Yes. Both seem to have a stunted, reductionist worldview. Everything reduces down to a simplistic, literal interpretation of scripture for the Christian fundamentalist. There is no deeper meaning, no symbolism, no tradition, nothing really to learn from scripture other than strict prescriptives of what to think or how to behave. Is prescriptives a word? If the Bible is God's word, then according to them God only wants to, for lack of a better phrase, keep us in line and that's it. This stunts growth, it is like the child who only sees his parents rules as a suffocating system, rather than as a way to grow in love and maturity. This might be too harsh, but it's at least a little true.
Great video Randal. You've pretty much articulated a conclusion that I came to many years ago: militant atheists may have left Christianity but they did not leave behind their fundamentalism. The way that they look at the Bible and understand what Christianity means is exactly what a fundamentalist would think although they attempt to read the Bible in such a woodenly literally that they think that would automatically disprove it
It's funny how you don't recognize that your own need to be non-fundamentalist is precisely the questions that atheists pose to Christians. It's the need to smooth out the rough edges and contradictions that causes you to ignore the words of the text and replace them with what you feel the author must have meant.
@@avishevin1976 It's not always literal. Jesus speaks in parables. They're not meant to be taken literally. He even explains the parable of the seeds. Why would he give an explanation about some random person throwing seeds around with no significance whatsoever? Even if we're not literal ethnic Samaritans, we can still be metaphorical good Samaritans don't you think?
@@Rolando_Cueva Thanks for proving my point exactly. You had to justify a contradiction or inconsistency by deciding one version is a parable. I don't know what you're talking about, because the NT isn't my thing, but you did it.
@@avishevin1976 as for the parable of the seeds: "This is what the parable means..." Luke 8:11 Jesus literally (pun intended) says it's a parable. I've seen one of your comments from month ago. I know you understand literary devices... Jesus speaks in parables. You might not like it but it's a fact.
If only the Christian God could clarify the correct approach to understanding Him. Seems Christians themselves are rather confused about this. Why is that?
It seems that God created a naturalic world that allows scientific investigation and for which objective truth is revealed. And yet some people are still trying to make the Bible relevant so they can believe what they want instead.
@@byrondickens So you're saying that anyone, including Christians and other theists who don't agree with your method of Biblical interpretation, are willfully ignorant?
This is outstanding. I have made the case many times that modern atheists are actually fundamentalists without God. They have dogma, priests and prophets (scientists), contempt for anyone who doesn't share their dogma, holy writings and more. My critique stems from the fact that politically and culturally, many Christians are on the same side as the atheists (pro-choice, pro-science, pro-separation of church and state), yet whenever I try to suggest that we could be allies against toxic and dangerous Christian dogma, I'm met with patronizing comments about how stupid and uneducated I must be to believe in God. You put all of this so succinctly. Now, I need to listen to it a few more times.
@@juliachildress2943What dangerous christian dogma do you denounce? Do you try to claim that the supporters of it are not christian or do you see how they use the same sources and methodologies as you do?
@@goldenalt3166 I mostly denounce the modern dogmas that arise from statements of faith like the Chicago Statement and the Danvers Statement. While it contains God's eternal truth, the Bible is not necessarily factual or inerrant. I reject the notion that there is such a thing as "biblical manhood" and "biblical womanhood". Those are man-made proof-texted concepts. I reject the idea that women have no place in church leadership. At the very least, women should be included on church committees that deal with children, women, and sometimes men who are victimized by pastors, volunteers and spouses. Way too many people have suffered at the hands of these people, and most often victims are told not to file police reports and not to leave or divorce abusive spouses. Discipline of these (mostly) men is done internally exclusively by men and often results in further abuse. When it's exclusively men that victims have to turn to, the ground is fertile for abuse. I would never claim that people who disagree with me on any point are not Christians. I believe that when Jesus said to judge not, he was telling his followers that only God can judge the condition of another's soul. It's not our role to render such judgment. Judge behaviors, especially if they are harming others, but don't try to judge someone's standing with God.
I actually think the thinkingAtheist is trying to show a contradiction, or at least a development, in the writings between the more limited God of the old testament to the more eternal one in the New testament. I imagine to him this looks like a biblical contradiction that would further demonstrate reasons to question accepting the Bible as a book of divine authority. The thinking atheist doesn't have an option for using systematic theology to interpret that passage. Systematic theology (as I understand it) requires the acceptance of certain core principles (subset of scriptures) to build out other interpretations but how can he if he doesn't think those core principals are deserving of acceptance? I think his criticism of the passage in that regard is fair and one that believers and non-believers alike need to work on how best to understand. But if the scriptures are going to be used to interpret the scriptures a case needs to be made for what fundamental scriptures those are and why they should be accepted by a believer or a non-believer.
@byrondickens Disagree. I don't see anything directly from the text of the story to inform us that this question was rhetorical. Certainly you could assume God's omniscience and then any question God asks would be rhetorical or unnecessary, (even the next 3 questions) However in doing so you've already begged the question because it's the inconsistent attributes of God across the Bible that are directly in question.
@@byrondickens Again, I disagree. My concern is that you may be taking your assumptions for granted. I think the Bible should be treated as fairly as any other ancient document. And, with any other document I would ask the same questions I ask you now, what are your reasons it 'must' be a rhetorical question? Besides a bold assertion, you've given me no reasoning or rationale. If you believe it's painfully obvious, then please humor me.
Yes. Attempting to explain everything in rationalistic, materialistic terms is the modern mentality. The older mentality as espoused in scripture is much more open to mystery and the interpenetration of the divine and the physical.
4:22 -- Not necessarily. When an outside/critic (not limited to "atheists", nor "new atheists") makes a point like that, they don't really need to assume that the fundamentalist Christian is correct in their literal reading. The critic might actually think "this either "should not be" or else "need to be" interpreted as literal and at face-value, ... BUT since many fundamentalists ARE reading it that way, let's take a moment to point out the glaring contradiction to that reading of those texts compared to a contradictory claim made by those same fundamentalists".
4:22 - 4:33 Ironically, they actually SHOULD be assuming that; even though it's not really fair of you to assume they are assuming it. Why should they be assuming that? Because if someone merely humors the premise that an all-knowing Super-Being intentionally caused those texts to be written *in that Being's name* (the very thing that even YOU want them to seriously consider) then: We must (yes; we really must) then assume that same Being made sure those texts were written *in such a way* that they'd naturally align with the "intelligent design" of: how minimum-IQ and minimum-trained minds operate (whatever the minimums are which constitute "accountability"; such as: what we mean when we say something like "the age of accountability"). Such texts, to be fair, must be written to accommodate the disability of simple-mindedness. For the sake of justice itself, absolutely ZERO Biblical content may be written in such a way that ANY boost-of-odds for a reader making it into "Heaven" will favor clever minds. This point also applies to the necessary limits of all apologetic arguments and evidences. IF there is ANYTHING presented by Bibles, or Christian arguments, or nature, or science, or differences in human experience which provides a higher-IQ mind, or a better-informed mind ... additional or greater (and thus, more compelling) reasons to "believe" and/or help w/ minimum-necessary understanding ... about whatever people will be judged (in part, or in whole) for believing *vs* not-believing, ... then that BEING has acted un-justly to have even ALLOWED for (worse yet, orchestrated) those differences. Now, I do understand how a "universal salvation"-ist might say "actually, there's no such as things as odds, because everyone ends up in Heaven eventually". But while I love that idea (if I assume Heaven would be actually worthy of the hype), ... IF Universal-Salvation = true. then: Bibles are that BEING's way of increasing the confusion, suffering, and the time it takes most souls to get there. Because what most people needed was a simple, credible, universally provided, and straight-forward structure of guided maturation. And that's exactly what "The Bible" does not deliver.
Two things: 1. When atheists critique a contradiction in the Bible the audience is specifically Christians who have an inerrancy doctrine. Just like that an argument about a problem with the Quran would be specific to some subset of Muslims, likewise arguments about Christianity target a specific kind of Christian. If we are talking about the US, the default argument would be about the kinds of Christianity most likely to be practiced by the Christian Nationalists who seek to take control of our nation and turn it into a theocracy. Those people would largely be fundamentalists. 2. The part about shifting between extremes is interesting. I was raised Jehovah's Witness, which is pretty fundamentalist, and I ended up as an atheist. While I don't think this is why I ended up there, Jehovah's Witnesses tend to "debunk" other forms of Christianity to prove why they are the only true religion, so they prime you in such a way that leaving would usually mean becoming an atheist. I wonder if there is a "those non-fundamentalists are not true Christians" message drilled into their followers that would make it more likely for them leave Christianity completely when they give up on fundamentalist Christianity.
The task of Systematic Theology is to make excuses for error we would expect from 66 book written by multiple authors over hundred's of years. That is a light weight one. To a true scholar it just shows how the theology shifted over time. The death of Judas is infact a harder one.
The resorting to binaries is a human survival skill, but it is often overly reductionist. Just as deconstruction of how we view the Church is actually a pathway to growth, so also we must deconstruct our worldviews daily in order to be sanctified. Take the upgrade and walk in the Spirit of truth.
I believe it's called horseshoe theory where, regardless of the ideology, as you look further out toward the extremes the more the extreme ends tend to look alike; seems to be a defining trait of human nature.
I have considered this idea frequently. New Atheism stood as my primary obstacle to even considering atheism. I deconverted by investigating my own belief through largely Christian sources. Only later did I recognize my unbelief. The problem I have wth a more liberal interpretation of the Bible is that it becomes unfalsifiable very quickly. If something about your religion becomes problematic (either factually or morally) you can easily leave it behind. Don’t get me wrong, that’s a good thing. But it also calls into question whether those ideas were justified to begin with. Also, even if you approach the Bible more carefully, there may be some doctrines that you simply cannot question. Obviously, there’s Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection. There’s various creeds (which may be mandated by your workplace, unfortunately). But there’s also a lot of modern Christian doctrine that isn’t even Biblical, meaning that it may escape more careful analysis. When you are allowed to question certain parts of the Bible, you may consider yourself sufficiently liberal, allowing you to turn a blind eye to these more deeply ingrained ideas. That’s what I did for several years before noticing cracks in the foundation.
Both groups think I'm crazy. Just because I belive the books of the bible are written by PEOPLE. I understand fundamentalists believing that the bible is written by God. But atheists always talk about God as if they believe the bible is historical and written by God? Thats weird. "Look here, God did a horrible thing in this chapter of this book" the atheists say... But no...God didnt do those things. These are what the authors of the books thought God did and what they thought God wanted. Why does it matter if Jesus said what the gospels say he said? Is the golden rule a good idea? Do we need God to appear and tell us "yes, treating others the way you want to be treated" before we think it's a good practice? I enjoy the Bible, and i use parts of it to help me grow and be a better person. I also read tolkien, Gilgamesh, norse mythology and comic books. I enjoy them too, and they also help me grow and become a better person. In all cases, i am required to use my brain to determine which parts are good, which parts are bad, what things i should emulate, and what things i should avoid. Do we send mixed race jews back to Babylon? Do we annihilate our enemies, killing every woman and child? Do we stone disobedient children? Do we have the institution of slavery? Naw, somethings have changed. Humanity's ethics have evolved through the years. Treating the bible like it's an inerrant instruction book from God can lead us to very unethical and immoral decisions. If God exists, they want us to use our brains. And if God doesn't exist, we probably still should use our brains. I'm hoping God does exist. There's a lot of people i want to see again.
I agree with most of what you said. But Jesus is the second person in the Trinity and is the physical manifestation of God and He died for me. I don't believe in the sacrificial theory but I do believe He defeated death and one day he will come back and he will wipe every tear from our eyes.
You ARE crazy for believing that the Bible was written by ppl. The thing that ultimately separates the Bible from literally every other book on the planet is the fact that God is the Author of the Bible. The revelation was given to men to record for posterity, but they are NOT the source of it. If they wrote it, the Bible is no more authoritative than Dr. Seuss.
I read Greg Koukl's "Tactics" and Peter Boghossian's "Manual for Creating Atheists" back to back - I wouldn't recommend it. I have no idea which order I read them in, nor, if you gave me a quote (aside from the most obvious monotheist/atheist ones) I couldn't tell you which book it came from. They were essentially identical.
I found Peter's book very captivating when I knew very little about phil of religion. His strategy and approach is unique, and very confident sounding - but it probably wouldn't shake anyone who has a real in-depth understanding of the points about religious thought that he engages in.
Randall... Christians leave me perplexed. They speak so authoritatively about their god's desires. They can tell me that somebody isn't a Christian (after they got caught). They all point to the Bible (which ever version they consider valid) and say "See, here. This verse." You guys do claim that their bible is AUTHORITATIVE GOD BREATHED text. If I came to you and I constantly changed my position but I pointed consistently at some pamphlet, wouldn't you start holding me to the sacred pamphlet? And let's be serious. Which version of Christianity? You guys do realize you have a lot of variation from Catholics to Orthodox to well... whatever the newest little IFB is. Even the doctrines can be radically different. There's a reason the protestants and catholics slaughtered each other in Europe. Oh.. and the bible is an anthology/collection of writings and it shows an evolving idea of the god construct. This Christian god wasn't always all powerful. Iron chariots (or maybe.. a Ford 150? modern variant) And likewise, we see the evolution of this god, from one that is physical and not omniscient to one that is non-physical and omniscient. That's not fundamentalism. That's text critical biblical scholarship consensus. And let's be real clear. The ideas of Christianity are remarkably offensive. It is a tribal social group activity and it lends itself easily to the dehumanization and vilification of others. Remember Satanic Panic? I do. Remember when Christians claimed that Obama wasn't a Christian? I do. Oh.. remember when Christians voted for Trump, a despicable contemptible man,.. just in this recent election? I do. So please lay off with the I'm rubber, you're glue childish game. The atheists are trying to tell you, in any means possible, that your religion isn't true. We can't help it that you guys are too arrogant to let your religion breathe and acknowledge that you might be right. Because if you acknowledged you might be right, you might have to treat others with respect. Oh wait.. that's a fate worse than the cross. Forget I asked. Oh.. and atheists tend to score very well in religious knowledge. Some of them are former pastors. Meanwhile, every hick Christian babbles and acts uppity because they're a christian dontcha know.
Not all Christians are like you're portraying them. I acknowledge there are many who are exactly the way you describe. But there are many atheists who mock Christians as well.
@@MichelleG.-et8yk Of course not ALL Christians but hey.. there are far too many and, even the moderates, such as Rauser, who aren't willing to be more honest. Instead, they dance around gross caricatures of atheists. I get it. This religion makes you feel happy. You feel it's true. You're a nice one. One of the good ones. Can you admit that it's your wanting to believe it's true as opposed to an objective fact of reality that any person would accept. Because if we don't, your religion is irreproachable. There is no critique that you can't claim is an insult. Let's just use the example that Rauser uses. Did the poster say "christians are stupid stupid stupid" or was that meme about a critical text reading of one of the stories in your sacred texts? Was it an absurd interpretation? Because Biblical scholars do acknowledge that the judeo-christian god concept evolved to have this current tri-omni power set. Are they insulting your religion too? Again, I'm just asking questions. As for rude atheists.. they exist. What am I supposed to say? Rudeness is a social tool. We're a social species and this is just one way of expressing ourselves to others. We do this for various reasons but.. well for me, I think it's a good way of keeping uppity Christians from floating away in arrogant huffing. I mean, I can't understand why they don't see how offensive their religion is to me. I want to sin? I choose to go to hell? I know that this god exists but I'm lying? Cry me a river. (Oh, come on. You heard this stuff. You just stayed quiet because you weren't an atheist or you never bothered to think about how a non-believer would interpret it. Awkward isn't it.....)
Communism an invention of Vladamir Lenin. He was a Marxist. Generally Marxists thought that the reality of the world was that classes in society were in conflict with each other. The end point would come when the proletariat would seize power and institute socialism. Lenin rejected this and believed to achieve revolution you needed a small conspiratorial party. He thus founded the Bolsheviks. After they seized power in Russia they renamed themselves the Communists. Their aim was to seize the means of production and set up a socialist economy. They imposed what they described as a dictatorship of the proletariat as true democracy could only be achieved after socialism was built. (Not saying any of this is sensible just what the story was) Fascism (as opposed to Nazism) was an Italian invention. It drew it's inspiration from how Italy had worked during World War 1. It believed in a hierarchal state. It's intellectual origins were from Spencer and social Darwinism. It believed that states were in conflict with each other and celebrated violence to achieve the aims of the state. Ironically although the aim of Communism was to achieve a workers paradise it was not so great at that. But it was much better at making wars than Fascist states as it had more political control which could mobilize the totality of society New atheism by the way (which is now on the dead side) was not so much a thought system. It was a method. It was a method of confronting Christian belief by attacking every aspect of it. Previous atheists had tended to engage more in dialogue rather than relentless attacks
So if God's questioning is a narrative device, can God's consciousness be also? As an atheist I can't understand how someone can make that distinction because it's all narrative
Hmm... I seem to have taken a different reactionary path, as I swung from being a fanatically fundamentalist Conservative Evangelical, to now a fanatically post-postmodern Progressive Protestant. Still got too much of an apocalyptic "spiritual warfare" fantasy narrative keeping me "triggered" and dissociated and stuck in patterns of magical thinking... 😮💨
Please make a commentary video on mark 10:18. It is so problematic for divinity of Jesus that even matthew changed it in his version. Even though matthew is not a trinitarian.
No, "new atheists" don't read these texts based on what 21st century readers would think. They generally just go with Biblical scholars. In this case Yahweh not knowing things in Eden just reflects the ideas at that time regarding Yahweh just being a god like Thor and not an omni-god. Thinking that this text somehow is congruent with an omniscient god is pretty anachronistic to the text - and is pretty anti-intellectual. Since having fancy ways to make one's religious text fit one's religious ideas isn't "intellectualism".
I don't think doctrinal purity and lack of nuance are so much a common root as an outgrowth of the real historical root in Ockham's 15th century nominalism that ultimately led to Protestant _sola scriptura/sola fide_ on the one hand and radical empiricism/rationalism in the 17th and 18th century, on the other. (The aborted humanism of 15th-16th century was another reaction to nominalism, but it doesn't really affect us much today.) A good book on this is Michael Gillespie's _The Theological Origins of Modernity_ (U Chicago Press 2008). The solution, I think, is to recover the Catholic/Thomistic-Aristotelian insight into the reality of objective essential natures in light of the meager contributions modernity has made to human understanding (especially technology). But this is a hard sell, believe me!
Meh... I'm no expert on medieval theology, to be sure, but I do know that Aristotle considered slaves and women (and eunuchs, and non-Greeks) to be naturally and essentially inferior to men of his own class. His philosophical intuition that the planets travel in perfectly circular orbits has long been proven to be an ideological falsehood. I'd rather go back to Platonism than Catholicism. As a nonbinary trans person, I can't accept any tradition with a patriarchal hierarchy that defines truth.
@@ChristianCatboy Like I said, it's a hard sell. But Aristotle's positions with which you take exception (and I admit are false) have nothing to do with the reality of objective essential natures. I think the tradition I cite discovers truth, but does not define it (as by an arbitrary _fiat_ -- that just is what nominalism does). I don't think that our own subjective perceptions, even and especially about ourselves, are very good guides for discovering the objective order of nature which God established. Platonism is worse with regard to the concerns you mention, especially because it disregards the body.
Well, yes... I'd go with a modernized, Christianized, impressionistic riff on Neoplatonism, not the historical philosophy. I've kinda given up on trying to understand some of these theological debates, in favor of intuitive, existential mysticism. I guess my own hope is that God values passionate ethical engagement more than intellectual clarity or earthly success (cf. Job).
@@josephmagee3732 I'll pray the same for m'you. 🙂 Each follower of Christ should live in accordance with the measure of faith they have received. "The Truth will set you free."
Communism definitely has a distinct philosophical basis from fascism. Communism is based on materialistic analysis of class conditions; fascism is based on myths of ancestral greatness and mystic destiny.
@ChristianCatboy What's your source for all these claims? Do they reflect reality or simply what you've been indoctrinated with? Who decides what communism actually is?
There is plenty to critique in both new atheism amd fundie Christianity. Particularly the tribalism. My issue with this is that progressive Christianity is just unfalsifiable. You kept all the things that cant be proven wrong and make you feel warm and fuzzy. There is no intellectual high ground in progressive Christianity, which is why I'm an atheist not a progressive Christian.
I would like to know more about your comment. I found his comments to be very helpful, as someone who has gotten tired of the contempt from the atheist community when I try to point out how many Christians agree with them on many cultural and political issues, and being allies in fighting toxic Christian dogmas such as anti-science, patriarchy and complementarianism. The atheists just can't seem to get past how stupid I am for believing in God.
I don't know how they are so arrogant as to possibly know for certain that there is no God. Neither side really knows and therefore, shouldn't call either side stupid.
@@MichelleG.-et8yk That's easy. When there is ANY evidence, they will believe in a god. Until there is evidence, it really doesn't matter. Just like you don't believe that there is a sentient teapot orbiting Jupiter until there is evidence of it. It's silly to even give it a thought.
@@MichelleG.-et8yk How certain are you that Thor doesn't exist? I'd hazard a guess that you are pretty certain Thor doesn't exist, simply because the story just doesn't seem very likely. But if course nobody can be completely certain of anything, so you would probably agree that there is a really, really remote possibility that Thor exists. But if you had to summarise your opinion of Thor in one word, I suspect you would most likely say you were a non-believer. Even though you can't be absolutely certain. That is what most atheists think of the God of the Bible. They can't be completely sure he doesn't exist, but they think he is no more likely to exist than Thor, so if asked they will say they that they don't believe. They are no more arrogant than you are for doubting Thor.
But aren't you just hitting your hermeneutic against others who need it again because you found some Nifty way to assuage that particular issue you're exalting yourself and condescending to these other people?
@@MrLewishollow Hermuneutics is the study of the bible. He is essentially saying that he is using his studies to boost his own ego, while tearing other people down.
@@MrLewishollow I never said I got it from the video. You said you didn't understand the comment, so I explained it to you. You seem to have difficulty understanding things in this format. Maybe you should work on that.
@@MrLewishollow If you don't want condescension, don't write silly comments. You responded to ME, not him. If you still don't understand what it has to do with the video, take it up with the OP, and stop being rude. If you don't like his sentence structure, take it up with the OP. And even if his structure was awkward, mine was not. If you are expecting me to read the OP's mind, and tell you what they are thinking about the video, you will continue be disappointed.
@@MrLewishollow Dude, it's a comment section. See that little reply button under your comment? It means ANYONE can reply. No one butted in. It appears that you are projecting. The only one that appears obtuse here is you.
I don't understand the atheist's perspective either. I've been listening to Digital Hammurabi, Bart Ehrman and MythPodcast and they just want to debunk the Bible. So yes, they are same as the Christian fundamentalist who wants to convince you that the Bible has no errors! I've arrived at the place where I can view the Bible as inspired but by no means inerrant without completely losing faith!
I was raised Southern Baptist and my brother is a retired SBC minister and my sister is a United Methodist minister. I spent many of my adult years in agnostic no-man's land. I tried so hard to read and understand the Bible, but it was just no good. I was so thrilled about 10 years ago to start down the path of actual Bible learning. It was so liberating and faith affirming to be able to see the Bible for what it is - a story told through many voices from different times and cultures that are very different from our own, yet still tell the inspired story of God's relationship with humans.
That's easy. Just read the definition of the word. That's really all you need to know. The ONLY reason people are interested in debunking the bible, is because people cause so much damage with it. Being an atheist and someone who is an activist against the bible are two completely different thing.
It isn't my personal experience of the atheists online that I've seen. I'm fine with those who don't believe provided they don't try to ridicule me for still believing.
I received another comment you made but now I don't see it. You said atheists would believe if there was any evidence for God. Actually, I see more evidence for God. Why is there a world and people in it? To me, it points to a Creator.
@@MichelleG.-et8yk "To me, it points to a Creator" isn't evidence though, it is just your opinion. Science answers many, many of the questions about why the universe is like it is, although of course it doesn't answer everything. But invoking the God of the Bible as the answer to those remaining questions is literally the God of the gaps fallacy, and that is why atheists are not convinced by it.
Yes. Both seem to have a stunted, reductionist worldview. Everything reduces down to a simplistic, literal interpretation of scripture for the Christian fundamentalist. There is no deeper meaning, no symbolism, no tradition, nothing really to learn from scripture other than strict prescriptives of what to think or how to behave. Is prescriptives a word? If the Bible is God's word, then according to them God only wants to, for lack of a better phrase, keep us in line and that's it. This stunts growth, it is like the child who only sees his parents rules as a suffocating system, rather than as a way to grow in love and maturity. This might be too harsh, but it's at least a little true.
I think it'd be prescriptions.
Matthew 23:13
Great video Randal. You've pretty much articulated a conclusion that I came to many years ago: militant atheists may have left Christianity but they did not leave behind their fundamentalism. The way that they look at the Bible and understand what Christianity means is exactly what a fundamentalist would think although they attempt to read the Bible in such a woodenly literally that they think that would automatically disprove it
It's funny how you don't recognize that your own need to be non-fundamentalist is precisely the questions that atheists pose to Christians. It's the need to smooth out the rough edges and contradictions that causes you to ignore the words of the text and replace them with what you feel the author must have meant.
@@avishevin1976 It's not always literal. Jesus speaks in parables. They're not meant to be taken literally. He even explains the parable of the seeds. Why would he give an explanation about some random person throwing seeds around with no significance whatsoever?
Even if we're not literal ethnic Samaritans, we can still be metaphorical good Samaritans don't you think?
@@Rolando_Cueva
Thanks for proving my point exactly. You had to justify a contradiction or inconsistency by deciding one version is a parable. I don't know what you're talking about, because the NT isn't my thing, but you did it.
@@avishevin1976 wait WHAT? What is the Good Samaritan parable contradicting exactly? Please show me the contradiction.
@@avishevin1976 as for the parable of the seeds:
"This is what the parable means..." Luke 8:11
Jesus literally (pun intended) says it's a parable. I've seen one of your comments from month ago. I know you understand literary devices... Jesus speaks in parables. You might not like it but it's a fact.
If only the Christian God could clarify the correct approach to understanding Him. Seems Christians themselves are rather confused about this. Why is that?
It seems that God created a naturalic world that allows scientific investigation and for which objective truth is revealed. And yet some people are still trying to make the Bible relevant so they can believe what they want instead.
Maybe He doesn't so that no side gets puffed up with pride at being right?
whizler: Why doesn't God spell out everything in excruciating detail?
God: I'm sorry. I thought you were going to actually USE that brain I gave you.
@@byrondickens Yep, he must be very disappointed that the Bible exists.
@@byrondickens So you're saying that anyone, including Christians and other theists who don't agree with your method of Biblical interpretation, are willfully ignorant?
This is outstanding. I have made the case many times that modern atheists are actually fundamentalists without God. They have dogma, priests and prophets (scientists), contempt for anyone who doesn't share their dogma, holy writings and more. My critique stems from the fact that politically and culturally, many Christians are on the same side as the atheists (pro-choice, pro-science, pro-separation of church and state), yet whenever I try to suggest that we could be allies against toxic and dangerous Christian dogma, I'm met with patronizing comments about how stupid and uneducated I must be to believe in God. You put all of this so succinctly. Now, I need to listen to it a few more times.
Nope. Incorrect.
@@littlebitofhope1489 Can you elaborate?
Yeah, there are lots more ANTITHEISTS than atheists.
@@juliachildress2943What dangerous christian dogma do you denounce? Do you try to claim that the supporters of it are not christian or do you see how they use the same sources and methodologies as you do?
@@goldenalt3166 I mostly denounce the modern dogmas that arise from statements of faith like the Chicago Statement and the Danvers Statement. While it contains God's eternal truth, the Bible is not necessarily factual or inerrant. I reject the notion that there is such a thing as "biblical manhood" and "biblical womanhood". Those are man-made proof-texted concepts. I reject the idea that women have no place in church leadership. At the very least, women should be included on church committees that deal with children, women, and sometimes men who are victimized by pastors, volunteers and spouses. Way too many people have suffered at the hands of these people, and most often victims are told not to file police reports and not to leave or divorce abusive spouses. Discipline of these (mostly) men is done internally exclusively by men and often results in further abuse. When it's exclusively men that victims have to turn to, the ground is fertile for abuse. I would never claim that people who disagree with me on any point are not Christians. I believe that when Jesus said to judge not, he was telling his followers that only God can judge the condition of another's soul. It's not our role to render such judgment. Judge behaviors, especially if they are harming others, but don't try to judge someone's standing with God.
I actually think the thinkingAtheist is trying to show a contradiction, or at least a development, in the writings between the more limited God of the old testament to the more eternal one in the New testament. I imagine to him this looks like a biblical contradiction that would further demonstrate reasons to question accepting the Bible as a book of divine authority.
The thinking atheist doesn't have an option for using systematic theology to interpret that passage. Systematic theology (as I understand it) requires the acceptance of certain core principles (subset of scriptures) to build out other interpretations but how can he if he doesn't think those core principals are deserving of acceptance?
I think his criticism of the passage in that regard is fair and one that believers and non-believers alike need to work on how best to understand. But if the scriptures are going to be used to interpret the scriptures a case needs to be made for what fundamental scriptures those are and why they should be accepted by a believer or a non-believer.
Wrong. If the "thinking atheist" can't recognize a rhetorical question their teachers failed them and they ought to sue their school district.
@byrondickens Disagree. I don't see anything directly from the text of the story to inform us that this question was rhetorical. Certainly you could assume God's omniscience and then any question God asks would be rhetorical or unnecessary, (even the next 3 questions) However in doing so you've already begged the question because it's the inconsistent attributes of God across the Bible that are directly in question.
@@ReluctantApostate Don't play stupid with me. If this was any other body of literature you wouldn't have any problems recognizing it.
@@byrondickens Again, I disagree. My concern is that you may be taking your assumptions for granted. I think the Bible should be treated as fairly as any other ancient document. And, with any other document I would ask the same questions I ask you now, what are your reasons it 'must' be a rhetorical question? Besides a bold assertion, you've given me no reasoning or rationale. If you believe it's painfully obvious, then please humor me.
Yes. Attempting to explain everything in rationalistic, materialistic terms is the modern mentality.
The older mentality as espoused in scripture is much more open to mystery and the interpenetration of the divine and the physical.
This is what I've been saying for years! I like it when I'm proven not (entirely) crazy.
4:22
--
Not necessarily.
When an outside/critic (not limited to "atheists", nor "new atheists") makes a point like that,
they don't really need to assume that the fundamentalist Christian is correct in their literal reading.
The critic might actually think "this either "should not be" or else "need to be" interpreted as literal and at face-value, ... BUT since many fundamentalists ARE reading it that way, let's take a moment to point out the glaring contradiction to that reading of those texts compared to a contradictory claim made by those same fundamentalists".
4:22 - 4:33
Ironically, they actually SHOULD be assuming that; even though it's not really fair of you to assume they are assuming it.
Why should they be assuming that?
Because if someone merely humors the premise that an all-knowing Super-Being intentionally caused those texts to be written
*in that Being's name* (the very thing that even YOU want them to seriously consider)
then:
We must (yes; we really must) then assume that same Being made sure those texts were written *in such a way* that they'd naturally align with the "intelligent design" of:
how minimum-IQ and minimum-trained minds operate
(whatever the minimums are which constitute "accountability"; such as:
what we mean when we say something like "the age of accountability").
Such texts, to be fair, must be written to accommodate the disability of simple-mindedness.
For the sake of justice itself,
absolutely ZERO Biblical content may be written in such a way that ANY boost-of-odds for a reader making it into "Heaven" will favor clever minds.
This point also applies to the necessary limits of all apologetic arguments and evidences.
IF there is ANYTHING presented by Bibles, or Christian arguments, or nature, or science, or differences in human experience which provides a higher-IQ mind, or a better-informed mind ... additional or greater (and thus, more compelling) reasons to "believe" and/or help w/ minimum-necessary understanding ... about whatever people will be judged (in part, or in whole) for believing *vs* not-believing, ...
then that BEING has acted un-justly to have even ALLOWED for (worse yet, orchestrated) those differences.
Now, I do understand how a "universal salvation"-ist might say "actually, there's no such as things as odds, because everyone ends up in Heaven eventually".
But while I love that idea (if I assume Heaven would be actually worthy of the hype),
...
IF Universal-Salvation = true. then:
Bibles are that BEING's way of increasing the confusion, suffering, and the time it takes most souls to get there. Because what most people needed was a simple, credible, universally provided, and straight-forward structure of guided maturation. And that's exactly what "The Bible" does not deliver.
Two things:
1. When atheists critique a contradiction in the Bible the audience is specifically Christians who have an inerrancy doctrine. Just like that an argument about a problem with the Quran would be specific to some subset of Muslims, likewise arguments about Christianity target a specific kind of Christian. If we are talking about the US, the default argument would be about the kinds of Christianity most likely to be practiced by the Christian Nationalists who seek to take control of our nation and turn it into a theocracy. Those people would largely be fundamentalists.
2. The part about shifting between extremes is interesting. I was raised Jehovah's Witness, which is pretty fundamentalist, and I ended up as an atheist. While I don't think this is why I ended up there, Jehovah's Witnesses tend to "debunk" other forms of Christianity to prove why they are the only true religion, so they prime you in such a way that leaving would usually mean becoming an atheist. I wonder if there is a "those non-fundamentalists are not true Christians" message drilled into their followers that would make it more likely for them leave Christianity completely when they give up on fundamentalist Christianity.
The task of Systematic Theology is to make excuses for error we would expect from 66 book written by multiple authors over hundred's of years. That is a light weight one. To a true scholar it just shows how the theology shifted over time. The death of Judas is infact a harder one.
The resorting to binaries is a human survival skill, but it is often overly reductionist. Just as deconstruction of how we view the Church is actually a pathway to growth, so also we must deconstruct our worldviews daily in order to be sanctified. Take the upgrade and walk in the Spirit of truth.
I believe it's called horseshoe theory where, regardless of the ideology, as you look further out toward the extremes the more the extreme ends tend to look alike; seems to be a defining trait of human nature.
I have considered this idea frequently. New Atheism stood as my primary obstacle to even considering atheism. I deconverted by investigating my own belief through largely Christian sources. Only later did I recognize my unbelief.
The problem I have wth a more liberal interpretation of the Bible is that it becomes unfalsifiable very quickly. If something about your religion becomes problematic (either factually or morally) you can easily leave it behind. Don’t get me wrong, that’s a good thing. But it also calls into question whether those ideas were justified to begin with.
Also, even if you approach the Bible more carefully, there may be some doctrines that you simply cannot question. Obviously, there’s Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection. There’s various creeds (which may be mandated by your workplace, unfortunately). But there’s also a lot of modern Christian doctrine that isn’t even Biblical, meaning that it may escape more careful analysis.
When you are allowed to question certain parts of the Bible, you may consider yourself sufficiently liberal, allowing you to turn a blind eye to these more deeply ingrained ideas. That’s what I did for several years before noticing cracks in the foundation.
Both groups think I'm crazy.
Just because I belive the books of the bible are written by PEOPLE.
I understand fundamentalists believing that the bible is written by God.
But atheists always talk about God as if they believe the bible is historical and written by God? Thats weird.
"Look here, God did a horrible thing in this chapter of this book" the atheists say...
But no...God didnt do those things. These are what the authors of the books thought God did and what they thought God wanted.
Why does it matter if Jesus said what the gospels say he said?
Is the golden rule a good idea? Do we need God to appear and tell us "yes, treating others the way you want to be treated" before we think it's a good practice?
I enjoy the Bible, and i use parts of it to help me grow and be a better person.
I also read tolkien, Gilgamesh, norse mythology and comic books. I enjoy them too, and they also help me grow and become a better person.
In all cases, i am required to use my brain to determine which parts are good, which parts are bad, what things i should emulate, and what things i should avoid.
Do we send mixed race jews back to Babylon? Do we annihilate our enemies, killing every woman and child? Do we stone disobedient children? Do we have the institution of slavery?
Naw, somethings have changed. Humanity's ethics have evolved through the years. Treating the bible like it's an inerrant instruction book from God can lead us to very unethical and immoral decisions.
If God exists, they want us to use our brains.
And if God doesn't exist, we probably still should use our brains.
I'm hoping God does exist. There's a lot of people i want to see again.
I agree with most of what you said. But Jesus is the second person in the Trinity and is the physical manifestation of God and He died for me. I don't believe in the sacrificial theory but I do believe He defeated death and one day he will come back and he will wipe every tear from our eyes.
@MichelleG.-et8yk i use that model to conceptualize god as well
You ARE crazy for believing that the Bible was written by ppl. The thing that ultimately separates the Bible from literally every other book on the planet is the fact that God is the Author of the Bible. The revelation was given to men to record for posterity, but they are NOT the source of it. If they wrote it, the Bible is no more authoritative than Dr. Seuss.
I read Greg Koukl's "Tactics" and Peter Boghossian's "Manual for Creating Atheists" back to back - I wouldn't recommend it.
I have no idea which order I read them in, nor, if you gave me a quote (aside from the most obvious monotheist/atheist ones) I couldn't tell you which book it came from.
They were essentially identical.
That's a very interesting take.
I found Peter's book very captivating when I knew very little about phil of religion. His strategy and approach is unique, and very confident sounding - but it probably wouldn't shake anyone who has a real in-depth understanding of the points about religious thought that he engages in.
Randall... Christians leave me perplexed. They speak so authoritatively about their god's desires. They can tell me that somebody isn't a Christian (after they got caught). They all point to the Bible (which ever version they consider valid) and say "See, here. This verse." You guys do claim that their bible is AUTHORITATIVE GOD BREATHED text.
If I came to you and I constantly changed my position but I pointed consistently at some pamphlet, wouldn't you start holding me to the sacred pamphlet?
And let's be serious. Which version of Christianity? You guys do realize you have a lot of variation from Catholics to Orthodox to well... whatever the newest little IFB is. Even the doctrines can be radically different. There's a reason the protestants and catholics slaughtered each other in Europe.
Oh.. and the bible is an anthology/collection of writings and it shows an evolving idea of the god construct. This Christian god wasn't always all powerful. Iron chariots (or maybe.. a Ford 150? modern variant) And likewise, we see the evolution of this god, from one that is physical and not omniscient to one that is non-physical and omniscient. That's not fundamentalism. That's text critical biblical scholarship consensus.
And let's be real clear. The ideas of Christianity are remarkably offensive. It is a tribal social group activity and it lends itself easily to the dehumanization and vilification of others. Remember Satanic Panic? I do. Remember when Christians claimed that Obama wasn't a Christian? I do. Oh.. remember when Christians voted for Trump, a despicable contemptible man,.. just in this recent election? I do. So please lay off with the I'm rubber, you're glue childish game. The atheists are trying to tell you, in any means possible, that your religion isn't true. We can't help it that you guys are too arrogant to let your religion breathe and acknowledge that you might be right. Because if you acknowledged you might be right, you might have to treat others with respect. Oh wait.. that's a fate worse than the cross. Forget I asked.
Oh.. and atheists tend to score very well in religious knowledge. Some of them are former pastors. Meanwhile, every hick Christian babbles and acts uppity because they're a christian dontcha know.
Not all Christians are like you're portraying them. I acknowledge there are many who are exactly the way you describe. But there are many atheists who mock Christians as well.
@@MichelleG.-et8yk Of course not ALL Christians but hey.. there are far too many and, even the moderates, such as Rauser, who aren't willing to be more honest. Instead, they dance around gross caricatures of atheists.
I get it. This religion makes you feel happy. You feel it's true. You're a nice one. One of the good ones. Can you admit that it's your wanting to believe it's true as opposed to an objective fact of reality that any person would accept. Because if we don't, your religion is irreproachable. There is no critique that you can't claim is an insult.
Let's just use the example that Rauser uses. Did the poster say "christians are stupid stupid stupid" or was that meme about a critical text reading of one of the stories in your sacred texts? Was it an absurd interpretation? Because Biblical scholars do acknowledge that the judeo-christian god concept evolved to have this current tri-omni power set. Are they insulting your religion too?
Again, I'm just asking questions.
As for rude atheists.. they exist. What am I supposed to say? Rudeness is a social tool. We're a social species and this is just one way of expressing ourselves to others. We do this for various reasons but.. well for me, I think it's a good way of keeping uppity Christians from floating away in arrogant huffing. I mean, I can't understand why they don't see how offensive their religion is to me. I want to sin? I choose to go to hell? I know that this god exists but I'm lying? Cry me a river. (Oh, come on. You heard this stuff. You just stayed quiet because you weren't an atheist or you never bothered to think about how a non-believer would interpret it. Awkward isn't it.....)
Communism an invention of Vladamir Lenin. He was a Marxist. Generally Marxists thought that the reality of the world was that classes in society were in conflict with each other. The end point would come when the proletariat would seize power and institute socialism. Lenin rejected this and believed to achieve revolution you needed a small conspiratorial party. He thus founded the Bolsheviks. After they seized power in Russia they renamed themselves the Communists. Their aim was to seize the means of production and set up a socialist economy. They imposed what they described as a dictatorship of the proletariat as true democracy could only be achieved after socialism was built. (Not saying any of this is sensible just what the story was)
Fascism (as opposed to Nazism) was an Italian invention. It drew it's inspiration from how Italy had worked during World War 1. It believed in a hierarchal state. It's intellectual origins were from Spencer and social Darwinism. It believed that states were in conflict with each other and celebrated violence to achieve the aims of the state.
Ironically although the aim of Communism was to achieve a workers paradise it was not so great at that. But it was much better at making wars than Fascist states as it had more political control which could mobilize the totality of society
New atheism by the way (which is now on the dead side) was not so much a thought system. It was a method. It was a method of confronting Christian belief by attacking every aspect of it. Previous atheists had tended to engage more in dialogue rather than relentless attacks
So if God's questioning is a narrative device, can God's consciousness be also? As an atheist I can't understand how someone can make that distinction because it's all narrative
Hmm... I seem to have taken a different reactionary path, as I swung from being a fanatically fundamentalist Conservative Evangelical, to now a fanatically post-postmodern Progressive Protestant. Still got too much of an apocalyptic "spiritual warfare" fantasy narrative keeping me "triggered" and dissociated and stuck in patterns of magical thinking... 😮💨
Please make a commentary video on mark 10:18. It is so problematic for divinity of Jesus that even matthew changed it in his version. Even though matthew is not a trinitarian.
No, "new atheists" don't read these texts based on what 21st century readers would think. They generally just go with Biblical scholars. In this case Yahweh not knowing things in Eden just reflects the ideas at that time regarding Yahweh just being a god like Thor and not an omni-god.
Thinking that this text somehow is congruent with an omniscient god is pretty anachronistic to the text - and is pretty anti-intellectual. Since having fancy ways to make one's religious text fit one's religious ideas isn't "intellectualism".
I don't think doctrinal purity and lack of nuance are so much a common root as an outgrowth of the real historical root in Ockham's 15th century nominalism that ultimately led to Protestant _sola scriptura/sola fide_ on the one hand and radical empiricism/rationalism in the 17th and 18th century, on the other. (The aborted humanism of 15th-16th century was another reaction to nominalism, but it doesn't really affect us much today.) A good book on this is Michael Gillespie's _The Theological Origins of Modernity_ (U Chicago Press 2008). The solution, I think, is to recover the Catholic/Thomistic-Aristotelian insight into the reality of objective essential natures in light of the meager contributions modernity has made to human understanding (especially technology). But this is a hard sell, believe me!
Meh... I'm no expert on medieval theology, to be sure, but I do know that Aristotle considered slaves and women (and eunuchs, and non-Greeks) to be naturally and essentially inferior to men of his own class. His philosophical intuition that the planets travel in perfectly circular orbits has long been proven to be an ideological falsehood. I'd rather go back to Platonism than Catholicism. As a nonbinary trans person, I can't accept any tradition with a patriarchal hierarchy that defines truth.
@@ChristianCatboy Like I said, it's a hard sell. But Aristotle's positions with which you take exception (and I admit are false) have nothing to do with the reality of objective essential natures. I think the tradition I cite discovers truth, but does not define it (as by an arbitrary _fiat_ -- that just is what nominalism does). I don't think that our own subjective perceptions, even and especially about ourselves, are very good guides for discovering the objective order of nature which God established. Platonism is worse with regard to the concerns you mention, especially because it disregards the body.
Well, yes... I'd go with a modernized, Christianized, impressionistic riff on Neoplatonism, not the historical philosophy. I've kinda given up on trying to understand some of these theological debates, in favor of intuitive, existential mysticism. I guess my own hope is that God values passionate ethical engagement more than intellectual clarity or earthly success (cf. Job).
@@ChristianCatboy God bless you. I pray you grow closer to God as he is, and not how we want him to be.
@@josephmagee3732 I'll pray the same for m'you. 🙂 Each follower of Christ should live in accordance with the measure of faith they have received. "The Truth will set you free."
Are you confusing historical political communism with economic communism?
Communism definitely has a distinct philosophical basis from fascism. Communism is based on materialistic analysis of class conditions; fascism is based on myths of ancestral greatness and mystic destiny.
@ChristianCatboy
What's your source for all these claims?
Do they reflect reality or simply what you've been indoctrinated with?
Who decides what communism actually is?
There is plenty to critique in both new atheism amd fundie Christianity. Particularly the tribalism.
My issue with this is that progressive Christianity is just unfalsifiable. You kept all the things that cant be proven wrong and make you feel warm and fuzzy. There is no intellectual high ground in progressive Christianity, which is why I'm an atheist not a progressive Christian.
As usual, a theist misunderstands and misrepresents atheism.
This podcast demonstrates that while Randall sometimes has some decent material he gets over his head pretty fast
I would like to know more about your comment. I found his comments to be very helpful, as someone who has gotten tired of the contempt from the atheist community when I try to point out how many Christians agree with them on many cultural and political issues, and being allies in fighting toxic Christian dogmas such as anti-science, patriarchy and complementarianism. The atheists just can't seem to get past how stupid I am for believing in God.
I don't know how they are so arrogant as to possibly know for certain that there is no God. Neither side really knows and therefore, shouldn't call either side stupid.
It sure sounds like it. It's an old and debunked argument.
@@MichelleG.-et8yk That's easy. When there is ANY evidence, they will believe in a god. Until there is evidence, it really doesn't matter. Just like you don't believe that there is a sentient teapot orbiting Jupiter until there is evidence of it. It's silly to even give it a thought.
@@MichelleG.-et8yk How certain are you that Thor doesn't exist? I'd hazard a guess that you are pretty certain Thor doesn't exist, simply because the story just doesn't seem very likely. But if course nobody can be completely certain of anything, so you would probably agree that there is a really, really remote possibility that Thor exists.
But if you had to summarise your opinion of Thor in one word, I suspect you would most likely say you were a non-believer. Even though you can't be absolutely certain.
That is what most atheists think of the God of the Bible. They can't be completely sure he doesn't exist, but they think he is no more likely to exist than Thor, so if asked they will say they that they don't believe.
They are no more arrogant than you are for doubting Thor.
But aren't you just hitting your hermeneutic against others who need it again because you found some Nifty way to assuage that particular issue you're exalting yourself and condescending to these other people?
@@MrLewishollow Hermuneutics is the study of the bible. He is essentially saying that he is using his studies to boost his own ego, while tearing other people down.
@@MrLewishollow I never said I got it from the video. You said you didn't understand the comment, so I explained it to you. You seem to have difficulty understanding things in this format. Maybe you should work on that.
@@MrLewishollow If you don't want condescension, don't write silly comments. You responded to ME, not him. If you still don't understand what it has to do with the video, take it up with the OP, and stop being rude. If you don't like his sentence structure, take it up with the OP. And even if his structure was awkward, mine was not. If you are expecting me to read the OP's mind, and tell you what they are thinking about the video, you will continue be disappointed.
@@MrLewishollow Ah, so you are rude as well as uneducated. Got it.
@@MrLewishollow Dude, it's a comment section. See that little reply button under your comment? It means ANYONE can reply. No one butted in. It appears that you are projecting. The only one that appears obtuse here is you.
New Atheism=Christian Fundamentalism just less god
They replaced God with the Demiurge 🙃
@@ChristianCatboy exactly lol
I don't understand the atheist's perspective either. I've been listening to Digital Hammurabi, Bart Ehrman and MythPodcast and they just want to debunk the Bible. So yes, they are same as the Christian fundamentalist who wants to convince you that the Bible has no errors! I've arrived at the place where I can view the Bible as inspired but by no means inerrant without completely losing faith!
I was raised Southern Baptist and my brother is a retired SBC minister and my sister is a United Methodist minister. I spent many of my adult years in agnostic no-man's land. I tried so hard to read and understand the Bible, but it was just no good. I was so thrilled about 10 years ago to start down the path of actual Bible learning. It was so liberating and faith affirming to be able to see the Bible for what it is - a story told through many voices from different times and cultures that are very different from our own, yet still tell the inspired story of God's relationship with humans.
That's easy. Just read the definition of the word. That's really all you need to know. The ONLY reason people are interested in debunking the bible, is because people cause so much damage with it. Being an atheist and someone who is an activist against the bible are two completely different thing.
It isn't my personal experience of the atheists online that I've seen. I'm fine with those who don't believe provided they don't try to ridicule me for still believing.
I received another comment you made but now I don't see it. You said atheists would believe if there was any evidence for God. Actually, I see more evidence for God. Why is there a world and people in it? To me, it points to a Creator.
@@MichelleG.-et8yk "To me, it points to a Creator" isn't evidence though, it is just your opinion. Science answers many, many of the questions about why the universe is like it is, although of course it doesn't answer everything. But invoking the God of the Bible as the answer to those remaining questions is literally the God of the gaps fallacy, and that is why atheists are not convinced by it.