus to Muslims, I'm bombarded with criticism, judgemental attitudes, and many verses from the Quran. I understand the reasoning why Muslims quote the Quran to me, but their specific references to the Quran are not beneficial for me. Islam doesn't provide me with the basic knowledge of why God Himself had to send a revelation to a Muhammad, the last prophet. And it seems like the Quran repeatedly negates the foundational beliefs within Christianity. Maybe I'm just not receptive to the beliefs of Islam? I respect Muslims. I'm somewhat open-minded to listen and learn. But I'm not convinced that the Quran was indeed given by God ( Allah ). Respectfully. From Florida..
@@johnbrzykcy3076 It is simple, god, in his majesty. does not show himself to his creation yet. He wont and has made us in a way that makes sure we never can see god in our flesh form. In the quran, in surah 7 and verse 143. it is said:"When Moses came at the appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he asked, “My Lord! Reveal Yourself to me so I may see You.” Allah answered, “You cannot see Me! But look at the mountain. If it remains firm in its place, only then will you see Me.” When his Lord appeared to the mountain, He levelled it to dust and Moses collapsed unconscious. When he recovered, he cried, “Glory be to You! I turn to You in repentance and I am the first of the believers.” It is impossible for us to see him. And it is not in his glory to come down as a man and sacrfice himself just so that he can forgive his sin. We as children are sinless. When we reach the age of puperty only then can we be help accountable for our problems. That is one of the reasons that allah reveiled some verses of th quran through the noble angel d'jibreel. And not all verses were revealed through the noble angel d'jibreel. such as the last 10 ten verses of surah al Baqara. These verses were reveiled when our prophet Mohammad peace be upon him was brought up to a place above the seven heavens to a place no angel nor man has ever gone to. Here Allah subahan watta alla reveiled the last 10 verses of surah al Baqara himself.
No need to say "technically agnostics," because atheist only means that you do not believe in a god. If you don't believe that there is a god, whether or not you 'know he doesn't exist,' you are atheist.
@@alekhinesgun9997Anyone who takes philosophy of religion seriously knows that while Hitchens may have been a great personality figure and an influencial face of new athiesm, he isnt a serious philosopher by any means. Athiest/Agnostic philosophers such as Graham Oppy, JL Mackie, Joe Shmid, and many more are only known by their written works as they arent super popular in media, however they are far more engaging with complex arguments for gods existence than hitchens. Alex is definitely more informed aswell as he as interviewed a few of those I mentioned (as well as serious religious philosophers).
@@alekhinesgun9997 Hitchens was one of the greatest orators of our time (I'll remind you that there are 8 billion competitors for that title). And one of the most bold. Trivialize him as you might.
@@rewrewrewrewr2674 Agreed. As far as I can see from the youtube sphere, Alex is the most willing to engage with all perspectives and do everything to not strawman his opposition. Tough to come by nowadays and he's been consistent like this for a while and has matured more and more as the years go on whereas most do the opposite and trivialize other perspectives as the years go. Not to mention he doesn't play teams and will call a spade a spade no matter who it is. Great speaker and a better philosopher, stoked to see his impact in the future.
I’m a non-denominational theist but find Alex a pleasure to listen to. I do wonder, though, why he devotes so much time to atheism in a country and on a continent where most people are already atheist or headed in the direction of atheism.
I for one appreciate his dedication and commentary on the subject. Here in America the religious grip is strong, although waning as time goes on. Listening to him helps me better phrase and explain to those around me regarding the God dilemma (existence/non-existence, etc).
Very true. The new atheist movement lacked the philosophical sophistication of 20th century atheists like Sobel and Rowe. Nice to see reasonable atheism come back to life! I'm optimistic about the future when it comes to freedom of religion
Religion is about human acts of trying to reach God or please God by my own efforts, which are worthless or even impossible because we cannot even see or touch God who is infinite. We cannot please God enough on our own. Christianity is about God working in me through His Spirit, He does all the work, it's a life and an intimate relationship with Christ. Thereupon, it makes sense to please or understand God because He is doing His will in me, it's about God working in me, not me trying to reach Him by effort. Remember, the body is dead without the spirit. When we are alive, a "spirit" dwells in us, but what kind of "spirit"? From our birth, it is the spirit that makes us sinners, that makes us naturally disobedient to God and makes us against the reality of God, lying, cheating, etc... nobody taught us to do that, we earned that reality by nature, that's why the Bible says unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. We should live by the Spirit of God, from above, to accept all the truths about God. I'm used to illustrating things like this, how can I understand "the Bible" as God's Word if I'm not inspired by the same Spirit as the 40 people who wrote it? For example, how can we understand the arguments of Paul if we are not inspired by the same Spirit as Paul? Remember, these 40 writers are separated by more than 1300 years, many of them couldn't see each other. How can they talk about the same thing? Jesus Christ. We cannot accept that unless we are indwelt by the same Spirit that inspired them. I think it's perfectly normal for an atheist, agnostic, etc... to stand on what they believe, unless they ask the Holy Spirit to dwell in them by believing in Jesus Christ. I suggest this video for those who want to go further: ua-cam.com/video/lqNI2dBJOHo/v-deo.htmlsi=Jl2bKVK26CgIAZ-3
@@John1633. A "materialist caring about evil/suffering, morals and goodness" would be far more sincere and believable than someone who claims their caring about those issues is dictated by a god or holy book and is obedient out of a desire for the claim of rewards or to avoid the punishment they were told awaits them in an eternal afterlife no one can demonstrate actually exists in the first place. Of course there's the flip side; a materialist has no god or holy book to invoke in order to excuse inflicting harm or suffering on others, like the example given in this video of burning 3 bishops because they followed a different denomination, and a materialist actually has vested concern for the future of our descendants and the world they will inherit as they hold no belief that a deity will soon return to rescue the True Believers from this reality and send billions of infidels to eternal torture. Doesn't leave you in a very good position to whine about irrationality, particularly given the passage you invoke in your channel name.
The test that was previously mentioned in the previous point falls within the framework of worshiping God Almighty. Worship inevitably does not mean merely performing the obligatory duties of prayer, fasting, and zakat...etc., but it also means living life in all its details, and populating the Earth, in accordance with the commands of God Almighty and in order to gain His satisfaction. A person's worship of God Almighty, and his adherence to His commands and prohibitions in all matters of his life, provides a person with a virtuous and good life, in which he stays away from evil, reprehensible things, and evils. He does not lie, does not hypocrite, does not bear false witness, does not backbite, does not spy, does not issue fatwas without knowledge, and does not commit injustice. He does not steal, does not usury, does not exploit people, does not commit adultery, does not use alcohol or drugs, does not kill, does not assault anyone, does not favor anyone at the expense of what is right...etc. All of this would make life upright and noble. God Almighty says: "And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me (56) I do not desire from them any provision, nor do I desire that they should be fed (57) Indeed, Allah is the Provider, the Possessor of all-powerful power. Tin (58) Surat Al-Dhariyat. And God Almighty says: “Say, ‘Indeed, my Lord has guided me to a straight path, a right religion, the religion of Abraham, upright. And he was not of the polytheists.’” (161) Say, “Indeed, my prayer and my rituals and My life and my death belong to God, Lord of the Worlds (162) Surah Al-An’am. And God Almighty said: “And when your Lord said to the angels, ‘Indeed, I will place a caliph on earth.’ They said, ‘Will You place therein someone who will spread corruption therein and shed blood? And we glorify your praise. And We sanctify you. He said, “Indeed, I know what you do not know.” (30) Surah Al-Baqarah.
Alex last objection concerning the appalling treatment of believers by believers through history ‘in the name of Jesus’ - for me this is just no difficulty at all. It was Jesus who commands us to love our enemies and pray for those who hurt you’, (Matthew 5:44) and “do not repay evil with evil” (Romans 12:17). Jesus said, ‘by their fruit you will know them.’ So when the so-called church or church leader commits atrocities in Jesus name we know it is simply evil at work.
Just because a group of people who claimed to know the true faith were instigators of violence and death doesn’t necessarily mean what they believed is false. There is a difference between faith and LIVING the faith. Christian faith without the fruits of the faith is not true faith. Look to the true practitioners of the faith, that is, the saints, if you want a legitimate representation of the faith, not some ill-willed “Catholics” who tyranized non-believers by imposing the faith with threat of torture and death.
I really like how you said "There is a difference between faith and LIVING the faith". I agree with you although I personally struggle with the concept of "faith" as seen through the eyes of Jesus Himself. Your statement regarding faith actually convicts me because I don't feel like I'm "living the faith" as a good example to others. God bless. From Florida USA
I'm a bit confused on Alex's point on suffering because doesn't the Bible say in the beginning that the world was good and we were to only eat plants but the only reason suffering Exist is because it deviated from God's plan? If it was like the garden of Eden then we would be eating and living happily together with animals off of plants. The suffering entered the world through sin right...... But of course if you don't believe that biblical narrative then of course the Bible doesn't make sense. And I know people will just say that God could have made a plan Where there was no suffering at all And I absolutely think that it's possible in theory to at least physically have no suffering but I think if we did that mentally our suffering would be unimaginable because I think we have to take free will out of the equation When it comes to anything we want to be perfect because naturally we just aren't perfect and have corrupted hearts from the sin that affected us from the beginning. I don't want heaven to be full of a bunch of snide assholes too So it makes sense that he would want to develop our character through certain trials. Maybe the trials would Not need to involve any sort of physical suffering if men had free will and ultimately uncorruptible good hearts. There's A lot of stuff to understand in the Bible and a lot of things that we will just never understand and have to leave up to God until he explains it to us when we are in heaven tho
This is a tiring and dull argument. The more he persists in it the harder his head gets. He is like a petulant, recalcitrant child who refuses to come out of his dark corner. He has a dark aura that is almost visable. Listening to this at double speed is not fast enough for me to avoid a crushing boredom.
@@JeffBedrick ya because universities today are something to be proud of. they're woke cesspools full of spineless cowards pushing secular humanism nonsense.
This kind of argument saying the perpetrators of atrocities connotes the religion is bad or God is evil, is simply saying the knife is evil because it is used to kill. When the knife is used to save lives by cutting the rope of a hanging man, we should not say the same. If this is the case, how can we draw the conclusion that religion is bad when man used it as a reason to kill.
you're spot on. As a tool, religion is like a knife in that it was created by humans and has been sued to do good and bad. Hence, we don't perceive a knife as universally good or universally bad. The same could be said of religion, except that itself contradicts the absolute faith that so many invest into their own beliefs. But if you acknowledge that religion can be used wrong, you have to accept that anyone, including you, might be using it wrong. But now how can you have such unilateral faith in it?
@@Nyramyss-jj8mj The question is whether the religion you follow and the god you believe is the one true God. If you are following the one true religion and the one true God with all your heart, then you are in a safer place. Christianity was not invented by man but founded by Christ on His unceasing love. Therefore there is one true religion and one true God, not created by man, but founded by God Himself.
@@leoteng1640 Listen, I don't mean to disrespect your god, but the whole point is that you can't know any of that for sure because you can't prove it. Let's go back to the original point about atrocities committed in the name of religion. Did those people follow the one true god with all their hearts? You're welcome to say no, but you'll have to *prove* it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Otherwise, it's just your word against theirs.
@@Nyramyss-jj8mj I can't speak for anyone, but if they say yes, they have to answer to Him. I'm not the Judge, I'm a fellow sojourner and my responsibility is to stop atrocity when I face one and pray that I've the courage to do it. The one true God is real if you are willing to follow the evidence. You have the free will to make that decision. Are you aware that you are made of wave and particle and Higgs Boson is known as the God particle that give us mass? Are you aware that your existence is a miracle? Read Dominion by Tom Holland as a start.
Always feel a bit sorry for Alex. He seems to desperately want to believe in something transcendent and, like any spurned lover, feels indignant and spiteful at the thing he craves when it doesn't instantly make its presence felt. Actually this is true for all atheists, it's the rage against God as the other Hitchens would say, and rather than being a rage based on all the sufferings in the world, it's really a rage that God isn't theirs to command at their will and do their bidding. And that's precisely why they miss mark and never understand what God really is.
they can't seem to make their minds up, is god the almighty who can't lose or will my pal satan beat the crap out of him, tune in for another thrilling episode of "the needy and insecure"
@@zootsoot2006 Your argument is both invalid and idiotic and an example of the typical false claims believers love to mindlessly repeat like trained parrots. You want to believe that atheists hate god and want to sin, which is why they stop believing, but that is the most idiotic argument believers can make. First, let's use an analogy to highlight the stupidity of that oft-repeated claim. Let's say I want to rob a bank. But I know the law says that's illegal and that if I do so, the prosecutor will charge me with a crime and send me to jail. But I really just want to rob the bank, so I say: "Well, I just don't believe in the prosecutor anymore! Now I can go rob the bank!". It's a ridiculous, impossible, and idiotic claim you make. One cannot simply choose to not believe in something you know is real. Atheists know god is not real because there is no evidence of any god and because the very concept is utterly illogical. Second, how can someone be angry at or hate a fictional character? Saying atheists hate god is like saying we hate Superman or that we're angry with the Tooth Fairy. Gods are not real, so atheists cannot be angry at them. You're a typical religionist - arrogant to the core and believing you know what others feel and think, all the while making a fool of yourself for the world to witness. Religions rots the mind, and you are just another perfect example of that truth.
I had high hope for this, but at the end, the "arguments" (if you call it that) are infantile. "For what", Alex asked of bad things happening -- it is for the very simple reason that there need to be consequences, good or bad, in order for us to know that we are alive and free. I don't know Alex's upbringing, but it seems that his "inability" to understand the reasons for bad things to happen is a lack of experience (perhaps a privilege) in understanding that decisions need to matter and have different consequences in order for it to be a decision. "Free will" is meaningless if regardless of what we eat it will taste like chicken. Alex is an eloquent person and I wonder why is he missing out on such a simple trait of what free will means? Does he not realize that if all the outcomes are "good", then we actually don't have a choice??
"Does he not realize that if all the outcomes are "good", then we actually don't have a choice??"... I could design a test where all outcomes are good, bad or a mixture and it would say nothing at all about whether an individual in the test has free will or not.
@@downshift4503 That test may be useful if you question whether God gave us free will at all. To address my comment to Alex's point - can you design a test where free will can be exercised even though all of the outcomes are the same? Without the bad, how do you define what is good? Without the "bad," what does "good" even mean? And ultimately, is that world worth living in?
As a Christian believer, I wish I had the scholarly reasoning of Alex. For a young scholar, he has excellent intellectual ability. However I think life itself points to a correlation between the heart and the mind. Of course it could be a survival mechanism. But it could be much more ! So I simply hope to be remain open-minded but respectful. If God planned and created mankind, then the Cosmos itself cannot be a delusion ! Respectfully from Florida USA..
It's funny how those who are wise turn to be atheists, maybe it's an answer to the prayer of Jesus. At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.
@@tylerpedersen9836Maybe but his arguments are actually different. He’s analysed Hitchens arguments before, and distinguished himself from him philosophically. But I can see how some wouldn’t see this.
Because, God NEVER said he would defend species from extinction, God NEVER said he will end all suffering, God NEVER promised a nice shining happy world, NEVER. Why are you expecting something from God that God never promised?
@@daikucoffee5316 A completely impotent god sounds like a contradiction. If it's impotent, it's probably not a god. But if you're asking that question as a refutation of the previous post, it doesn't work. A god could be all powerful and not end all suffering because it doesn't want to end all suffering. In fact, if there was just one god and that god created everything, then it would make sense that the god created suffering in the first place, which implies that the god wanted suffering to exist. Why would the god want suffering to exist? Well, given that we aren't gods and don't have the intelligence which would be required to intentionally create all existence, it's pretty much impossible that we could correctly guess at the god's reasoning for wanting suffering to exist (unless that god also happened to want us to understand its reasoning, in which case it would presumably have the ability to enable us to understand).
Odd that Alex refers to 'species' as if it's a conscious entity that would object to its extinction. Odder still that he appeals to the unfairness of a species going extinct when he doesn't believe in any intrinsic meaning, morality or value system that would uphold this objection.
Yes! spot on! He is an animal who's life is the result of a meaningless, unguided process, and who's sole purpose is reproduction and survival, yet that animal has a mind that cares about eradication of species or of evil, and issue of goodness, virtue and morals. Truly ironic.
He could claim that he's most 'modelling' the outrage that believers should feel. But even then, a 'species' is not a sentient being. It's just a category so if God allows one or another to go extinct and replaces it with a more beautiful one then what of it? I'll be doing a talk on this topic on my Pathfinding channel soon. Head over there by clicking on my name and subscribe to get updates when the videos are up. I'm currently working on a critique of William Lane Craig's Molinism philosophy. @@John1633.
5:33 The reason religions have "relied" on non-rational modes of convincing is because spiritual experience is something everyone has access to regardless of intellectual ability or education level. It would be very odd, given the sort of claims religions like Christianity make, if one needed to be a specialist in formal logic or religious studies to come to the conclusion that God exists. It seems to me that human experience tells us that there are non-inferential ways of knowing, and it is at least plausibly true that knowledge of God is one example of this. Alex makes the mistake of assuming that the normative way to God is through the philosopher, and not the mystic (even if philosophy can help one along the way).
Perhaps the lowest point in his well delivered rhetoric was claiming faith is belief without evidence. Stupid claim to make and only an anti-religious zealot would not cringe at it. I doubt Alex actually believes that statement himself but it sounded good to his followers I'm sure. The strongest point he made, imo, was religious violence. But first he claimed Christianity had a long history of religious violence which isn't true. Violence between Christians existed for a limited time and can largely be attributed to the connection of church and state. Both church leaders being led astray from New Testament teachings by political power and civil leaders moving into church positions, people who would equate heterodoxy with being a traitor to the state, explain much if not all violence in Christian history. Certainly, an honest look at the New Testament and the Quran would admit one advocates violence against those who disagree and the other gives no room for it. And while God could put us all in straight-jackets and lock us in various padded rooms, this would hardly be benevolent or good. If learning, wisdom, and growth are the best thing for us then suffering simply cannot be the great evil that atheists and "agnostics" say it is. I didn't find anything else he said particularly challenging but I've already written an overly long response.
Sorry to bother but I’m really curious what your definition of faith if it isn’t “belief in the absence of evidence” also I’d love you to expand on your point that the bible ‘isn’t responsible at all in cases that many would consider biblically motivated violence’ (of course if that’s a straw man please let me know)
Lol so calling faith what it is is considered something only a zealot anti religious bigot would say 😂😂 cope harder bro , that's what faith literally is.
Only a ‘religious zealot’ would actually believe any of the nonsense you just spouted. I mean seriously I’ve seen some stupid arguments in my time but come on 😂
@@haruspex1-50 thankfully? I would be concern. I mean at least a claim from a creator has some level of objectivity. Otherwise its Alex vs yours vs everyone else personal opinion. And crazily you are all right and wrong at the same time :D. Yay for nonsensical moral foundations.
He is an emotivist, meaning he believes morality is simply an expression of emotion. He believes when we say "murder is bad" we're essentially making an emotional claim with no truth value. You can imagine this as him saying "boo murder". Of course, I can't describe his opinions better than himself so if you'd really like a better overview of his morality, he did a recent debate with Ben Shapiro where he discussed morality quite a bit.
I can't help holding the view that all moral advancement is secular because the nature of dogma is to preserve beliefs as they are including beliefs about morality so even if a religious person changes their moral beliefs and remains religious and just incorporates the moral change into their religion, the change of morals is still secular. A change of morals can only be secular so an advancement in morality can only be secular. When an entire religion changes it's official moral standards from the authorities down to the followers, the official change in standards is a response to a secular moral change which causes members of that religion to either form new sects which accept the change or leave religion altogether or just take the authorities of that religion a bit less seriously until they change their official stance on the moral issue. The people change in light of being unable the reconcile their empathy and sympathy with their existing beliefs and the authorities don't have the physical or legal ability to suppress the change so they accept it to preserve their power by preventing followers from leaving the religion. This is why morality advances the fastest where religion has the least political power.
These arguments have been made decades ago. I like how nowadays someone watches George Carlin and then they somehow feel like they are gonna blow everybody's mind if they repeat the literal skit. I wonder if someone actually comes up with their own thoughts anymore.
I am still a admirer of Ayan Ali. She is a brave woman who has escaped the horror of a religion that is still to be reformed, or to have a better relationship with the modern world and knowledge. When I read her article I was also surprised by the lack even of an argument from self revelation, but rather she mantained that culturally and ethically christianity was more of "her thing". Seemed to me that she was arguing that being a A La Carte Christian was better than being an atheist because the judeo-christian way of life was responsible for the western culture. Well, as the Hitch always said, if one is going to cope with the best it has to cope with the worst. The Enlightnment and the Scientific Revolution ocurred DESPITE religion and could very much sentence someone to excomunication, prison, abuse and death for more than a century. Also it could (in the case of my home country) destroy countless human lives and cultures with a flick of a wrist and some gunpowder in the most egregious manner. So yes, I am an atheist, and a minority in my country. I know there are countries in the "western world" in wich atheism or agnosticism are the majority thinking. The way things are going here I may well someday have to seek asylum from these so ethical and tolerant christians.
I think we’re all on the same page that the belief needs justification. Truth (the claim corresponds to reality) is a justification we all agree on. Utility (the claims interaction with reality) is a justification we all used to agree on and that is where the divide is today. Is the God belief worth perusing because it’s useful to your life? It’s a tool like any other tool if you take utility as a justification.
It's not because it is useful but because it's natural and rational. It's completely normal to ask yourself why do we exist, what should we do with ourselves, what is the point, who put me on this planet and why? What more justification you need? These are normal questions, every human encounters. And it is natural to answer them with statements of belief since we cannot know the real truth.
@@antun88 “Because it’s natural and rational” I see the claim but what you said to back it up relies on me taking your word for it. If you’re saying there is no way to determine whether those beliefs correspond to reality then they’re not true bringing us back to the utility.
@@HIIIBEAR I'm just saying it's natural to ask yourself even though you cannot get an answer. If you suddenly woke up on an island, you would immediately ask yourself why am I here, who put me here. Then an atheist would pop up and say, well, we cannot rationally know or prove anything, so there is no point in thinking about it, or believing in anything that seems plausible to you. Or you can, but that's only because it makes you feel better, and is useful to you for your life on the island.
Obviously we're not all on the same page that belief needs justification. People believe in religion for some of the stupidest reasons imaginable. I have no idea what you're talking about: it's demonstrably false.
Very articulate. Maybe I've missed it, but to what does the atheist attribute evil? And what is the solution, if there is one? And why does the existence of God necessarily require Him to intervene to disallow violence or the eradication of a species? That would be a god of our own opinions, not a sovereign God. Psalm 115.3 "Our God is in heaven; He does what He pleases."
This argument is becoming a bit dull at this point. It's obvious to me that people have always been trying to make some sense on why we exist and what we should do with ourselves. And that is why we have religion. It's natural that we are trying to guess things, imagine, we just cannot know anything based on evidence. It is about believing at the end, not knowing. While it's ok to be cynical to those who claim their belief is the only truth, I feel like we completely lost contact with our spiritual side and imagination on going beyond what can know.
We can be spiritual without being religious - many cultures have been that way since the beginning of society. We can also question different faiths and point out the flaws, both practical and logical - whilst still believing in religious freedom. This argument is just beginning and I feel is only going to become more relevant and interesting.
If buddhism was the only religeion in the world, I think everyone would be happy. But since there are religieons like islam and christianity that tell people how to live their life and interact with others (do this or you'll be doomed to hell, worship this God, don't have sex before marrige, homosexuality is a "sin" and so on) it crosses a line. Its not just people wanting to escape the mundane, or a nihilist attitude like you are trying to say it is. These people are perceving life and other people like what they are saying is the OBJECTIVE TRUTH. And to those who don't believe their delusions they will at best feel sorry for them, and at worst resort to fear mongering and judgment.
The argument may have gotten lost somewhere. Even if we want to get more in-touch with our spiritual side, we can't choose to "believe" in the religious claims.
I mean this is quite simple to argue against. Obviously if there is a god, that god is the kind of god that would permit suffering and allows it's creation to consume each other in the pursuit of it's furtherance and evolution. It seems strange to me that the core of the atheist argument is to theorise only about a God claimed by one particular religion or another and ignore the process of theorising about a God which fits what is observed.
This is not an argument for atheism but rather an argument against the abrahamic religions And when it comes to thinking about the kind of God who would permit this suffering, we can basically think about any kind of God, but that's a little to convient for believers don't u think? just say whatever is here was made by the kind of God that would do so. Saying that without any evidence is as good as saying nothing
@@raghavgupta1118 Not really. The theory of God is one trying to explain the structure we percieve in a universe which tends toward decomposing into much simpler structures. The evidence is literally all around. And as far as the abrahamic religions go they're so highly interpretable you can only really say this is an argument against one particular interpretation of them. Some people say God is all loving and benevolent to all including the animals but that is observably not true if your idea of benevolence involves actively interfereing with every single instance of discomfort and pain that could be experienced in the world in order to prevent it. The Abrahamic religions say God made humanity in it's image. Which means there is also a valid interpretation which say God is capable of indifference, ego, violence and any other trait a human might display which can be considered negative in the wrong context.
@@shamanahaboolist The structure of the universe tending towards decomposing is not actually the true nature of the universe, it is a misunderstanding of the concept of entropy in physics, which merely states that in the universe energy spreads overtime(also the evolution of life actually contributes to entropy rather than contradicting with it as life helps energy spread out more efficiently) Entropy is often misunderstood as disorder in the universe, anyone who's studied thermodynamics on a higher level will know that is false. Also I think the fact that abrahamic religions are so highly interpretable(tbh I don't think they are) is itself an argument against them. Something that claims to tell u the ultimate truth about the universe and the absolute correct way to live life shouldn't be so subjective in nature. Why would an omniscient God, who knew people would interpret his writings in a plethora of ways, some of them even being contradictory, would write something so poetic and interpretable. Why not give straight up instructions and in every language so they won't have to go through translation errors over time. Bible passages have been mistranslated and changed up so many times over the past 2 millennia. Why would an omniscient God purposefully misguide people who are just trying their best to find the truth and trying to worship him in the correct way?
@@shamanahaboolist also the my definition of benevolence isn't interference in every single discomfort but the Abrahamic religions make claims that will lead any logical person to a conclusion that God interferes with everything that happens in the universe (Claims being 1)God is omniscient, thus knows the future and knew the holocaust would happen while making Hitler etc, 2)God has a plan, thus this means freewill cannot exist as everything will happen according to his plan and he already knows the future, 3) God is omnipotent, thus any attempt by any human to deviate from God's will is pointless which means *everything that happens, happens because God wanted it to*) So every suffering that is caused is caused by God's interference rather than his lack of interference which gives rise to the Problem of Evil
@@raghavgupta1118 Descriptions of entropy can easily describe why a diamond or a gas cloud might form. It can not describe why 100's of very specifically shaped proteins would find themselves operating together within a tiny lipid membrane. And it's just an assumption that God wrote the bible, an assumption usually used by those who would seek to interpret the bible as being directly written by God as a means of validating the authority they claim of their interpretation of the bible. Usually this kind of behaviour is accompanied with spurious rationale that specifies why the people making this claim are also the official channel for interpretation of "God's word".
I say this as someone who likes Alex a lot, and who is not interested in converting anyone or even being seen as a religious person: imo basically the entire value of a good religion is reflected in the quote (from God in the Book of Isaiah iirc), “My ways are not your ways.” This also represents a succinct response to arguments of the sort contained in the video. I understand that this species of response annoys people, but I tend to think the idea that people of faith bring their faith into all decision making is overblown (I believe most people can meaningfully separate the political, the civic, and the personal, though ppl certainly will differ on what constitutes “meaningful” separation, and that should be an ongoing discussion). Similarly I tend to think that the idea that people of faith use God as an excuse not to do things or not to do them well is overblown-if that is the effect of religion on a person, then maybe they should be atheistic. But for many others, remembering that “My ways are not your ways” is the impetus for them to take on additional responsibility and give their all even knowing that they are often unlikely to get the precise outcome they’ve envisioned.
I would disagree. God (granting that he is even real) has on many occasions shown himself to be jealous, vengeful, cruel, irrational, distant, and like a child tearing the wings off of a fly with respect to his relationship to mankind. It seems that our ways are his ways after all.
@@zoomingby yes and while a person like yourself would probably find the statement in question to constitute a dodge/prevarication/etc., there is ofc no way to prove that a god with a distinctly different sort of awareness/consciousness than us does not exist. When religious ppl use this idea to make political decisions then raising objections makes a lot of sense; if they otherwise live and make political decisions in a way consistent with liberal mores but their tendency to think of things as being “in God’s hands” after a certain point offends others’ sense of epistemic responsibility or some such, then I think it’s time to say live and let live.
Not even mentioning the fact that children are being taught that heaven and hell are real places, and that non-believers and 'sinners' will be sent to hell. Holy. Shit. Where do I even begin with that? It psychologically traumatizes kids to their core and leaves them afraid of hell as adults. What about once they go to college and discover logic? They're going to have that sweet, sweet promise of heaven cruelly snatched away from them. But at least the threat of hell goes with it lol.
@@drewpy14 This is why I consider religion a mind virus. It essentially lives to propagate itself, and since eternal torment is the cost of questioning one's belief, people are fearful and anxious in even entertaining much less expressing their doubt. But since religion is ecumenical, and like anything else, evolves, those features that drove themselves deep into the psyche were selected, emphasized, and expanded.
"[His] ways are not [our] ways" seems to me like as thought-stopping cliche. It's an attempt to dodge the question of "his" existence, as described; and of how the claims align (or don't) with the evidence.
The fact that with modern tech, ppl still somehow believe in a God, as presented in Scripture, is hilarious. Goes to show that ppl will believe anything if it makes them feel "chosen" and "special", with promise of utopia.
Thanks for pointing out why I despise this theology. A god who can create billions of galaxies by speaking is so insecure that he has to be praised, even though he did a terrible job with delivering his message, and will threaten those who don't bow. I like my gods to have less of an ego, and not be as narcissistic.
If suffering and death is what is being used as a logical reason for denial of God then I must say, that it is a very weak argument, it is coming from a self delusion worth, where one assumes they deserve to live, and death is only suitable in a way they themselves deems fit. However reality falsifies such notions, an organism can die in a womb to a ripe old age, death does not take our sufferings and fitness into consideration to begin with. One must then ask what reason do we have that can objectively determine that we deserve to live?
It isn't used as an logical reason, but to counter the notion that you're so special the creator of the universe cares about what you do and will actively intervene if you pray to him, which is number 1 reason why people pray to it and believe in god. If god doesn't care about you, why pray in the first place, or listen to preachers claiming that Jesus died at the cross for YOU? The argument is not directed at you, since you're not the target group Alex focuses his speech on, but the people who believe in a certain kind of god.
@@John1633. No one will say it like that, but given how the creation myth states that a human is in gods image, and that he cared enough to let his son/himself be tortured and die at the cross for all humans it is obvious that christianity focuses on humans over any other creature on this planet. Plus he cares actually so much about you that there are two additional places, heaven and hell to punish or reward you for ALL ETERNITY. No one is sure what happens to other creatures like dogs or spiders when they die. And lets not forget that God will listen to you and your prayers as he WANTS you around him. Isn't this obviously human exceptionalism?
@@DundG As far as I know, from the religious people around me and myself included, we pray because God is worthy of worship, and for our own discipline and purification of heart and character, after all God from objective perspective has no obligations to listen to any of our prayers. It may be that what we love to have and want, can be bad for us and what we hate to have and want, can be good for us, we do not objectively know as we are in a relative bubble of personal desires and self-experiences. So when we ask for something is it truly objectively beneficial? The answer is NO. So why must God grant such a wish? I think people consider God as some sort of wish granting vending machine for their personal desires of wants. And if such a wish is not granted then by default God does not exist. And I am not from Christian community, so I do not think Jesus died for anybody's sins, I follow Islam and it is explicitly in it that: No bearer of sin will bear the burden of another. Even if an overburdened soul should ask another to bear a part of his burden, no one, not even a relative, will do so. You can only warn those who have fear of their Lord without seeing Him and who are steadfast in prayer. Whoever purifies himself, does so for his own good. To God do all things return. {Quran 35:18} And our prayer has nothing to do with wanting anything at all, its all to do with guidance in this world and mercy in hereafter. Because as human we will make mistakes and we will do wrong to others. We reap what we sow, that is an objective principle you will see in Islam. Regardless of who Alex is targeting, His argument is poor from my perspective, as it does not address the objective reason for anything to be alive? And atheism cannot answer where does life, intelligence and functionality as a property comes from. Which is a major drawback to the ideology, as it is using reason as a mode of explanation. Ignorance cannot bring knowledge, if universe is ignorant by its blind processes then we are just rambling incoherent stuff from our mouths, and intelligence is merely our delusion. When the nature of universe is such that all temporal things must perish why must one consider themselves special to live? Whether they live, survive and reproduce, or not makes no difference to the temporality of nature.
@@kakalam6004 1.) "I think people consider God as some sort of wish granting vending machine for their personal desires of wants. And if such a wish is not granted then by default God does not exist." I must correct myself, the argument is: "why, if not a delusion, God allows violence & the eradication of species." As the title is named. The argument goes for the belief in an all powerful, all knowing, and all loving god. And loving in the sense of "cares for your well being and spiritual development". Sorry for spouting nonsense! 2.) "And I am not from Christian community, so I do not think Jesus died for anybody's sins, I follow Islam" OK. But you can't expect that someone will always include your specific belief about God. The term God is not very well defined besides being the creator of the universe. There are countless personal versions of god and which specific qualities he holds. Alex in this video chooses to challenge certain peoples belief in god and for that he must specifically target their beliefs and not some metaphysical argument they will not engage in. And here he focuses on "he belief in an all powerful, all knowing, and all loving god" belief. 3.) "Regardless of who Alex is targeting, His argument is poor from my perspective, as it does not address the objective reason for anything to be alive? And atheism cannot answer where does life, intelligence and functionality as a property comes from. Which is a major drawback to the ideology, as it is using reason as a mode of explanation." And he never claimed to know these answers. Atheism is at first simply not believing that a god exists. You don't need to know the right answer to know that another answer is wrong. And by logic, just because atheists don't know the answers, the answers from religion, or in this case Islam are more right. They are just answers if not backed up by evidence. Usually with atheism comes the trust in science, and there scientists have some vague theories. Anything else is "we're working on it". Honestly I don't expect to get the answer through the scientific method in my lifetime, but I'm fine with it. I trust more in the scientific method than in some religion, as it has proven times and times again that it is waaayyy more effective than any other method, in finding actual evidence based answers that helped us more than prayer. Like medicine, chemistry, eletronics etc. And I trust that it will find the answers you seek too, it is just very hard to find it through evidence. Don't know if you could sleep by not getting the scientific answer in your lifetime without religion. I would rather have a solid answer, than some "eh what else could it be". 4.) "Ignorance cannot bring knowledge, if universe is ignorant by its blind processes then we are just rambling incoherent stuff from our mouths, and intelligence is merely our delusion." I disagree. Scientists have already demonstrated that complexity can emerge from simple molecules by simply reorienting themself with some heat and pressure, and even saw new unique behavior they didn't expect by the attributes of said molecules. The sum of the parts can have attributes not present in the parts. Like a car, none of its parts have the property to drive really fast by itself, but put together to make the car, it will. Or an apple is sweet, while the wood isn't, but both are made of the same types of atoms. By your argument from the disability to drive fast can't emerge the ability to drive fast. From non sweetness, can't emerge sweetness. As from non intelligent matter, can't emerge intelligent matter. I disagree with all 3 Anyway, have a nice day.
IMO We’d all be better off a little more overtly agnostic, less certain, and seeking to learn, grow, and make meaning. Open to God? Sure! Open to no God? Also, yes. Open to “God” being something wildly different than the life-long inputs making up one’s current perspective? Again yes. Open to the potential reality that “God,” as we think we know “God,” may not exist, and we must make meaning without this certainty, anyways? Big big yes. We’re all more uncertain on these things than anyone seems to be willing to admit. People on either side have the potential to meet in the reality of uncertainty and find joy in the discovery process of life & pursuing meaning together. 🤷🏻♀️🤝
I think meaning is created not discovered. I believe this because most humans agree that love is a virtue. Yet, love can only be achieved by two humans working together. There's a famous quote that says "The product is more than the sum of its parts." Perhaps that refers to our personalities being the additional bonus to our physical bodies. Maybe it means establishing other intangibles like trust.
I cannot believe that debating the existence of God is still a thing in this century. It is the highest of evil and the stupidest things because it is so prideful. You don't have the right to talk like you know everything, and be omniscient, while your understanding is so limited, so short sightet. Affirm what you know, and keep searching for what you don't know, don't be in haste to say silly things. Saying God doesn't exist is like saying your thoughts don't exist. If I ask any of you atheists to show me your thoughts, you will be quick to express them in words, if words are expressed thoughts and thoughts are unexpressed words. Where were they before they were expressed? Thoughts are immaterial, words are material. God the Father is immaterial, Jesus who came as the word of God is material. If you can't deny the fact that thoughts/ideas exist although they are immaterial but are responsible for creating the technologies we have, then why deny that a Being exist who is immaterial and is responsible for creating the physical world. If we are not mad about the manuals a product manufacturer puts in his product box as guidlines dos and donts to ensure a long lasting and maximum efficiency, then don't be mad about the morals God has set to ensure the good and long life. Stop the hipocrisy, search more in yourself and effing grow up.
Another religious nut whose mind has been rotted by religion. First, it is religious people who believe they know everything and that they are always right. And they are delusional by definition because there is zero evidence of the existence of any god or gods, yet they cling to those delusional beliefs and insist they KNOW, when in fact they know nothing - they simply believe on faith. Second, thoughts are not immaterial. They are the result of a complex process of electrical impulses and chemical stimulation. I can put a device on your head and make you not believe in god by stimulating certain regions of your brain and vice versa. Thoughts are real because we can demonstrate them and show how they come to be. We have EVIDENCE for thoughts. We have ZERO EVIDENCE for god's existence. I do agree with you on one thing - I cannot believe we are still debating the existence of god in the 21st century, when we are able to see that there is zero evidence of any god or gods existing and when we are able to show how life came into being and that humans came along through evolution, not creation. In a century where we can see how the universe expanded and show evidence that neither the universe nor life came from any intelligent design. The reason we still debate this in 2023 is because religionists are delusional, by definition! A delusion is a persistent, false belief strongly held despite being presented with evidence to the contrary. We have strong evidence contrary to the existence of god or gods, yet religious people cling to those delusions. If religious people would learn to accept reality (the truth is what the facts are), we wouldn't still be debating this god nonsense.
Furthermore, your opening statement is a perfect example of projection, which is another of the Pillars of Religiosity. Religious people project their failings onto others. It is religious people who believe they have all the answers, and the answer to everything is "God!". It is religious people who are shortsighted and ignorant, which is why they still argue about and ask questions to issues that have long since been settled (irreducibility in evolution, for example, or where morals come from). Every time a religious person makes an argument, he demonstrate his ignorance. This is a universal attribute of, actually a requirement for, religious belief.
@Vintage-Bob No one is projecting anything. For the most part, you atheists are the ones who try to rubbish the idea of God, but you understand nothing about God. No one is forcing anyone to become Christian. People are only urged to. The Atheist who thinks he is so knowledgeable in all things want to explain to me how a Spiritual Being doesn't exist? Don't start with Evolution, you chose to strongly believe in a speculatory science, made up by humans who wish there was something other than God in the beginning, and manipulating science to go in their favour? But you think I'm a fool to believe in a God? If by now you don't know that Evolution is just another religion, then here you go, Evolution is a religion!
@@Vintage-Bob what at all do you get in being an atheist, freedom? Freedom from what? Or when deep down, you know you are uncertain, so why tf do y'all waste your time trying to disprove God, rather than understanding God to understand your human nature?
@@sirius_2dm What do I get from being an atheist? Let's examine that. Your very statement implies you have faith simply because you "get something out of" your faith. So what do you get out of your faith, other than ignorance? As an atheist (I actually refer to myself as an anti-theist because I am against religious nonsense), I gain freedom from ignorance, freedom from delusion, freedom from fear, freedom from stupidity, freedom from dogma, freedom of thought...need I go on? You also make an extremely arrogant and ignorant claim (as is typical for a religious person), that I have some "deep down uncertainty". Nonsense. There is no evidence of any god and I have less than zero uncertainty of that fact. I know for a fact, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the Bible was written by superstitious primitives and that it is riddled with errors, contradictions, and plagiarized stories. Even your god is plagiarized! Biblical Yahweh was originally a Canaanite storm god, the son of El and married to Asherah the fertility goddess. The Jews, who were polytheistic at the time, plagiarized Yahweh, turned him into a volcano god, and became a henotheistic (look it up) people. Later they converted Yahweh into an incorporeal god and became monotheistic. There is zero evidence of any god or gods, and the evidence of how the universe formed and how life began indicates random process, not an intelligent creator. Therefore there is no doubt in my mind, no uncertainty. To claim so is psychological projection on your part, another common aspect of religious people. As for "wasting my time trying to disprove god", I am neither wasting my time nor trying to disprove god. One cannot prove a negative, so one cannot "disprove" god. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, i.e. it is the burden of the person who says "god exists" to provide evidence. No religious person can do that since no evidence exist. I merely point out that FACT and I do so to help other shed their delusional belief in god. Such a belief is indeed delusional, as the very definition of delusion is a persistent false belief strongly held despite being given evidence to the contrary. Religious beliefs are strongly held false beliefs and the evidence shows there is no god, therefor all religious beliefs are delusions. I understand my nature. Why would I study the "nature" of a fictional character like your god in order to better understand my own nature? I might as well study the "nature" of Superman or the Tooth Fairy.
The wedding party in the background is really disappointed with the Best man's speech.
Hahahaha One even took the bow tie off couldn’t breathe
Under rated comment! 😂
Dude, you win the internet today.
Alex himself would be proud.
I was raised an athiest, and after many years......remain one. Thanks Alex.
You are lucky to be raised Atheist. Religion is toxic.
No your not! But you have gotten better at lying! How foolish!
Alex, stop confusing God with religion. It's like confusing meteorology with the newspaper weather forecast.
@@teeken8850 'foolish', yes, but not him, you.
@@teeken8850 YOU'RE*
The spirit of Hitchens lives on in Alex
Alex is a far better arguer than Hitchens.
there's no such thing as spirits
@@SenorCinemawhere is your evidence that there is no spirit
@@DanieBen-qg2bm where is there evidence of spirits existing?
@@SenorCinema you made your point that there no spirit so where is your evidence that there no spirit.
Fact of the matter remains.. if God was real, it wouldnt rely on our belief.
You're assuming your interpretation of what is real constitutes as the universal objective blueprint of "real". You might not believe in god, but you act like god :P
We don’t only rely on belief tho, we rely on logic, common sense and facts. The signs of God’s exist is his creation, the Quran his message and the prophet his messenger. I look at the world God created and I read his Quran and I think to myself that it’s impossible that the Quran is from anyone else than God himself.
Atheism is the stupidest thing ever, I swear.
@@Hafsa8660amen!
@@Hafsa8660 circular reasoning
On the contrary, everything we think we know with the possible exception of Descartes 'Cogito ergo sum' relies on our beliefs. We can't know the ultimate reality, we can merely know that what we perceive and construct a model we believe to be true about the real world based on those perceptions.
So there you have a contra argument, do you even have an argument to substantiate your opposing claim?
Alex, you blow me away with this video. I’ve watch many of your videos. And I’m still stunned by this exquisite, ah, thing. I’ve run out of words. Seriously. Your argument covers so much ground in so few words. However you were educated, you should be full of gratitude. Whatever skills you developed on your own should make you proud. Honestly. I’m struggling to explain how impressed I am. That was effin’ amazing. Excuse my crudeness.
Its quite ironic that ALEX o'CONnor never questions his own faith in what he believes... a call to be disingenuous and fervently attack believers and live a life revolving around attacking God? Gods people? Design of Science? Math, Reasoning? Why would it have to be created in a way we could understand it to choose to be curious about it? Alex bumps around as a bright crayon with a dull outlook that is similar to a hater of God to deny his creator. He lives in a world were you are with him or against him if you question ALEX THE OCONNOR... so his followers, like the ones who follow JESUS, Alex wants them to put their faith in his Unbelief belief of a intolerant hate filled belief system that says he doesn't believe. That is the real delusion.. and ALEX is preaching to follow this. CHOICE TO DO GOOD AND FOLLOW GOD, OR CHOICE TO IGNORE AND BE DISOBEDIENT AND BE LIKE ALEX AND GO TO HELL even if you dont believe.. AS AN ATHEIST MYSELF... I PICK TO FOLLOW ALEX FOR HE WILL HELP THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE DOING GOOD BY DISOWNING GOD and JUMPING ON OUR ATHEIST BAND WAGON OF FAITH AND NON FAITH OR WHATEVER... ENSURING PEOPLE GIVE UP HOPE FOR A DRUG OF HATE AGAINST GOD AND WHAT GOD? OR HATE AGAINST HIS BELIEVERS... YAY! WE WILL GET WHAT WE DESERVE. EVEN IF WE DONT THINK WE WILL.
Why are you particularly impressed? Alex is, by his own argument in this video, simply a product of evolutionary forces over which neither he nor anyone else had any control. He should not take credit for any of it. He was lucky to be born in a time and place where he could receive historically good medical care, food, shelter, and education... again, none of which is of his doing, and all of which was also the result of humans responding to their evolutionary programmed mandates to spread the genetic material as efficiently as possible.
If anyone is to be thanked, it should be that meteor that collided with that comet 5 billion years ago that sent the material for life on a collision course with Earth. Without that, according to Alex, none of this would ever have happened.
Sometimes swearing is the appropriate, best response. After all, they're designed to convey a certain level of meaning and expression in as few words as possible.
He needs to write a book already
Yeah like he kinda like you know needs to write like a book already.
Why? He’s not saying anything original
@@michaelh13 You need to read a book called Steal Like An Artist.
@@smith6907 Have you read it? The book emphasises creating new thing via inspiration from predecessors, but a majority of Alex's arguments are verbatim copied from the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens, he's literally adding nothing new
@@michaelh13 You really don't know Alex all too well considering he considers Dawkins and Hitchens to be some of the worst public atheist speakers. Or are they the only atheist speakers you can name?
Apart from any agreement or disagreement with his discourse, what a delight it is to hear eloquent and reasoned views and to mull them over in patient and rational ways. Sadly, there is so little appetite for such intellectual process in our modern world.
I suspect that there is precisely as much appetite for such discussions in the present day as there has been at any given point in history, at least any point during or after the Enlightenment. The difference is that those who are openly and unabashedly uninterested are far more visible to those who are than they once were, thus creating the impression that our age is somehow uniquely anti-intellectual.
This comments thread is interesting. It illustrates Alex's point of "What would you expect the world to look like if there was a god?" In this thread, good people are describing how faith changed their life for the better. Others describe how faith damaged them. This randomness is better explained by god being a human construct then by there actually being a god.
I never had such a decision point. I was born a skeptic and the god concept never seemed rational to me, as far back as I can remember. However, my wife was raised in an intensely religious environment which she found extremely damaging and her deconversion was liberating. For others, faith is liberating and life changing for the better. This random effectiveness of faith is much better explained by what humans attach to faith then by the actual efficacy of faith.
Yours is the most sensible comment on this thread. Thank you!
You do realize you can categorize this randomness into two categories right?
Faith positives and negatives.
Two.
Not haphazardly random distribution of debris in space, which chaos theory would absolutely wreck.
But aligned into two columns that present some semblance of order.
I would argue this orderly randomness is better explained by the existence of God
The result is better explained by their attachment to truth and untruth.
Truly, I don't understand what you are saying. What are faith positives and negatives? What is orderly randomness? Do you mean a rules-based randomness as in a simulation program that utilizes RNGs?
i cant believe how far alex has come, so amazing
98% of all species have gone extinct, but positive evolution is working. Lol
Atheists say the most ridiculous things.
Please explain
@@Shikuesi
If 98% of species are extinct.
We’ve lost genetic information.
We aren’t gaining any.
@@Shikuesi He has his own UA-cam channel as a baby philosophist.
@@cutienerdgirldoes he have a PhD?
Both in content and delivery one of the best talks I’ve heard from Alex O'Connor.
The talk is OKAY but methodologically flawed. Characterising God, or his non-existance, through human behaviour and errors, is like characterising humans by describing ants or octopuses.
@@tomangochapati But isn't humans supposed to been made in Gods image? Ants and octopuses are not made in humans image.
@@PatrikWesterlund definitely. But free choice means we can act both ways. That's what Christianity is all about. Since sin entered, we at times tend to do wrong, but we act on free will. A Saviour came to the rescue to turn this around. But we are no robots, we have freedom of choice which is a wonderful gift from a non-tyrannical God. And there will be an end to all this pain and cruelty. This is not the final stage yet. In my view.
@@tomangochapati i funny hilarious that in the same breath religists can describe gods attributes, immaterial etc and then two seconds later say "you can't understand god, your mind is too small" you talk tripe mate, all the time it's drivel.
@@PatrikWesterlund if i'm made in god's image he can't hear, can't see straight, his teeth are falling out and he can't hit the toilet.
I can see Hitchens in Alex. If Hitchens were more polite and philosophically sophisticated, then he would be like Alex.
Alex doesnt have his charisma tho and so would never be as popular. Hitchens also had a much wider breadth of knowledge. This is a scripted talk. Hitchens could hold his own without prep in any debate. Sorry but alex doesnt compare despite being more philosophically consistent or whatever.
@@xsuploader
Give Alex a bit of time. He is only in his 20's. We watch most of Hitchens religious stuff when he was in his late 40's and 50's. Alex will get there, with tactful bravado and style. 😉
@@xsuploader With all due respect, Hitchens is all thorns no fruit. If you remove all his insults and jokes, sarcasm and mockery, misdirection and deconstruction, what do you have?
He debated to debate. To win the debate was his agenda and nothing else.
@@blackwiddowflainfrost6705he was not completely without substance, but telling people to take away the wit, sarcasm, humour and charisma is reductive. That’s why Hitchens was so popular. He was no philosopher, but he just had a way with the English language that not many ever possess.
stephen woodford of rationality rules gave a speech to a room full of theists the other day that is also well worth watching, one of the best atheist addresses in a long time.
would you mind providing some more information as to where I might find this video?
Link pls!
@@gunarsrepse232On his channel; the latest upload.
@@gunarsrepse232 It’s on the rationality rules channel and called What hope do atheists have?
@@jonzo_ ua-cam.com/video/xgdLmfhRne0/v-deo.htmlsi=C9S5DNHsGOh1GFD6
"It's truly valuable for religious individuals to acknowledge atheism, not as something to be feared or instantly rejected, but as a different perspective on life and existence. Atheism, in its essence, prompts us to question and reflect upon our beliefs, challenging us to delve deeper into our worldview. Understanding atheism doesn't necessarily mean adopting it, but rather embracing the opportunity to critically examine our own faith and principles. The coexistence of differing beliefs encourages open dialogue and nurtures mutual understanding, enriching our quest for meaning and truth."
christianity questing f0r truth ?
The coexistence of differing beliefs encourages open dialogue and nurtures mutual understanding, enriching our quest for meaning and truth."
is n0t christian d0ctrine
christianity is cIaiming it has the t0taI and c0mpIete truth
"The coexistence of differing beliefs"
is entireIy hampered by said reIigi0ns cIaims that they aI0ne have the c0rrect g0d
I really like those statements. But who are you quoting from?
Respectfully...
Great speech. I have seen some people claiming its method was flawed and, don't get me wrong, I can see why. But I think it is worth pointing that, when trying to prove the inexistence of God, many debates fall on that boring argument about atheists not having any burden of proof, as it is not possible to prove inexistences in this sense. Alternatively, Alex's speech, while not methodically proving the inexistence of God, presents many scenarios that question the both the "racional" character of religious belief and its coherence as an explanation of reality. That is what makes it a great speech, in my view.
I anal me, I da pinheiro
The problem with the argument is the assumption that God wants the physical well-being and survival of humans and animals above all else. The Bible never says that. God's purposes for us may very well be beyond mere survival and physical well-being.
All well and good, but if nobody can intuit god's motivations for anything, it's unclear why any particular religious claim ought to be more compelling than another.
@@shassett79 that's understandable. As with anything, when confronted with many options, it is best to choose the one that better aligns with evidence. Just don't be too hasty to discard off all religions at once based on incorrect assumptions or poor arguments. That is like choosing blindly.
@@Decay-z1k Do you imagine the moral teachings of christianity to be consistent?
@ChumX100 I am confused by your perspective now, as you seem to indicate that there is no meaningful correlation between evidence humans can perceive and the manner in which god reasons or acts.
@@shassett79 I mean evidence about his existence. As to his will and ways there is a lot we cannot grasp fully, but there is a lot about God and his plan that we can learn and know, be it by observing the things created or by revelation.
What a great and highly intelligent speaker. His views are honest and true. Great content and presentation. 🇦🇺 😊
Way to go Alex. I'm relieved that an articulate and intelligent young man has "risen" to fill Hitch's wellies.
My only alarm is that he has the appearance, speech and restrained mannerisms of John Cleese.
I'm sorry to say, and I love Alex, but he is not anywhere near Hitchens in style and demenour. He is his own self. Which is good.
Do you guys not realize that all of Hitchens’s arguments against God were nothing but sophism?
Alex made a video on the topic.
Most if not all atheist arguments are the same. Dawkins, Shermer, Harris, Barker, et. al.
I’m glad that Ayaan has taken her departure. I listened to Shermer’s appeal to lure her back. He was willing to make candid admissions I’ve never heard these guys make previously.
Christopher Hitchens was a sophist, and was appalling toward women. Therefore, I must desecrate his memory by calling him a doosh bag.
So. Sophism. So, who can you point me to giving clear evidence of God's reality? And please, by "evidence" I don't mean philosophical arguments ala Cosmological arguments. And what about Alex? More sophism?@@samdg1234
@@samdg1234
Ayaan was after a comforter and something to 'battle' her previous life. Not after religious truth, as it were. Her choice and still a brave woman..
This was the closest ive ever seen someone come to sounding exactly like Christopher Hitchens. If only Peter wasnt so adamant in having a sibling rivalry against his brother
Peter Hitchens doesn't like Alex O'Connor, actually.
He sounds like a copycat.
@@kevinoshea4416 that's incorrect, he ACTIVELY DISLIKES him
@@fixpontt😂😂
Its quite ironic that ALEX o'CONnor never questions his own faith in what he believes... a call to be disingenuous and fervently attack believers and live a life revolving around attacking God? Gods people? Design of Science? Math, Reasoning? Why would it have to be created in a way we could understand it to choose to be curious about it? Alex bumps around as a bright crayon with a dull outlook that is similar to a hater of God to deny his creator. He lives in a world were you are with him or against him if you question ALEX THE OCONNOR... so his followers, like the ones who follow JESUS, Alex wants them to put their faith in his Unbelief belief of a intolerant hate filled belief system that says he doesn't believe. That is the real delusion.. and ALEX is preaching to follow this. CHOICE TO DO GOOD AND FOLLOW GOD, OR CHOICE TO IGNORE AND BE DISOBEDIENT AND BE LIKE ALEX AND GO TO HELL even if you dont believe.. AS AN ATHEIST MYSELF... I PICK TO FOLLOW ALEX FOR HE WILL HELP THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE DOING GOOD BY DISOWNING GOD and JUMPING ON OUR ATHEIST BAND WAGON OF FAITH AND NON FAITH OR WHATEVER... ENSURING PEOPLE GIVE UP HOPE FOR A DRUG OF HATE AGAINST GOD AND WHAT GOD? OR HATE AGAINST HIS BELIEVERS... YAY! WE WILL GET WHAT WE DESERVE. EVEN IF WE DONT THINK WE WILL. Perhaps we can even use the bible as ATHIEST to turn peole away from it and destroy peoples eternal salvation from pain of this earth. ITS a war for souls and SINCE we serve ALEX OCOONNOR and SATAN, we should get spots as preachers and bishops to use our athiest ideas and sow doubt by writng books and help encorage hate against churches. the more we can manipulste the christians the more people we can have join athiesm and satan and we can see them join us. Believe in dawkins dennet and ALEX OCONNOR over some savior who may protect you from hell. we serve the true great deciever and beautiful one. ALEX is a great guy!
damn that was very well delivered
A testament to what time and effort can produce.
Same thought! The fact that Alex is just a few years elder to me really makes me think about how I might improve my articulation skills. He's good!
@@chilledoutorange4269 rationality rules delivered one of the best addresses i've ever heard recently to a bunch of theists, well worth a look.
@@chilledoutorange4269Reading, listening to speeches, practice, thats all.
It was moronic
Alex never fails to impress me.
That means you haven’t watched videos where he is absolutely shown to be extremely stupid
@@TinyFord1Got any reference?
Trust me bro@@HaqiqaSeeker
@@TinyFord1no response is crazy 😭🫸🫷
I saw a a lion eating deer alive from backside, it can't be a loving God's creation.
Well, unless the Lion really loves ass?
Haha I’ve my mind my up so long ago about this topic. That all religion and belief systems are bollocks. But it’s so commendable to see someone articulate this in such an eloquent and bulletproof way.
He hasn’t convinced me. Maybe it’s because I’m not gullible.
@@rafd3593 or because you’ve already also made up your mind, just about something else 🤷♂️ , and that’s totally fine. There’s a non-zero probability that whatever anyone believes is true 🫡.
He presents himself very well here. I agree with the crowd. A bit of Hitchens. May he inspire more. 👍
It’s horrifying to hear people claim God gives us value, and yet many of us die in the most disrespectful and gruesome ways. Why a god would give us complex bodies, only to refuse to protect said bodies from harm is beyond me.
Guess I watched too many insane clips on Twitter.
Its quite ironic that ALEX o'CONnor never questions his own faith in what he believes... a call to be disingenuous and fervently attack believers and live a life revolving around attacking God? Gods people? Design of Science? Math, Reasoning? Why would it have to be created in a way we could understand it to choose to be curious about it? Alex bumps around as a bright crayon with a dull outlook that is similar to a hater of God to deny his creator. He lives in a world were you are with him or against him if you question ALEX THE OCONNOR... so his followers, like the ones who follow JESUS, Alex wants them to put their faith in his Unbelief belief of a intolerant hate filled belief system that says he doesn't believe. That is the real delusion.. and ALEX is preaching to follow this. CHOICE TO DO GOOD AND FOLLOW GOD, OR CHOICE TO IGNORE AND BE DISOBEDIENT AND BE LIKE ALEX AND GO TO HELL even if you dont believe.. AS AN ATHEIST MYSELF... I PICK TO FOLLOW ALEX FOR HE WILL HELP THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE DOING GOOD BY DISOWNING GOD and JUMPING ON OUR ATHEIST BAND WAGON OF FAITH AND NON FAITH OR WHATEVER... ENSURING PEOPLE GIVE UP HOPE FOR A DRUG OF HATE AGAINST GOD AND WHAT GOD? OR HATE AGAINST HIS BELIEVERS... YAY! WE WILL GET WHAT WE DESERVE. EVEN IF WE DONT THINK WE WILL. Perhaps we can even use the bible as ATHIEST to turn peole away from it and destroy peoples eternal salvation from pain of this earth. ITS a war for souls and SINCE we serve ALEX OCOONNOR and SATAN, we should get spots as preachers and bishops to use our athiest ideas and sow doubt by writng books and help encorage hate against churches. the more we can manipulste the christians the more people we can have join athiesm and satan and we can see them join us. Believe in dawkins dennet and ALEX OCONNOR over some savior who may protect you from hell. we serve the true great deciever and beautiful one. ALEX is a great guy!
Interesting whenever people attempt to discredit the existence of God, they frequently refer to some type of "evil". If the argument, the existence of evil, is a proof of the lack of God, then what does the existence of "good" in the world prove? That God does exist. The existence of evil must be accompanied by a belief in the existence of good. If there is no good, there is no standard by which evil can be judged. The argument from evil is a very poor argument because it can be turned around like I just showed.
According to Christian theology, you would see that death is not the end, gruesome or not. Even the Son of God himself has suffered a gruesome death. If you read the first chapter, God has meant for man to live in a perfect world forever. However, man, using the free will God gave him, had disobeyed the only thing that God told him not to do, and that is where all the death and suffering came from. It really makes sense whether you believe or not.
@@dadofgio It does makes sense or doesn’t make sense? There are so many holes in Christian theology.
@@dadofgio You do realize, do you not, that the silly story of Adam and Eve in the Bible paints "God" as a cruel, calculating, evil being? He's supposedly all knowing, so he creates man and sets us an entrapment scenario in which he KNOWS man will fall for the trap, only to punish him for doing so. He creates man both fallible and curious, he puts temptation into the garden, then allows a tempter to exacerbate the situation.
Why would god not want humans to know the difference between good and evil in the first place? And since they hadn't eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil up to that point, how could they know that disobeying god was evil? They literally did not know right from wrong. And as for the other tree - the tree of eternal life - why put that there, when originally Adam and Eve were meant to live eternally? What purpose would it serve? And why would god not want humans to eat its fruit, when they were already eternal?
The story, like everything in the Bible, is ridiculous, illogical and just basically stupid. Just a bunch of silly, bizarre fables made up by primitive, superstitious people.
I got sober from an 8 year long drug addiction in January of 2022, and moved into a Christian sober living house for 1 year. While I was there I witnessed many men completely turn their lives around, and it all appeared to be due to adopting Christianity. Men who spent 20+ years in jail for bank robberies and assault, terribly dark stories. I was an atihest during my entire 1 year stay. It was not until about 3 months after leaving that I began to get really deep into Carl Jungs work, along with reading a few Dostoevsky novels, that I had a thought which almost brought me to my knees. "Either everything is as if the body and blood of Christ, or nothing is. If everything is, then the limitless potential for goodness is so vast that is it beyond me. If nothing is as if the body and blood of Christ, then nothing matters, and I mayaswell return to my addiction."
But there is the important nuance, everything is AS IF the body and blood of Christ. I am not a biblical fundamentalist, and I do not belive that the scriptures are intended to be understood in a literal manner. The way I understand it is that, when the sacred stories, the symbols, and all that they stand for are turned outward, they become superstition; but, when turned inward, they become wisdom.
So, do I belive Christ was born of a virgin? No, of course not; but, inwardly, it is the only thing that makes sense. The redemptive figure in ones life must be born of a virgin, that is, of one parent; this part of the mind which gives rise to the birth of new life is feminine in its nature (Jungian theory of Eros), and the order that is called forth by the redeemer is masculine, represented in Christ (theory of Logos being symbolic of masculinity). After receiving "a message from the heavens," symbolically illustrated in the annunciation, where the archangel Gabriel comes down to announce to Mary that she will give birth to the Messiah, she then becomes pregnant and eventually gives birth. The story of the annunciation is symbolic of the religous experience; how an experience of ineffable wholeness that "comes from above," or "comes from the angels," can be potent enough to give rise to the creation of a new redemptive figure in ones life.
Sorry if I'm rambling here, I'm commenting on mobile. Sometimes I even find it hard to call myself a Christian. I often feel very alienated from my Christian friends, as they are all wholeheartedly living in the Christian myth, while I am not. Although, I still pray, I still go to mass and read the scriptures, because the psychological reality of Christ is what I seek, not the corporeal reality of Christ. "Physical" is not the only criterion of truth, there are psychological, immaterial truths, too.
I wish more religonists were not literalists... that it the only thing that will save religion.
Watch Joey Carbstrong
I don’t think people honestly care about the belief. People are concerned when the claim is the belief describes reality and the only evidence turns out not to be about whether the belief is true but if the belief has utility.
I think religion can assist people in ways that they can find themselves & encourage moral consideration
But agnostic makes the most logical sense to me
Yes religion can sometimes help people.
But so can a sports club
If your car breaks down due to misuse do you Blame the manufacturer? Maintenance your car properly? Or Deny the manufacturer exists?
If the car breaks down because of misuse then it’s the fault of the person who misused it. Obviously. If it’s inherently faulty, regardless of how it’s used, it’s the manufacturers fault.
What was the point of these questions? Is a car like the universe? Is a car manufacturer like an all-powerful deity?!
Brilliant. It got me thinking that religion as a whole needs a replacement speaker, but then I asked myself to what end because science asks all the same questions that religion does but gives answers that are demonstrable and backed up with evidence.
Science doesn’t even attempt to answer religious questions.
@@scottm4975
You mean questions like:
How was the universe created?
Why do we have consciousness?
Where do we fit in the cosmos?
Why are we here?
Science does awnser those.
Just FYI.
@@E.J.Crunkleton nope. I don’t mean that. I mean what is right and wrong. Also if you think science answers the origin of the universe and why humans/life exist you haven’t gone deep enough. Seems like a lot of you atheists just haven’t thought deep enough on these things. Please tell me how science explains the origin of the universe without using untested theories that rely on “faith”?
@@scottm4975
You were not aware that we observe the red shift in the universe nor that our most powerful telescopes can observe back to plank time?
If you are intrigued, there is an entire academic field called astronomy that focuses on things we can observe and test to be true.
Unlike supernatural claims from the bronze age.
@@scottm4975
You mean morally right and wrong?
That's literally the easiest question to answer.
In a ridiculous world where we can’t just say, “god is BS”, and we move on to work actual progress, here we have a guy like Alex doing all the heavy lifting combating BS which is religion.
…religion is an ongoing cancer of humanity, always evolving, always menacing, and drag down our progress as a species.
You said it’s always dragging us down. I’m assuming the always applies to all the things mentioned afterwards.
Can you show me examples of how religion has “always” dragged us down?
To add onto this what about the progress we made as humans under religious rule? Do we just ignore that?
Seems like your looking at things in terms of binary. I agree religion is harmful. However, to put it all under one umbrella seems a bit harsh.
You can just say that, no one, not even is stopping you.
As much as Christianity for example makes my brain hurt with the stupidity that is presented I can’t deny it has helped many people find comfort even if it is in delusion, is that worth nothing? And those who have turned their lives around with the story of Jesus, there are people who have done terrible things who have truly changed under the flag of Christianity. I think people can change without religion of course but the ones that did need religion needed religion.
What a clever and wise young man Alex is.
Prove god doesn’t exist.
@@ohrenishii88 what are you talking about
@@makswisniewski4031 what the fuck are you talking about?
@@ohrenishii88 look im christian too but to say prove god doesnt exist is the most stupid argument you can make.
@ohrenishii2916 why so aggressive I thought you Christians were loving
Good job Alex! Delivering a great speech while looking fly 😀
Its quite ironic that ALEX o'CONnor never questions his own faith in what he believes... a call to be disingenuous and fervently attack believers and live a life revolving around attacking God? Gods people? Design of Science? Math, Reasoning? Why would it have to be created in a way we could understand it to choose to be curious about it? Alex bumps around as a bright crayon with a dull outlook that is similar to a hater of God to deny his creator. He lives in a world were you are with him or against him if you question ALEX THE OCONNOR... so his followers, like the ones who follow JESUS, Alex wants them to put their faith in his Unbelief belief of a intolerant hate filled belief system that says he doesn't believe. That is the real delusion.. and ALEX is preaching to follow this. CHOICE TO DO GOOD AND FOLLOW GOD, OR CHOICE TO IGNORE AND BE DISOBEDIENT AND BE LIKE ALEX AND GO TO HELL even if you dont believe.. AS AN ATHEIST MYSELF... I PICK TO FOLLOW ALEX FOR HE WILL HELP THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE DOING GOOD BY DISOWNING GOD and JUMPING ON OUR ATHEIST BAND WAGON OF FAITH AND NON FAITH OR WHATEVER... ENSURING PEOPLE GIVE UP HOPE FOR A DRUG OF HATE AGAINST GOD AND WHAT GOD? OR HATE AGAINST HIS BELIEVERS... YAY! WE WILL GET WHAT WE DESERVE. EVEN IF WE DONT THINK WE WILL.
I love that he sounds like Christopher Hitchens
Yeah when he said the word “invigilator” to describe God he sounded exactly the same
Someone who doesn't believe in God will always find time to question Him.
People who don't believe in God still live in a world with people who do and they are often impacted by things that these people do that are based on their religious beliefs.
That’s the arrogance of atheists
@@SmithpollyYet they can't stop talking about God.
@@is17a985 Who can't stop talking about God?
@@Smithpolly The atheists who claim to leave religion behind.
I am new to faith like many others... and it's hard not to feel like a bit of an imposter at times, as I compare myself to others that know all the scriptures, speak with conviction and appear more devout. However, I have felt myself pulling closer towards God through reading and prayer, however silly I felt about it initially. I recently read the book Imitations of Christ, and it approaches faith in a more pragmatic way, despite it being so old... at the end of the day, everyone is human and we should never compare ourselves to others. Faith is not performative, because our relationship with God is personal. We will always be tested, we may find times it's easy to believe, and other times find it hard. Faith is simply something that takes work like anything else of value. I honestly don't know what I believe about things so beyond me... but I have found that shedding my ego a bit, and however illogical, giving meaning to my suffering is a transcending feeling that fills a void in my heart.
Why do you think your path isn't filled with the same delusions of those whose gods you reject as false? And why do you think that spending a lot of time thinking and practicing religious methodologies doesn't lead to well-established methods of engendering belief? Literally, the same types of things you're doing, the same feelings you're having have been had by billions of people whose gods you know to be lies. So if religious "feelings" lead them to false beliefs, what besides hubris allows you to believe that you're walking a path any different than theirs? Because you're doing "religion" better? Because their religious texts are lies, and yours aren't? Funny... they believe that about you too.
The truth is this kind of cognitive dissonance is buried deep within their biases and minds and ways of thinking. It's honestly sickening and I feel such immense empathy for them, even though I know it really doesn't matter. The truth is that most people just don't care about the value of logic and evidence. Even though they use it for every other belief. They will simply digest your logical argument, grounded in reality, and then tell themselves in their mind that they're supposed to be winning the argument, and the possibility of being wrong becomes so insanely frightening to them. And then they cowardly take offense to your questioning of their faulty reasoning, as if that's suddenly become a crime or something. Why be so sensitive? Wouldn't they question the "evidence" of a flat-earther? What about a different religion?
I'm not afraid to be wrong. I've been wrong about things before, we all have. My beliefs aren't perfect. But for many religious people, this just isn't allowed to be the case. The truth is that due to our massively improved quality of life, understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, and the scope of the universe; something as illogical and baseless as religious theism looks absolutely silly in current society, and they know it. They know it intuitively. They know it the way they have utter conviction that Brahma didn't create the world and that Alexander the Great was not a demigod son of Zeus. Even though the same evidence exists for all three.
To be honest, it's just amusing to me at this point lol. cheers.
@@zoomingby It's a fair point! My path may very well be false! I suppose that's entirely the point... to believe in spite of what your eyes can see. I'm not arrogant enough to assume I am correct in anything... for lack of a better word, I would say it's probably a bit closer to the concept of manifestation, whereby participation is the mechanism in which it has revealed itself to me. I know religions are full of taboo and contradictions, which make the discussions and criticisms of it unnecessarily defensive and passionate. The collective wisdom within texts have been filtered over the years, and I don't think the 'true meaning' of any religious text can ever be perfectly distilled, which means I don't think it's ever possible to "religion" better than anyone else. I find value in what people say about these complex topics, but I would not trust any mind but my own to interpret what I find to be true... and while everyone might arrive at different ends in the realm of religions, at the end of the day all we have is our internal compass which hopefully directs us toward what is good and true. There is so much more that connects us between religions than what divides us. I've known so many people that have switched faiths entirely because they know in their hearts what is true, despite whatever a book, or priest had told them... and that change is a reflection of what resonated within them. What resonates within us is enough. Christ resonates with me, and that is enough... that may change some day. I need to follow this resonance further to find out.
@@TheCalendarClub So you don't care if what you believe is actually true, or grounded in reality, you basically care about whether it "works" for you (leads to good feelings, spirituality, kinship, etc)?
@@zoomingby I do care if what I believe is true.. I just have a very real apprehension speaking about my belief in absolutes. When we use the word 'true', we generally think of that word as it pertains to facts... and in that regard you are correct, I don't think I'm interested in truth as a tangible concept grounded in reality. I think of 'truth' more in a biblical or metaphorical sense of what leads you towards the Divine, the sublime, goodness etc. In a way, I don't think the concept of belief as we are discussing it, even functions the same way in the face of grounded reality. I think religion is fulfilling because there isn't any proof, (if that makes sense). Crude analogy, but it's similar to trust. Sure you could look through your partners emails, and text history to know for sure if they're cheating on you... but we don't because believing in someone, gives the relationship meaning. Trust is something that you enact in a very real way, to give the concept of trust it's actual meaning in spite of reality.
I don't fully understand the mechanisms of spirituality, but after all is said and done, I would hope lived in such a way to maximize meaning in all things around me.
While I do feel that, in general, following my internal compass does lead to good feelings, kinship etc... I don't know if that's necessarily what is motivating me. It's more a sense of duty, or obligation to some day be the type of person capable of spreading 'good' in others. I don't think existence, humanity, the world etc are really about "me", despite that being all I literally know, haha. It feels more about passing the torch... that's what my compass is telling me. I appreciate the questions!
This guy speaks so beautifully it is very hard to disagree.
That’s not a good reason to credit the content of his speech. The argument he makes is.
@@frankteunissen6118 worked for Hitler
6:28 is such a good line
Atheists are in the rise (in population) and that is extraordinary beautiful.
I'm a firm believer of a nuanced, detailed, and expressive use of language as part of a speech or an argument. His speech is good. It is intellectually honest and is well crafted at its core. Yet, in my opinion, it suffers from that all too common inefficient use of language that we so often bump into in academia. Pinker has a great speech about it somewhere on UA-cam, even if this doesn't quite reach as bad of a territory as Pinker's examles in his speech do.
In that (having seen so many comments here referring to him) O'Connor really differs from Hitchens, who's use of language was creative and playful but always very efficient and, in the end, direct. Even where he crafted his sentences and paragraphs with linguistic and intellectual care, his speeches always had full focus on delivering something you can immediately grasp. With this speaker here, a bit too much gets lost in the linguistic acrobatics/detours that serve little purpose.
Agreed, he is very talented but has some way to go as a communicator, still.
Unfortunately we inherited a religion where people believe God writes books. And what is more certain people can interpret it for you!
All religious texts are humans searching for their origins, including the most ridiculous, primordial soup turned into humans via random mutations lmao.
Alex is slowly but surely becoming the Hitchens of our times
Yes, the rhetorical mimicry is uncanny. Even down to his gestural language.
@@will-ellingtonNot to mention his literary references to the likes of Evelyn Waugh
That's not the compliment you expect it to be. Unless you didn't mean it as such.
@@blackwiddowflainfrost6705Obviously he meant it as a compliment, as any rational person would.
Alex is with his arguments on another much higher level than anyone else.
Actually as old as they can be...and attractive only for those without adequate background.
Ask him to bring a decent vegan debater to his podcast to discuss the ethics of animal rights and you'll have a good belly laugh looking back at your comment.
Actually I would say quite low status of argument
@@Matt6X shhh, let the guy think all of what alex says is brand new and has only been thought of by alex.
@@garretts431 Since when did Christian defenders place a lot of value on something being brand new? By that metric the Bible is thousands of years out of date.
He's an excellent speaker.
Compare this presentation to any of the endless blathering ones by John Lennox in this same forum or anywhere else for that matter. Simple, precise, cohesive, reasoned, compelling and illustrative Vs endless droning and spinning about "The Logos"...... Just excellent Alex.
Terrific speech, Alex. I admire Hirsi Ali for her honest reason for becoming a Christian. Including that secular version of the culture in her life will reveal many more political opportunities and allow her to create a following. Imagine taking the best ethical parts of all religions, mythology and ideologies then merging them into a unified system of possible behavior-with examples and cross references. I would enjoy reading something like that and realize that most people follow tenets and traditions handed down throughout the ages, irrespective of their origins.
There's nothing that the best of religions can provide that can't be achieved through reason. Every pragmatic (non-batshit crazy) religious tenet can be derived from critical thought. We don't need lies spun up as truth to aid the process. Besides, there's already such a thing that relies on no fairytales or magical sky men: secular humanism.
Why would you need the religions for that? Take the best examples of human behaviour and create a system of ethics that needs no background irrationality or appeals to the supernatural?
@@paulrawlinson8653 They need religion for that because they've all been sold that religion is an essential part of life, perhaps the most essential part. It's now a primal part of their operating system. To no small extent because it's been beaten into their heads that ever deviating from this belief system will end in eternal torment. Well played, religion. Well played.
if she has god's ear can she tell him that he can't kill people just cos they disagree with him, we have rights.
@@zoomingby Indeed, if these parts are ethical then religion is not needed for them to be good. If they help society then that is all the motivation to incorporate it we need
Great to see another strong warrior for truth. The good Hichens brother would approve, if he were still here.
My mother's conversion story from atheist to Christian is that when she saw her newborn (me, actually!), she felt it was a miracle, and for her that was a proof of God's existence. While I am deeply flattered, today I am no longer a believer myself. And I remember saying to my mother when I was still a pre-school child that the story about the Fall and the idea of original sin were totally wrong. And when she told me that Jesus saved humanity, I responded: "No, he didn't save us, but he showed us the way". I still wonder where I got my strong opinions from.
i had a hang nail today and i take that as proof that satan is real. 🤣
Evolution back the claim of original sin! We are animals after all.. and if you want to whiteness rape, murder torture etc. etc just go into the animal kingdom. It’s all right there😅(1 example is Gorillas; if the alpha male suspects the child is not his, he will murder the child and sometimes eat it). Our very close relative.
Maybe you don’t think eating children is sinful! Well I do, regardless if there is a God or not🤔🫣
I'm sure you got your strong opinions from a divine power, God. Really no other rational explanations possible... cough (culture, education, social mimicry, logic...) cough cough.
@@aerka0s760 As I said, I'm no believer ;)
@@HarryNicNicholas At least it is metaphorically true!
Christian here. Alex is looking sharp!
This lad is a gifted speaker.
Extremely well said. I think there will be many who agree with every single word expressed in this argument.
Alex in a tux, very nice!
I feel like everyone is arguing over such a stupid definition of god.
I have always loved listening to Alex, such a clarity of thoughts and precise to the point.
We are a group of ex-muslims/atheists (technically agnostics) who challenge the fundamental issues within Islam but mostly taking a philosophical bend to it and only citing scriptures in support of our arguments only if needed. It is indeed the case that Islam is yet to go through the same phase that Christianity has gone through in past couple of centuries. Time is neigh that someone dealt with it in Islam from a subcontinental perspective.
Does your group have a channel on UA-cam? I'm a Christian believer but I've been slowly learning about Islam. What "fundamental issues" do you consider in your arguments against Islam?
When I profess my beliefs regarding Jesus to Muslims, I'm bombarded with criticism, judgemental attitudes, and many verses from the Quran. I understand the reasoning why Muslims quote the Quran to me, but their specific references to the Quran are not beneficial for me. Islam doesn't provide me with the basic knowledge of why God Himself had to send a revelation to a Muhammad, the last prophet. And it seems like the Quran repeatedly negates the foundational beliefs within Christianity.
Maybe I'm just not receptive to the beliefs of Islam? I respect Muslims. I'm somewhat open-minded to listen and learn. But I'm not convinced that the Quran was indeed given by God ( Allah ).
Respectfully. From Florida..
@@johnbrzykcy3076 It is simple, god, in his majesty. does not show himself to his creation yet. He wont and has made us in a way that makes sure we never can see god in our flesh form. In the quran, in surah 7 and verse 143. it is said:"When Moses came at the appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he asked, “My Lord! Reveal Yourself to me so I may see You.” Allah answered, “You cannot see Me! But look at the mountain. If it remains firm in its place, only then will you see Me.” When his Lord appeared to the mountain, He levelled it to dust and Moses collapsed unconscious. When he recovered, he cried, “Glory be to You! I turn to You in repentance and I am the first of the believers.” It is impossible for us to see him. And it is not in his glory to come down as a man and sacrfice himself just so that he can forgive his sin. We as children are sinless. When we reach the age of puperty only then can we be help accountable for our problems. That is one of the reasons that allah reveiled some verses of th quran through the noble angel d'jibreel. And not all verses were revealed through the noble angel d'jibreel. such as the last 10 ten verses of surah al Baqara. These verses were reveiled when our prophet Mohammad peace be upon him was brought up to a place above the seven heavens to a place no angel nor man has ever gone to. Here Allah subahan watta alla reveiled the last 10 verses of surah al Baqara himself.
No need to say "technically agnostics," because atheist only means that you do not believe in a god. If you don't believe that there is a god, whether or not you 'know he doesn't exist,' you are atheist.
He took 10 minutes to say “the problem of evil”, an argument that had been answered hundreds of years ago.
@@loganmueller8791 You are right, I just wanted to clarify that one is a response to a belief claim and the other is a response to a knowledge claim.
1 Corinthians 1:25
For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
There is no heir apparent to Hitch, but if anyone holds a candle, it's Alex.
Alex is far better at engaging in good faith than hitchens ever was. Hitches was just a sweet talker with an intermediate understanding of philosophy
When are we seeing Joey Carbstrong's Oxford debate
@@alekhinesgun9997Anyone who takes philosophy of religion seriously knows that while Hitchens may have been a great personality figure and an influencial face of new athiesm, he isnt a serious philosopher by any means. Athiest/Agnostic philosophers such as Graham Oppy, JL Mackie, Joe Shmid, and many more are only known by their written works as they arent super popular in media, however they are far more engaging with complex arguments for gods existence than hitchens.
Alex is definitely more informed aswell as he as interviewed a few of those I mentioned (as well as serious religious philosophers).
@@alekhinesgun9997 Hitchens was one of the greatest orators of our time (I'll remind you that there are 8 billion competitors for that title). And one of the most bold. Trivialize him as you might.
@@rewrewrewrewr2674 Agreed. As far as I can see from the youtube sphere, Alex is the most willing to engage with all perspectives and do everything to not strawman his opposition. Tough to come by nowadays and he's been consistent like this for a while and has matured more and more as the years go on whereas most do the opposite and trivialize other perspectives as the years go. Not to mention he doesn't play teams and will call a spade a spade no matter who it is. Great speaker and a better philosopher, stoked to see his impact in the future.
2:55 What was the name of the man mentioned?
@icantpauseit3192. Evelyn Waugh
@@commonwunder Thanks, much appreciated 🙂
Imagine having Alex and Hitchens in the same debate
Such a weak and poor argument. JOHN LENNOX truly smashed it with his arguments for God!
I’m a non-denominational theist but find Alex a pleasure to listen to. I do wonder, though, why he devotes so much time to atheism in a country and on a continent where most people are already atheist or headed in the direction of atheism.
I for one appreciate his dedication and commentary on the subject. Here in America the religious grip is strong, although waning as time goes on. Listening to him helps me better phrase and explain to those around me regarding the God dilemma (existence/non-existence, etc).
It's unfortunately quite hard to argue for something like that in a country with strong religious beliefs. ie any middle eastern country.
@@sugarcubeofsalt8645 Not so in, for instance, Turkey, Lebanon or Israel
@@heartfeltteaching Idk about Lebanon but turkey and Israel are quite secular.
@@sugarcubeofsalt8645 You said “any middle eastern country.” Those are countries in the Middle East.
Where can I find the rest of this debate? I'm hooked.
This boy will be a great thinker. He has single-handedly rejuvenated the dead New Atheist Movement.
Regrettably, I think that's right.
Very true. The new atheist movement lacked the philosophical sophistication of 20th century atheists like Sobel and Rowe. Nice to see reasonable atheism come back to life! I'm optimistic about the future when it comes to freedom of religion
@@chantjelly6773
I am bored with new atheism stuff too and I'm an agnostic atheist. However, I still think it is good and valuable overall.
@@cachinnation448 dont worry , extreme centrists will soon be along to label him militant.
@@wet-readI am an agnostic but I am sure there is no creator no fcking religion matters..
Religion is about human acts of trying to reach God or please God by my own efforts, which are worthless or even impossible because we cannot even see or touch God who is infinite. We cannot please God enough on our own.
Christianity is about God working in me through His Spirit, He does all the work, it's a life and an intimate relationship with Christ.
Thereupon, it makes sense to please or understand God because He is doing His will in me, it's about God working in me, not me trying to reach Him by effort.
Remember, the body is dead without the spirit. When we are alive, a "spirit" dwells in us, but what kind of "spirit"? From our birth, it is the spirit that makes us sinners, that makes us naturally disobedient to God and makes us against the reality of God, lying, cheating, etc... nobody taught us to do that, we earned that reality by nature, that's why the Bible says unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. We should live by the Spirit of God, from above, to accept all the truths about God. I'm used to illustrating things like this, how can I understand "the Bible" as God's Word if I'm not inspired by the same Spirit as the 40 people who wrote it? For example, how can we understand the arguments of Paul if we are not inspired by the same Spirit as Paul?
Remember, these 40 writers are separated by more than 1300 years, many of them couldn't see each other. How can they talk about the same thing? Jesus Christ. We cannot accept that unless we are indwelt by the same Spirit that inspired them.
I think it's perfectly normal for an atheist, agnostic, etc... to stand on what they believe, unless they ask the Holy Spirit to dwell in them by believing in Jesus Christ.
I suggest this video for those who want to go further: ua-cam.com/video/lqNI2dBJOHo/v-deo.htmlsi=Jl2bKVK26CgIAZ-3
Bravo and well done Alex! You have done us proud and rational materialism shines once again over superstitious nincompoopery!
I'm not picking sides but its highly unlikely you're as rational as you think you are mate.
Rationality is just as much as a belief than a belief in God.
@@JeDxDeVu You're not picking sides but I see five crosses in your pfp
LOL nothing more irrational than a materialist caring about evil/suffering, morals and goodness.
@@John1633. A "materialist caring about evil/suffering, morals and goodness" would be far more sincere and believable than someone who claims their caring about those issues is dictated by a god or holy book and is obedient out of a desire for the claim of rewards or to avoid the punishment they were told awaits them in an eternal afterlife no one can demonstrate actually exists in the first place. Of course there's the flip side; a materialist has no god or holy book to invoke in order to excuse inflicting harm or suffering on others, like the example given in this video of burning 3 bishops because they followed a different denomination, and a materialist actually has vested concern for the future of our descendants and the world they will inherit as they hold no belief that a deity will soon return to rescue the True Believers from this reality and send billions of infidels to eternal torture. Doesn't leave you in a very good position to whine about irrationality, particularly given the passage you invoke in your channel name.
The test that was previously mentioned in the previous point falls within the framework of worshiping God Almighty. Worship inevitably does not mean merely performing the obligatory duties of prayer, fasting, and zakat...etc., but it also means living life in all its details, and populating the Earth, in accordance with the commands of God Almighty and in order to gain His satisfaction.
A person's worship of God Almighty, and his adherence to His commands and prohibitions in all matters of his life, provides a person with a virtuous and good life, in which he stays away from evil, reprehensible things, and evils. He does not lie, does not hypocrite, does not bear false witness, does not backbite, does not spy, does not issue fatwas without knowledge, and does not commit injustice. He does not steal, does not usury, does not exploit people, does not commit adultery, does not use alcohol or drugs, does not kill, does not assault anyone, does not favor anyone at the expense of what is right...etc. All of this would make life upright and noble.
God Almighty says: "And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me (56) I do not desire from them any provision, nor do I desire that they should be fed (57) Indeed, Allah is the Provider, the Possessor of all-powerful power. Tin (58) Surat Al-Dhariyat.
And God Almighty says: “Say, ‘Indeed, my Lord has guided me to a straight path, a right religion, the religion of Abraham, upright. And he was not of the polytheists.’” (161) Say, “Indeed, my prayer and my rituals and My life and my death belong to God, Lord of the Worlds (162) Surah Al-An’am.
And God Almighty said: “And when your Lord said to the angels, ‘Indeed, I will place a caliph on earth.’ They said, ‘Will You place therein someone who will spread corruption therein and shed blood? And we glorify your praise. And We sanctify you. He said, “Indeed, I know what you do not know.” (30) Surah Al-Baqarah.
The Alex / Ed Feser utube discussion is good and Feser does introduce a few thoughts on precision in his dialogue.
Alex last objection concerning the appalling treatment of believers by believers through history ‘in the name of Jesus’ - for me this is just no difficulty at all. It was Jesus who commands us to love our enemies and pray for those who hurt you’, (Matthew 5:44) and “do not repay evil with evil” (Romans 12:17). Jesus said, ‘by their fruit you will know them.’ So when the so-called church or church leader commits atrocities in Jesus name we know it is simply evil at work.
This guy is excellent
Just because a group of people who claimed to know the true faith were instigators of violence and death doesn’t necessarily mean what they believed is false.
There is a difference between faith and LIVING the faith.
Christian faith without the fruits of the faith is not true faith.
Look to the true practitioners of the faith, that is, the saints, if you want a legitimate representation of the faith, not some ill-willed “Catholics” who tyranized non-believers by imposing the faith with threat of torture and death.
I really like how you said "There is a difference between faith and LIVING the faith". I agree with you although I personally struggle with the concept of "faith" as seen through the eyes of Jesus Himself.
Your statement regarding faith actually convicts me because I don't feel like I'm "living the faith" as a good example to others.
God bless. From Florida USA
Well that was GOOD!
I'm a bit confused on Alex's point on suffering because doesn't the Bible say in the beginning that the world was good and we were to only eat plants but the only reason suffering Exist is because it deviated from God's plan?
If it was like the garden of Eden then we would be eating and living happily together with animals off of plants. The suffering entered the world through sin right...... But of course if you don't believe that biblical narrative then of course the Bible doesn't make sense.
And I know people will just say that God could have made a plan Where there was no suffering at all And I absolutely think that it's possible in theory to at least physically have no suffering but I think if we did that mentally our suffering would be unimaginable because I think we have to take free will out of the equation When it comes to anything we want to be perfect because naturally we just aren't perfect and have corrupted hearts from the sin that affected us from the beginning.
I don't want heaven to be full of a bunch of snide assholes too So it makes sense that he would want to develop our character through certain trials. Maybe the trials would Not need to involve any sort of physical suffering if men had free will and ultimately uncorruptible good hearts.
There's A lot of stuff to understand in the Bible and a lot of things that we will just never understand and have to leave up to God until he explains it to us when we are in heaven tho
This is a tiring and dull argument. The more he persists in it the harder his head gets. He is like a petulant, recalcitrant child who refuses to come out of his dark corner. He has a dark aura that is almost visable. Listening to this at double speed is not fast enough for me to avoid a crushing boredom.
I will look forward to being enlightened and captivated by your scintillating counter-argument when you are invited to speak at the Oxford Union.
>"He has a dark aura"
Lol omg
@@JeffBedrick ya because universities today are something to be proud of. they're woke cesspools full of spineless cowards pushing secular humanism nonsense.
This kind of argument saying the perpetrators of atrocities connotes the religion is bad or God is evil, is simply saying the knife is evil because it is used to kill. When the knife is used to save lives by cutting the rope of a hanging man, we should not say the same. If this is the case, how can we draw the conclusion that religion is bad when man used it as a reason to kill.
you're spot on. As a tool, religion is like a knife in that it was created by humans and has been sued to do good and bad. Hence, we don't perceive a knife as universally good or universally bad.
The same could be said of religion, except that itself contradicts the absolute faith that so many invest into their own beliefs. But if you acknowledge that religion can be used wrong, you have to accept that anyone, including you, might be using it wrong. But now how can you have such unilateral faith in it?
@@Nyramyss-jj8mj The question is whether the religion you follow and the god you believe is the one true God. If you are following the one true religion and the one true God with all your heart, then you are in a safer place. Christianity was not invented by man but founded by Christ on His unceasing love. Therefore there is one true religion and one true God, not created by man, but founded by God Himself.
@@leoteng1640 Listen, I don't mean to disrespect your god, but the whole point is that you can't know any of that for sure because you can't prove it.
Let's go back to the original point about atrocities committed in the name of religion. Did those people follow the one true god with all their hearts? You're welcome to say no, but you'll have to *prove* it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Otherwise, it's just your word against theirs.
@@Nyramyss-jj8mj I can't speak for anyone, but if they say yes, they have to answer to Him. I'm not the Judge, I'm a fellow sojourner and my responsibility is to stop atrocity when I face one and pray that I've the courage to do it. The one true God is real if you are willing to follow the evidence. You have the free will to make that decision. Are you aware that you are made of wave and particle and Higgs Boson is known as the God particle that give us mass? Are you aware that your existence is a miracle? Read Dominion by Tom Holland as a start.
Yes, as Alex stated, when religion is in power, it acts desperately as if it were powerless. That's because it is.
Always feel a bit sorry for Alex. He seems to desperately want to believe in something transcendent and, like any spurned lover, feels indignant and spiteful at the thing he craves when it doesn't instantly make its presence felt. Actually this is true for all atheists, it's the rage against God as the other Hitchens would say, and rather than being a rage based on all the sufferings in the world, it's really a rage that God isn't theirs to command at their will and do their bidding. And that's precisely why they miss mark and never understand what God really is.
they can't seem to make their minds up, is god the almighty who can't lose or will my pal satan beat the crap out of him, tune in for another thrilling episode of "the needy and insecure"
@@zootsoot2006 Well I am glad you have such a healthy romance with God, given that you can't kiss, hold or touch him lol.
thats why all of western society was founded on the back of and has benefited from Christendom.
@@zootsoot2006 Your argument is both invalid and idiotic and an example of the typical false claims believers love to mindlessly repeat like trained parrots. You want to believe that atheists hate god and want to sin, which is why they stop believing, but that is the most idiotic argument believers can make.
First, let's use an analogy to highlight the stupidity of that oft-repeated claim. Let's say I want to rob a bank. But I know the law says that's illegal and that if I do so, the prosecutor will charge me with a crime and send me to jail. But I really just want to rob the bank, so I say: "Well, I just don't believe in the prosecutor anymore! Now I can go rob the bank!". It's a ridiculous, impossible, and idiotic claim you make. One cannot simply choose to not believe in something you know is real. Atheists know god is not real because there is no evidence of any god and because the very concept is utterly illogical.
Second, how can someone be angry at or hate a fictional character? Saying atheists hate god is like saying we hate Superman or that we're angry with the Tooth Fairy. Gods are not real, so atheists cannot be angry at them.
You're a typical religionist - arrogant to the core and believing you know what others feel and think, all the while making a fool of yourself for the world to witness. Religions rots the mind, and you are just another perfect example of that truth.
I had high hope for this, but at the end, the "arguments" (if you call it that) are infantile. "For what", Alex asked of bad things happening -- it is for the very simple reason that there need to be consequences, good or bad, in order for us to know that we are alive and free. I don't know Alex's upbringing, but it seems that his "inability" to understand the reasons for bad things to happen is a lack of experience (perhaps a privilege) in understanding that decisions need to matter and have different consequences in order for it to be a decision. "Free will" is meaningless if regardless of what we eat it will taste like chicken. Alex is an eloquent person and I wonder why is he missing out on such a simple trait of what free will means? Does he not realize that if all the outcomes are "good", then we actually don't have a choice??
"Does he not realize that if all the outcomes are "good", then we actually don't have a choice??"... I could design a test where all outcomes are good, bad or a mixture and it would say nothing at all about whether an individual in the test has free will or not.
@@downshift4503 That test may be useful if you question whether God gave us free will at all. To address my comment to Alex's point - can you design a test where free will can be exercised even though all of the outcomes are the same? Without the bad, how do you define what is good? Without the "bad," what does "good" even mean? And ultimately, is that world worth living in?
As a Christian believer, I wish I had the scholarly reasoning of Alex. For a young scholar, he has excellent intellectual ability.
However I think life itself points to a correlation between the heart and the mind. Of course it could be a survival mechanism. But it could be much more !
So I simply hope to be remain open-minded but respectful. If God planned and created mankind, then the Cosmos itself cannot be a delusion !
Respectfully from Florida USA..
He has a university degree but afaik he’s not a scholar. He’s a professional debater and podcaster.
It's funny how those who are wise turn to be atheists, maybe it's an answer to the prayer of Jesus.
At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.
Because he gave us free will to choose.
damn.. the style of speech is so much like christopher Hithcens
Sounds like a copycat.
That's a very mean thing to say to Alex
ya, arrogant and british.
@@tylerpedersen9836Maybe but his arguments are actually different. He’s analysed Hitchens arguments before, and distinguished himself from him philosophically. But I can see how some wouldn’t see this.
Because, God NEVER said he would defend species from extinction, God NEVER said he will end all suffering, God NEVER promised a nice shining happy world, NEVER. Why are you expecting something from God that God never promised?
So what is the difference between a completely impotent god and nothing at all?
So you have no idea what omnipotent and omnibenelovent means. Got it.
So your god is useless, impotent and pernicious - great!
why is your god such a sadistic piece of shit?
why has your god less understanding of morals than i do?
why are you claiming to know what god says?
@@daikucoffee5316
A completely impotent god sounds like a contradiction. If it's impotent, it's probably not a god.
But if you're asking that question as a refutation of the previous post, it doesn't work. A god could be all powerful and not end all suffering because it doesn't want to end all suffering. In fact, if there was just one god and that god created everything, then it would make sense that the god created suffering in the first place, which implies that the god wanted suffering to exist. Why would the god want suffering to exist? Well, given that we aren't gods and don't have the intelligence which would be required to intentionally create all existence, it's pretty much impossible that we could correctly guess at the god's reasoning for wanting suffering to exist (unless that god also happened to want us to understand its reasoning, in which case it would presumably have the ability to enable us to understand).
This is so good
Is there a full video for this somewhere?
Odd that Alex refers to 'species' as if it's a conscious entity that would object to its extinction.
Odder still that he appeals to the unfairness of a species going extinct when he doesn't believe in any intrinsic meaning, morality or value system that would uphold this objection.
Yes! spot on! He is an animal who's life is the result of a meaningless, unguided process, and who's sole purpose is reproduction and survival, yet that animal has a mind that cares about eradication of species or of evil, and issue of goodness, virtue and morals. Truly ironic.
He could claim that he's most 'modelling' the outrage that believers should feel.
But even then, a 'species' is not a sentient being. It's just a category so if God allows one or another to go extinct and replaces it with a more beautiful one then what of it?
I'll be doing a talk on this topic on my Pathfinding channel soon.
Head over there by clicking on my name and subscribe to get updates when the videos are up.
I'm currently working on a critique of William Lane Craig's Molinism philosophy.
@@John1633.
He's an ex vegan... He's going to be a moron for a little bit longer at least
5:33 The reason religions have "relied" on non-rational modes of convincing is because spiritual experience is something everyone has access to regardless of intellectual ability or education level. It would be very odd, given the sort of claims religions like Christianity make, if one needed to be a specialist in formal logic or religious studies to come to the conclusion that God exists.
It seems to me that human experience tells us that there are non-inferential ways of knowing, and it is at least plausibly true that knowledge of God is one example of this. Alex makes the mistake of assuming that the normative way to God is through the philosopher, and not the mystic (even if philosophy can help one along the way).
Perhaps the lowest point in his well delivered rhetoric was claiming faith is belief without evidence. Stupid claim to make and only an anti-religious zealot would not cringe at it. I doubt Alex actually believes that statement himself but it sounded good to his followers I'm sure. The strongest point he made, imo, was religious violence.
But first he claimed Christianity had a long history of religious violence which isn't true. Violence between Christians existed for a limited time and can largely be attributed to the connection of church and state. Both church leaders being led astray from New Testament teachings by political power and civil leaders moving into church positions, people who would equate heterodoxy with being a traitor to the state, explain much if not all violence in Christian history. Certainly, an honest look at the New Testament and the Quran would admit one advocates violence against those who disagree and the other gives no room for it.
And while God could put us all in straight-jackets and lock us in various padded rooms, this would hardly be benevolent or good. If learning, wisdom, and growth are the best thing for us then suffering simply cannot be the great evil that atheists and "agnostics" say it is. I didn't find anything else he said particularly challenging but I've already written an overly long response.
Sorry to bother but I’m really curious what your definition of faith if it isn’t “belief in the absence of evidence” also I’d love you to expand on your point that the bible ‘isn’t responsible at all in cases that many would consider biblically motivated violence’ (of course if that’s a straw man please let me know)
"Belief without evidence" is the dictionary definition of faith
Lol so calling faith what it is is considered something only a zealot anti religious bigot would say 😂😂 cope harder bro , that's what faith literally is.
He made a clear point. Arguments are not evidence. The arguments are meant to describe reality. How do we determine they actually describe reality?
Only a ‘religious zealot’ would actually believe any of the nonsense you just spouted. I mean seriously I’ve seen some stupid arguments in my time but come on 😂
Alex, your eloquence is breathtaking
This young man is going to peak early with all the blandishments and fawning heaped on him.
Where does Alex get his basis for morality from?
Thankfully not the Bible or Quran
@@haruspex1-50 thankfully? I would be concern. I mean at least a claim from a creator has some level of objectivity. Otherwise its Alex vs yours vs everyone else personal opinion. And crazily you are all right and wrong at the same time :D. Yay for nonsensical moral foundations.
Exactly!
Atheists believe they can create their own morals. Laws are for the lawless.
Christians know what good and evil is.
He is an emotivist, meaning he believes morality is simply an expression of emotion. He believes when we say "murder is bad" we're essentially making an emotional claim with no truth value. You can imagine this as him saying "boo murder".
Of course, I can't describe his opinions better than himself so if you'd really like a better overview of his morality, he did a recent debate with Ben Shapiro where he discussed morality quite a bit.
@@alessiodoomboy6192Weak mindset.
I can't help holding the view that all moral advancement is secular because the nature of dogma is to preserve beliefs as they are including beliefs about morality so even if a religious person changes their moral beliefs and remains religious and just incorporates the moral change into their religion, the change of morals is still secular. A change of morals can only be secular so an advancement in morality can only be secular. When an entire religion changes it's official moral standards from the authorities down to the followers, the official change in standards is a response to a secular moral change which causes members of that religion to either form new sects which accept the change or leave religion altogether or just take the authorities of that religion a bit less seriously until they change their official stance on the moral issue. The people change in light of being unable the reconcile their empathy and sympathy with their existing beliefs and the authorities don't have the physical or legal ability to suppress the change so they accept it to preserve their power by preventing followers from leaving the religion. This is why morality advances the fastest where religion has the least political power.
These arguments have been made decades ago. I like how nowadays someone watches George Carlin and then they somehow feel like they are gonna blow everybody's mind if they repeat the literal skit. I wonder if someone actually comes up with their own thoughts anymore.
I am still a admirer of Ayan Ali. She is a brave woman who has escaped the horror of a religion that is still to be reformed, or to have a better relationship with the modern world and knowledge.
When I read her article I was also surprised by the lack even of an argument from self revelation, but rather she mantained that culturally and ethically christianity was more of "her thing". Seemed to me that she was arguing that being a A La Carte Christian was better than being an atheist because the judeo-christian way of life was responsible for the western culture. Well, as the Hitch always said, if one is going to cope with the best it has to cope with the worst. The Enlightnment and the Scientific Revolution ocurred DESPITE religion and could very much sentence someone to excomunication, prison, abuse and death for more than a century. Also it could (in the case of my home country) destroy countless human lives and cultures with a flick of a wrist and some gunpowder in the most egregious manner.
So yes, I am an atheist, and a minority in my country. I know there are countries in the "western world" in wich atheism or agnosticism are the majority thinking.
The way things are going here I may well someday have to seek asylum from these so ethical and tolerant christians.
I think we’re all on the same page that the belief needs justification.
Truth (the claim corresponds to reality) is a justification we all agree on.
Utility (the claims interaction with reality) is a justification we all used to agree on and that is where the divide is today.
Is the God belief worth perusing because it’s useful to your life? It’s a tool like any other tool if you take utility as a justification.
It's not because it is useful but because it's natural and rational. It's completely normal to ask yourself why do we exist, what should we do with ourselves, what is the point, who put me on this planet and why? What more justification you need? These are normal questions, every human encounters. And it is natural to answer them with statements of belief since we cannot know the real truth.
@@antun88
“Because it’s natural and rational”
I see the claim but what you said to back it up relies on me taking your word for it. If you’re saying there is no way to determine whether those beliefs correspond to reality then they’re not true bringing us back to the utility.
@@HIIIBEAR I'm just saying it's natural to ask yourself even though you cannot get an answer. If you suddenly woke up on an island, you would immediately ask yourself why am I here, who put me here. Then an atheist would pop up and say, well, we cannot rationally know or prove anything, so there is no point in thinking about it, or believing in anything that seems plausible to you. Or you can, but that's only because it makes you feel better, and is useful to you for your life on the island.
Obviously we're not all on the same page that belief needs justification. People believe in religion for some of the stupidest reasons imaginable. I have no idea what you're talking about: it's demonstrably false.
@@antun88 again, it doesn’t matter if the belief is true? You’re not at all concerned if the belief describes reality?
Very articulate. Maybe I've missed it, but to what does the atheist attribute evil? And what is the solution, if there is one? And why does the existence of God necessarily require Him to intervene to disallow violence or the eradication of a species? That would be a god of our own opinions, not a sovereign God. Psalm 115.3 "Our God is in heaven; He does what He pleases."
This argument is becoming a bit dull at this point. It's obvious to me that people have always been trying to make some sense on why we exist and what we should do with ourselves. And that is why we have religion. It's natural that we are trying to guess things, imagine, we just cannot know anything based on evidence. It is about believing at the end, not knowing. While it's ok to be cynical to those who claim their belief is the only truth, I feel like we completely lost contact with our spiritual side and imagination on going beyond what can know.
We can be spiritual without being religious - many cultures have been that way since the beginning of society. We can also question different faiths and point out the flaws, both practical and logical - whilst still believing in religious freedom. This argument is just beginning and I feel is only going to become more relevant and interesting.
John Vervaeke would be worth looking up.
If buddhism was the only religeion in the world, I think everyone would be happy. But since there are religieons like islam and christianity that tell people how to live their life and interact with others (do this or you'll be doomed to hell, worship this God, don't have sex before marrige, homosexuality is a "sin" and so on) it crosses a line. Its not just people wanting to escape the mundane, or a nihilist attitude like you are trying to say it is. These people are perceving life and other people like what they are saying is the OBJECTIVE TRUTH. And to those who don't believe their delusions they will at best feel sorry for them, and at worst resort to fear mongering and judgment.
The argument may have gotten lost somewhere. Even if we want to get more in-touch with our spiritual side, we can't choose to "believe" in the religious claims.
i suppose yes and it's not really about religion.that's what philosophy is.
Can someone send the link for the playlist?
I mean this is quite simple to argue against. Obviously if there is a god, that god is the kind of god that would permit suffering and allows it's creation to consume each other in the pursuit of it's furtherance and evolution. It seems strange to me that the core of the atheist argument is to theorise only about a God claimed by one particular religion or another and ignore the process of theorising about a God which fits what is observed.
This is not an argument for atheism but rather an argument against the abrahamic religions
And when it comes to thinking about the kind of God who would permit this suffering, we can basically think about any kind of God, but that's a little to convient for believers don't u think? just say whatever is here was made by the kind of God that would do so.
Saying that without any evidence is as good as saying nothing
@@raghavgupta1118 Not really. The theory of God is one trying to explain the structure we percieve in a universe which tends toward decomposing into much simpler structures. The evidence is literally all around. And as far as the abrahamic religions go they're so highly interpretable you can only really say this is an argument against one particular interpretation of them. Some people say God is all loving and benevolent to all including the animals but that is observably not true if your idea of benevolence involves actively interfereing with every single instance of discomfort and pain that could be experienced in the world in order to prevent it.
The Abrahamic religions say God made humanity in it's image. Which means there is also a valid interpretation which say God is capable of indifference, ego, violence and any other trait a human might display which can be considered negative in the wrong context.
@@shamanahaboolist The structure of the universe tending towards decomposing is not actually the true nature of the universe, it is a misunderstanding of the concept of entropy in physics, which merely states that in the universe energy spreads overtime(also the evolution of life actually contributes to entropy rather than contradicting with it as life helps energy spread out more efficiently) Entropy is often misunderstood as disorder in the universe, anyone who's studied thermodynamics on a higher level will know that is false.
Also I think the fact that abrahamic religions are so highly interpretable(tbh I don't think they are) is itself an argument against them. Something that claims to tell u the ultimate truth about the universe and the absolute correct way to live life shouldn't be so subjective in nature. Why would an omniscient God, who knew people would interpret his writings in a plethora of ways, some of them even being contradictory, would write something so poetic and interpretable. Why not give straight up instructions and in every language so they won't have to go through translation errors over time. Bible passages have been mistranslated and changed up so many times over the past 2 millennia. Why would an omniscient God purposefully misguide people who are just trying their best to find the truth and trying to worship him in the correct way?
@@shamanahaboolist also the my definition of benevolence isn't interference in every single discomfort but the Abrahamic religions make claims that will lead any logical person to a conclusion that God interferes with everything that happens in the universe (Claims being 1)God is omniscient, thus knows the future and knew the holocaust would happen while making Hitler etc, 2)God has a plan, thus this means freewill cannot exist as everything will happen according to his plan and he already knows the future,
3) God is omnipotent, thus any attempt by any human to deviate from God's will is pointless which means *everything that happens, happens because God wanted it to*)
So every suffering that is caused is caused by God's interference rather than his lack of interference which gives rise to the Problem of Evil
@@raghavgupta1118 Descriptions of entropy can easily describe why a diamond or a gas cloud might form. It can not describe why 100's of very specifically shaped proteins would find themselves operating together within a tiny lipid membrane.
And it's just an assumption that God wrote the bible, an assumption usually used by those who would seek to interpret the bible as being directly written by God as a means of validating the authority they claim of their interpretation of the bible. Usually this kind of behaviour is accompanied with spurious rationale that specifies why the people making this claim are also the official channel for interpretation of "God's word".
I appreciate Alex O'Connor more that he knows.
I say this as someone who likes Alex a lot, and who is not interested in converting anyone or even being seen as a religious person: imo basically the entire value of a good religion is reflected in the quote (from God in the Book of Isaiah iirc), “My ways are not your ways.” This also represents a succinct response to arguments of the sort contained in the video. I understand that this species of response annoys people, but I tend to think the idea that people of faith bring their faith into all decision making is overblown (I believe most people can meaningfully separate the political, the civic, and the personal, though ppl certainly will differ on what constitutes “meaningful” separation, and that should be an ongoing discussion). Similarly I tend to think that the idea that people of faith use God as an excuse not to do things or not to do them well is overblown-if that is the effect of religion on a person, then maybe they should be atheistic. But for many others, remembering that “My ways are not your ways” is the impetus for them to take on additional responsibility and give their all even knowing that they are often unlikely to get the precise outcome they’ve envisioned.
I would disagree. God (granting that he is even real) has on many occasions shown himself to be jealous, vengeful, cruel, irrational, distant, and like a child tearing the wings off of a fly with respect to his relationship to mankind. It seems that our ways are his ways after all.
@@zoomingby yes and while a person like yourself would probably find the statement in question to constitute a dodge/prevarication/etc., there is ofc no way to prove that a god with a distinctly different sort of awareness/consciousness than us does not exist. When religious ppl use this idea to make political decisions then raising objections makes a lot of sense; if they otherwise live and make political decisions in a way consistent with liberal mores but their tendency to think of things as being “in God’s hands” after a certain point offends others’ sense of epistemic responsibility or some such, then I think it’s time to say live and let live.
Not even mentioning the fact that children are being taught that heaven and hell are real places, and that non-believers and 'sinners' will be sent to hell.
Holy. Shit. Where do I even begin with that? It psychologically traumatizes kids to their core and leaves them afraid of hell as adults. What about once they go to college and discover logic? They're going to have that sweet, sweet promise of heaven cruelly snatched away from them. But at least the threat of hell goes with it lol.
@@drewpy14 This is why I consider religion a mind virus. It essentially lives to propagate itself, and since eternal torment is the cost of questioning one's belief, people are fearful and anxious in even entertaining much less expressing their doubt. But since religion is ecumenical, and like anything else, evolves, those features that drove themselves deep into the psyche were selected, emphasized, and expanded.
"[His] ways are not [our] ways" seems to me like as thought-stopping cliche. It's an attempt to dodge the question of "his" existence, as described; and of how the claims align (or don't) with the evidence.
The fact that with modern tech, ppl still somehow believe in a God, as presented in Scripture, is hilarious. Goes to show that ppl will believe anything if it makes them feel "chosen" and "special", with promise of utopia.
Every knee will bend, and every tongue will confess.
Why would God need anyone to confess when he is omnipotent?
...that theism is vacuous... Seriously, humanity doesn't agree on anything as an absolute.
ominous message from the loving god believer.
Thanks for pointing out why I despise this theology. A god who can create billions of galaxies by speaking is so insecure that he has to be praised, even though he did a terrible job with delivering his message, and will threaten those who don't bow. I like my gods to have less of an ego, and not be as narcissistic.
@@mitchmonin2238 God loves you just as much as me, or anyone else.
If suffering and death is what is being used as a logical reason for denial of God then I must say, that it is a very weak argument, it is coming from a self delusion worth, where one assumes they deserve to live, and death is only suitable in a way they themselves deems fit. However reality falsifies such notions, an organism can die in a womb to a ripe old age, death does not take our sufferings and fitness into consideration to begin with. One must then ask what reason do we have that can objectively determine that we deserve to live?
It isn't used as an logical reason, but to counter the notion that you're so special the creator of the universe cares about what you do and will actively intervene if you pray to him, which is number 1 reason why people pray to it and believe in god. If god doesn't care about you, why pray in the first place, or listen to preachers claiming that Jesus died at the cross for YOU?
The argument is not directed at you, since you're not the target group Alex focuses his speech on, but the people who believe in a certain kind of god.
@@DundG you misunderstand Christianity if you think one is a Christian because they "think they're so special".
@@John1633. No one will say it like that, but given how the creation myth states that a human is in gods image, and that he cared enough to let his son/himself be tortured and die at the cross for all humans it is obvious that christianity focuses on humans over any other creature on this planet. Plus he cares actually so much about you that there are two additional places, heaven and hell to punish or reward you for ALL ETERNITY. No one is sure what happens to other creatures like dogs or spiders when they die. And lets not forget that God will listen to you and your prayers as he WANTS you around him.
Isn't this obviously human exceptionalism?
@@DundG As far as I know, from the religious people around me and myself included, we pray because God is worthy of worship, and for our own discipline and purification of heart and character, after all God from objective perspective has no obligations to listen to any of our prayers. It may be that what we love to have and want, can be bad for us and what we hate to have and want, can be good for us, we do not objectively know as we are in a relative bubble of personal desires and self-experiences. So when we ask for something is it truly objectively beneficial? The answer is NO. So why must God grant such a wish? I think people consider God as some sort of wish granting vending machine for their personal desires of wants. And if such a wish is not granted then by default God does not exist.
And I am not from Christian community, so I do not think Jesus died for anybody's sins, I follow Islam and it is explicitly in it that:
No bearer of sin will bear the burden of another. Even if an overburdened soul should ask another to bear a part of his burden, no one, not even a relative, will do so. You can only warn those who have fear of their Lord without seeing Him and who are steadfast in prayer. Whoever purifies himself, does so for his own good. To God do all things return. {Quran 35:18}
And our prayer has nothing to do with wanting anything at all, its all to do with guidance in this world and mercy in hereafter. Because as human we will make mistakes and we will do wrong to others.
We reap what we sow, that is an objective principle you will see in Islam.
Regardless of who Alex is targeting, His argument is poor from my perspective, as it does not address the objective reason for anything to be alive? And atheism cannot answer where does life, intelligence and functionality as a property comes from. Which is a major drawback to the ideology, as it is using reason as a mode of explanation. Ignorance cannot bring knowledge, if universe is ignorant by its blind processes then we are just rambling incoherent stuff from our mouths, and intelligence is merely our delusion.
When the nature of universe is such that all temporal things must perish why must one consider themselves special to live? Whether they live, survive and reproduce, or not makes no difference to the temporality of nature.
@@kakalam6004 1.) "I think people consider God as some sort of wish granting vending machine for their personal desires of wants. And if such a wish is not granted then by default God does not exist."
I must correct myself, the argument is: "why, if not a delusion, God allows violence & the eradication of species." As the title is named. The argument goes for the belief in an all powerful, all knowing, and all loving god. And loving in the sense of "cares for your well being and spiritual development". Sorry for spouting nonsense!
2.) "And I am not from Christian community, so I do not think Jesus died for anybody's sins, I follow Islam"
OK. But you can't expect that someone will always include your specific belief about God. The term God is not very well defined besides being the creator of the universe. There are countless personal versions of god and which specific qualities he holds. Alex in this video chooses to challenge certain peoples belief in god and for that he must specifically target their beliefs and not some metaphysical argument they will not engage in. And here he focuses on "he belief in an all powerful, all knowing, and all loving god" belief.
3.) "Regardless of who Alex is targeting, His argument is poor from my perspective, as it does not address the objective reason for anything to be alive? And atheism cannot answer where does life, intelligence and functionality as a property comes from. Which is a major drawback to the ideology, as it is using reason as a mode of explanation."
And he never claimed to know these answers. Atheism is at first simply not believing that a god exists. You don't need to know the right answer to know that another answer is wrong. And by logic, just because atheists don't know the answers, the answers from religion, or in this case Islam are more right. They are just answers if not backed up by evidence. Usually with atheism comes the trust in science, and there scientists have some vague theories. Anything else is "we're working on it". Honestly I don't expect to get the answer through the scientific method in my lifetime, but I'm fine with it. I trust more in the scientific method than in some religion, as it has proven times and times again that it is waaayyy more effective than any other method, in finding actual evidence based answers that helped us more than prayer. Like medicine, chemistry, eletronics etc. And I trust that it will find the answers you seek too, it is just very hard to find it through evidence.
Don't know if you could sleep by not getting the scientific answer in your lifetime without religion. I would rather have a solid answer, than some "eh what else could it be".
4.) "Ignorance cannot bring knowledge, if universe is ignorant by its blind processes then we are just rambling incoherent stuff from our mouths, and intelligence is merely our delusion."
I disagree. Scientists have already demonstrated that complexity can emerge from simple molecules by simply reorienting themself with some heat and pressure, and even saw new unique behavior they didn't expect by the attributes of said molecules. The sum of the parts can have attributes not present in the parts. Like a car, none of its parts have the property to drive really fast by itself, but put together to make the car, it will.
Or an apple is sweet, while the wood isn't, but both are made of the same types of atoms.
By your argument from the disability to drive fast can't emerge the ability to drive fast. From non sweetness, can't emerge sweetness. As from non intelligent matter, can't emerge intelligent matter. I disagree with all 3
Anyway, have a nice day.
IMO We’d all be better off a little more overtly agnostic, less certain, and seeking to learn, grow, and make meaning.
Open to God? Sure!
Open to no God? Also, yes.
Open to “God” being something wildly different than the life-long inputs making up one’s current perspective? Again yes.
Open to the potential reality that “God,” as we think we know “God,” may not exist, and we must make meaning without this certainty, anyways? Big big yes.
We’re all more uncertain on these things than anyone seems to be willing to admit. People on either side have the potential to meet in the reality of uncertainty and find joy in the discovery process of life & pursuing meaning together.
🤷🏻♀️🤝
I think meaning is created not discovered. I believe this because most humans agree that love is a virtue. Yet, love can only be achieved by two humans working together. There's a famous quote that says "The product is more than the sum of its parts." Perhaps that refers to our personalities being the additional bonus to our physical bodies. Maybe it means establishing other intangibles like trust.
@@TryingtoTellYou I like the way you put that. That’s why mostly used the phrase “make meaning.”
This is too complex and I am lost. I think I need religion to guide me ...
I cannot believe that debating the existence of God is still a thing in this century. It is the highest of evil and the stupidest things because it is so prideful. You don't have the right to talk like you know everything, and be omniscient, while your understanding is so limited, so short sightet. Affirm what you know, and keep searching for what you don't know, don't be in haste to say silly things. Saying God doesn't exist is like saying your thoughts don't exist. If I ask any of you atheists to show me your thoughts, you will be quick to express them in words, if words are expressed thoughts and thoughts are unexpressed words. Where were they before they were expressed? Thoughts are immaterial, words are material. God the Father is immaterial, Jesus who came as the word of God is material. If you can't deny the fact that thoughts/ideas exist although they are immaterial but are responsible for creating the technologies we have, then why deny that a Being exist who is immaterial and is responsible for creating the physical world. If we are not mad about the manuals a product manufacturer puts in his product box as guidlines dos and donts to ensure a long lasting and maximum efficiency, then don't be mad about the morals God has set to ensure the good and long life. Stop the hipocrisy, search more in yourself and effing grow up.
Another religious nut whose mind has been rotted by religion.
First, it is religious people who believe they know everything and that they are always right. And they are delusional by definition because there is zero evidence of the existence of any god or gods, yet they cling to those delusional beliefs and insist they KNOW, when in fact they know nothing - they simply believe on faith.
Second, thoughts are not immaterial. They are the result of a complex process of electrical impulses and chemical stimulation. I can put a device on your head and make you not believe in god by stimulating certain regions of your brain and vice versa. Thoughts are real because we can demonstrate them and show how they come to be. We have EVIDENCE for thoughts. We have ZERO EVIDENCE for god's existence.
I do agree with you on one thing - I cannot believe we are still debating the existence of god in the 21st century, when we are able to see that there is zero evidence of any god or gods existing and when we are able to show how life came into being and that humans came along through evolution, not creation. In a century where we can see how the universe expanded and show evidence that neither the universe nor life came from any intelligent design.
The reason we still debate this in 2023 is because religionists are delusional, by definition! A delusion is a persistent, false belief strongly held despite being presented with evidence to the contrary. We have strong evidence contrary to the existence of god or gods, yet religious people cling to those delusions. If religious people would learn to accept reality (the truth is what the facts are), we wouldn't still be debating this god nonsense.
Furthermore, your opening statement is a perfect example of projection, which is another of the Pillars of Religiosity. Religious people project their failings onto others. It is religious people who believe they have all the answers, and the answer to everything is "God!". It is religious people who are shortsighted and ignorant, which is why they still argue about and ask questions to issues that have long since been settled (irreducibility in evolution, for example, or where morals come from). Every time a religious person makes an argument, he demonstrate his ignorance. This is a universal attribute of, actually a requirement for, religious belief.
@Vintage-Bob No one is projecting anything. For the most part, you atheists are the ones who try to rubbish the idea of God, but you understand nothing about God. No one is forcing anyone to become Christian. People are only urged to. The Atheist who thinks he is so knowledgeable in all things want to explain to me how a Spiritual Being doesn't exist? Don't start with Evolution, you chose to strongly believe in a speculatory science, made up by humans who wish there was something other than God in the beginning, and manipulating science to go in their favour? But you think I'm a fool to believe in a God? If by now you don't know that Evolution is just another religion, then here you go, Evolution is a religion!
@@Vintage-Bob what at all do you get in being an atheist, freedom? Freedom from what? Or when deep down, you know you are uncertain, so why tf do y'all waste your time trying to disprove God, rather than understanding God to understand your human nature?
@@sirius_2dm What do I get from being an atheist? Let's examine that. Your very statement implies you have faith simply because you "get something out of" your faith. So what do you get out of your faith, other than ignorance? As an atheist (I actually refer to myself as an anti-theist because I am against religious nonsense), I gain freedom from ignorance, freedom from delusion, freedom from fear, freedom from stupidity, freedom from dogma, freedom of thought...need I go on?
You also make an extremely arrogant and ignorant claim (as is typical for a religious person), that I have some "deep down uncertainty". Nonsense. There is no evidence of any god and I have less than zero uncertainty of that fact. I know for a fact, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the Bible was written by superstitious primitives and that it is riddled with errors, contradictions, and plagiarized stories. Even your god is plagiarized! Biblical Yahweh was originally a Canaanite storm god, the son of El and married to Asherah the fertility goddess. The Jews, who were polytheistic at the time, plagiarized Yahweh, turned him into a volcano god, and became a henotheistic (look it up) people. Later they converted Yahweh into an incorporeal god and became monotheistic. There is zero evidence of any god or gods, and the evidence of how the universe formed and how life began indicates random process, not an intelligent creator. Therefore there is no doubt in my mind, no uncertainty. To claim so is psychological projection on your part, another common aspect of religious people.
As for "wasting my time trying to disprove god", I am neither wasting my time nor trying to disprove god. One cannot prove a negative, so one cannot "disprove" god. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, i.e. it is the burden of the person who says "god exists" to provide evidence. No religious person can do that since no evidence exist. I merely point out that FACT and I do so to help other shed their delusional belief in god. Such a belief is indeed delusional, as the very definition of delusion is a persistent false belief strongly held despite being given evidence to the contrary. Religious beliefs are strongly held false beliefs and the evidence shows there is no god, therefor all religious beliefs are delusions.
I understand my nature. Why would I study the "nature" of a fictional character like your god in order to better understand my own nature? I might as well study the "nature" of Superman or the Tooth Fairy.
Bravo