The Death of Atheism? A Conversation with Eric Metaxas.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 жов 2021
- Is belief in God reasonable today? Where does the scientific and archaeological evidence point? In this interview, I talk with Eric Metaxas about his latest book, IS ATHEISM DEAD? We discuss the origin of the universe, fine-tuning, the origin of life, the biblical story of Sodom, and more.
READ: Is Atheism Dead? by Eric Metaxas (amzn.to/2YmFdyl)
*Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (bit.ly/3LdNqKf)
*USE Discount Code [SMDCERTDISC] for $100 off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (bit.ly/3AzfPFM)
*See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (bit.ly/448STKK)
FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Twitter: / sean_mcdowell
TikTok: @sean_mcdowell
Instagram: / seanmcdowell
Website: seanmcdowell.org
It never ceases to amaze me that so many people are angered by someone they dont believe exists, but will still spend their time arguing about it.
Why would you not ?
It's not like it's the loch Ness monster or Bigfoot...I spend zero time arguing against those...because nobody is trying to legislate what Bigfoot wants...
Understand a bit better ?
It's also horrible to have in a debate about what's best for society....because the rest of society can use evidence based arguments and debates to figure out the most optimal way to live as a whole...
Against...book says thing.
Do you really not understand why so many people argue against it...?
Historically, people who believe in gods have an unbroken track record of making war against other people who don’t believe their god is the one true god. To this day no religion can produce any tangible evidence that their invisible silent deity is real. All religions require “faith”. “Faith” means believing in something you can’t prove. We are not angry against your imaginary god, we are angry because you hurt other people based on what you have decided your god doesn’t like.
@@offense53 Let me get this straight, I don’t believe God is real and you think that proves I’m mad at him. Could I say, then, that if you don’t believe in Santa that proves you are mad at him? Science doesn’t need to disprove God, there is no measurable, consistent, or observable evidence he exists. Good feelings aren’t proof, faith isn’t proof. Science doesn’t try to disprove unicorns or fairies either. Not believing God is real has nothing to do with evolution, just like not believing in Santa has nothing to do with evolution. Here’s something you probably don’t know: Atheists don’t worship Charles Darwin. He lived a long time ago, he didn’t invent the idea of evolution, and it’s common knowledge that he believed in God. So what? Naming famous people who believe in God doesn’t prove he is real. Saying that God is “the ultimate law giver” is meaningless. There are no moral precepts in the Bible that didn’t exist in other religions and cultures centuries before Abraham and Moses came on the scene.
They seem to hate THE GOD they claim they don't believe in sadly .
Seriously, have you never hated a fictional character? "God" to many atheists is a representation; for me god represented being told to shut up and sit down, to be uncritical and to not think for myself. As a ten-year old I was literally told by my parents and pastor to stop asking questions and do what I was told. Now THAT is something to hate, and the god of your glorified fictional storybook is the most recognized representative of that hatred. Stop indoctrinating kids with your made-up stories, stop telling them what to think rather than teaching them how to think and you might find that many of us will simply mind our own business.
Religion appeals to two types: Those that like to tell others what to do and those that like to be told what to do. Shepherds and sheep.
"Religion appeals to two types" - Or those who own private jets and those who pay for private jets.
*"If things were different they wouldn't be the same!"*
Wow, how insightful.
Maybe you could go into a little more detail with your incisive critique.
Is that all you have?
What?
@@robertjensen2328 What more detail were you looking for? His entire position was what I wrote. Do you find that compelling?
@@robertjensen2328 why would he need to ?
When your argument is...things are...therefore God.
What's the point in even humouring it ?
the floor is made out of god...
If atheism was dead he wouldn't need to write a book about it.
If the knowledge in the books was well known it would be already. Atheist are the same idiots who are screaming at ppl to wear a mask and get your 5th booster bc their science diety said to. Then they think they intellectually smarter than everyone bc science.
@@truthfactsandconspiraciest7583 Then you just proved the point that atheism isn't dead if nearly 8 billion people wore masks because they don't believe in a god or gods.
Does anyone know if Eric provides evidence about Camus and Satre's supposed later conversions? I just did a quick Google and couldn't find anything substantial
My book hasn't arrived yet, but I have listened to a few interviews, especially the one with Becket Cook, where he talks about this, with evidence.
He's pretty big on making claims with no evidence. That's been his whole shtick ever since Trump lost the election.
This guy NEEDS to go on Joe Rogan
Why?
Problem with this is the definition of atheism. I am an atheist in that I don't believe in a theist god (as defined by any known religion). However I accept that I cannot prove there is no god (dependent on your definition of god). So I'm an agnostic atheist. You can also find agnostic theists who accept they cannot know whether or not there is a god but choose to believe in one.
Yea, but that gives god as much credit as anything else that you could create with your imagination to define it so that it can never be tested
The problem with reality, Eric, is that it doesn't care what you think. Demographics show that across the Western world, Christianity is dying on its ass. Here in the UK, the Church of England itself, reckons that it has about a generation to run as an active concern. Church congregations are collapsing exponentially and 51% of the population express 'no faith' as their default position. Project all you want, but atheism is on course to become the prevailing opinion in educated society.
Since Darwin's time somebody has been claiming Christianity was just about to disappear with some irrefutable evidence. Call me back in fifty years and we'll see if your right but don't expect me to hold my breath for that long.
@@victorjvanderwoude3102 I have no doubt that Christianity will survive the next 50 years, especially in America, where it is simply too lucrative a business model to be discarded. According to the UK census, 'No faith's have increased to around 53% of the population. The Anglican Church in particular, is losing parishioners at an increased rate. The Catholic Church seems to be doing better, and even increasing congregations, but the overall trend is still downward.
@@tombaxter6228 I'd like to highlight the word "business" it demonstrates your worldview. It can't be true so it must be.....this. So what is this - a deceptive business model than comes to mind. Another way of saying it: If Christianity isn't true than what angle is it and falsehoods for money (scam) to milk the vulnerable or naive seems reasonable. This is Atheism thinking and worldview in action.
But what does that statement (false ministries exist) really mean for the truth or falsehood of the Christian faith and worldview? Nothing! So some Ministries are run by scammers for money. It doesn't thereby demonstrate all ministries are scams or that Christianity is false.
It's your naturalist assumptions which requires that connection. I think it's a more complicated issue than science (Darwinism) has proven all religion is false (no need for a Creator) or that the supernatural can't exist because I'm incapable of proving it exists through scientific means (as if science is the end all of truth and reason - please G-d give me a blood sample). Sometimes you see smoke but you don't see the fire but you can make good claims a fire exists. Atheism set such parameters that's it blind toward things from a non humanist or naturalist perspective (and therefore can't address directly the logic or reasons for the belief in G-d)
As for Christianity disappearing. Jesus was crucified - the first so called ending event of what later be called Christianity. Jesus resurrection revived the movement (when Jesus died on the cross it was over at that point). Persecution was going to track down and destroy the movement throughout the Greek world (certainly Greeks weren't interested as pagans and Jewish anti- missionaries tried to destroy the movement. It continued to grow despite that. Christianity was destroyed in Northern Africa because of Muslim persecution and literal murder or convert threats. Despite that even in Muslim countries who are hostile to Christians believers are growing. In Iran a growing Christian presence exists. China's atheists persecutes a number of religious movements yet Christianity is growing in that country. Darwinism was accepted and Christianity was going to disappear in fifty years. Oops they were wrong. I could go on and on.
The point of your statistics aren't the extinction of Christianity but the growth of secularism and Atheism in the west. At some point the west and European countries will balance out true Christians from cultural Christians and that's a good thing from my perspective. It's also important to point out immigration numbers of non Christians is significant and affects the dynamic. It's not from something to nothing scenario.
Been watching your videos since attending your event in Tahoe. Love your channel, Sean! Thanks for creating such a great environment for listening and communication. Really appreciate your approach!! 😁👍🏼
And yet the first words out of his mouth are utter tripe, pretending atheism (those not being convinced by the god-claims) is declining (false), because of scientific advancements (utterly ridiculous) ?
@@BorisNoiseChannel Metaxas is 100 % correct though. Science supports theism
@@les2997 Please explain how or why you think that, without the use of any widely recognized reasoning fallacies. heck; even the term 'god' is hardly ever clearly defined, except by statements about what it's not instead of what it is.
@@BorisNoiseChannel Watch the video, everything is there. There is a ton of evidence which you ignore.
Revelation 13:16-18 “And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the freemen and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six.”
Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner owns a hotel at 666 5th Avenue. He bought it for 1.8 billion dollars (three more 6’s). Trump used to live in the penthouse on the Trump Tower's 66th floor, with paintings of Apollo and erotic statues pagan Greek sex god Eros and his consort Psyche.
Dr. McDowell, what happened to the interview that was planned for today? With the pastor on homosexuality?
We had to reschedule. But he’s agreed to come back in November. Sorry about that!
Thanks for the update. I’ve seen an interview with him in the past on the same topic, more of a debate. Will be looking forward to that upcoming interview.
@@SeanMcDowell , gossiping about atheists behind their back again?
If you claim atheism is dead at least have the decency to invite one in your debate!
@@oliverhug3 gossip? That’s a pretty strong claim. Did you watch the interview? It’s the title of his book based on the 1966 TIME cover, “Is God Dead?”
@@SeanMcDowell aaaaaand?
Because a book written almost 56 years ago this moron claims that we are dead?
This is kind of funny because at the beginning he talks about God of the gaps and how at the time of the publication of that first article scientists thought that belief in God would increasingly be a God of the gaps. Then he says that isn’t true. But both his arguments for the Big Bang theory and abiogenesis are just that argument. We don’t understand how these things happened, so therefore God did it is just a God of the gaps.
He doesn’t debate atheists….after listening to about five minutes of this, I can see why. Learn what evidence means then maybe he’ll have a chance.
He doesn't dare, he would be proved to be an idiot!!
I’m glad Eric has taken the time to put all of this in a more digestible form. I’ll be picking this one up
and yet it's all utter demagogy.
Thanks for the interview Sean, found it interesting and Eric engaging.
This happened to me a few weeks ago while reading your book! God of miracles.
What is a single dime worth?
Recently I was getting ready to go on a trip. It was a trip I was looking forward to as it involved seeing my grandchildren.
It was grandparents day at our second graders school that weekend.
They live 750 miles from us which necessitates an airplane ride to visit for the weekend.
I was packed and rolling my suitcase towards the family room to have my husband put into our car before leaving for the airport.
As the suitcase rolled across the wood floor into the family room a dime suddenly fell from somewhere onto the floor. I picked it up and looked around me wondering from where it had fallen. There was nothing on the outside of the suitcase that had any signs of a place for it to come from but I picked it up and tossed it onto my desk nearby.
When I picked up the dime from the floor I remembered thinking for some strange reason how small and light it was, why I marveled at the size and weight of the small dime, I was unaware.
Off to the airport I went and eventually onto the airplane.
I had taken a book I wanted to continue reading as it has had so many amazing details about the story of our origin and very existence that I have found to be remarkable, you might even say, miraculous.
So after settling into my seat on the airplane, read a few chapters I did!
I continued to marvel at the revelations I was reading and the many details which were so curiously reflective of a purposeful design and thoughtful designer.
After arriving in Nashville and retrieving my luggage from the baggage claim I continued my journey to my daughter’s house where I was so looking forward to those faces I love as much as you can love anyone’s face.
They are reflections of the kind of love you can remember feeling when seeing your own children‘s little faces at that age and knowing you could never love anyone as much as you love them.
On arrival, there they were, my favorite little boy faces!
After greeting those beautiful faces, my precious 2nd grader offered to help me take my overpacked suitcase into the house.
I rolled it across their wood floors into the room I would be staying.
A little later that day, I decided to retrieve something from my suitcase that I had brought for my daughter.
So I removed the outside cover that protects the suitcase from damage when traveling. It’s a weatherproof material that slides over the suitcase and fits snugly with straps to tighten it.
In other words, the suitcase itself is underneath this protective jacket.
So I pulled it off and proceeded to unzip my suitcase. As I unzipped and flung open the case to reveal the contents a strange occurrence happened.
A dime flew onto the wooden floor of my daughter’s room in which I had parked the suitcase.
I went over and picked up the dime and marveled again at another dime apparently coming out of nowhere and landing beside me on the floor.
I examined the contents of my suitcase and decided it was a strange coincidence that two dimes had now fallen to the floor in different cities beside my suitcase.
There were no other signs of any loose change inside my suitcase and as I picked it off the floor, again, I had the thought of how small and light the dime was and wondering where had it come from, just as earlier that morning a dime appeared out of nowhere 750 miles from where I now was standing.
But as with any seemingly coincidental occurrence I tossed the dime on a desk in my daughters house and went about the rest of the day.
We enjoyed a beautiful and special time that weekend together. Seeing my growing grandsons and having time together was a special treat for me.
Sunday arrived and it was once again time to head back to the airport.
Luggage bag checked at the airport, it was time to settle in for the trip back home.
I got out my book again and began to read….
“In his book, Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, Caltech astrophysicist Hugh Ross gives us the frightening details:
‘ at certain early epochs in cosmic history, (the universe’s) mass density must have been as finely tuned as one part in 10 to the 60th power to allow for the possible existence of physical life at any time or place with the entirety of the universe. This degree of fine-tuning is so great that it’s as if right after the universe beginning someone could have destroyed the possibility of life within it by subtracting a single dimes mass from the whole of the observable universe, or adding a single dime mass to it.”
What did I just read???
What was this scientific fact revealing to my curious mind and heart! I felt a lump in my throat beginning as I remembered the strange appearance of two dimes appearing out of nowhere that weekend and what my thought had been each time I picked them up from the floor, how I had marveled at the small lightweight of those two little, seemingly coincidental, coins that had garnered my attention.
On I began to continue reading….
“ A single dime’s mass. Everyone knows that the mass of a dime is almost nothing. Yet Hugh Ross declares that is the amount of mass that would have caused the universe not to come into being. Are we supposed to take this seriously? That the mass of a dime is what could have made the difference between our existence and non-existence? How can we rationally process something so outrageous? And yet science has progressed to the point where it can tell us this, as a fact. Still, the notion that the entire mass of the universe could not deviate by the mass of a single dime has to be among the most preposterous statements anyone has ever made in the history of language. But again, there is a monumental difficulty, because this is not the harebrained, conjecture of some madman, but the bloodless scientific consensus. It isn’t something that science can explain, of course, and it makes many scientist deeply uncomfortable. But there it is: an incomprehensibly outrageous scientific fact that stymies any thinking person into silence. What is there to say? “
As I continued to read Eric Metaxas’ book, titled, Is Atheism Dead?, the answer to his title question continues to persuade anyone reading it with a certainty of heart and mind…
My heart was moved to a silent awe of what I had previously been unaware, that a little dime could be worth so much! The world was indeed created in such a way to reveal all that was created to have great value, as seen on the faces we love and the gratitude we feel for their place in our lives. This purposefully created universe tells this story everywhere we look of intelligent design created for the purpose of love.
Tears filled my eyes as I sat still on the airplane watching the clouds roll past my window…the universe has a designer who loves us so much more than a single dime ❤️
For God so loved the world that He gave his only Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16
Eric got me excited to read C.S Lewis. Now I’m excited to read his new book. Fantastic Sean, thank you for this interview. 🙌🏾💪🏾
Maybe this Eric should actually read how moon formed and how atmosphere formed and changed and how life arise.
There is no such a thing as honest apologetic, they all so far twist and turn everything that doesn't fit their personal belief system and views, ridiculous way of adults to behave.
He definitely has biases. But the fine tuning, and not a provable/repeatable way to create life from non- life, and the other questions science can't answer yet, no one knows. I for one want to believe, but it's not easy.
@@tyemaddog Why do you want to believe?
Science has shown a way nature can make basic building blocks of life already. There is no designer needed.
Fine tuning argument is one of the shittiest arguments there are. Universe, earth and even life ain't fine tuned at all. We only survive on tiny portion of this planet and even tinier portion of this Universe. We can choke to death while eating, we can die in food allergies etc.
Reality is far from fine tuned, not even close.
Cool stuff. I grew up in New Mexico hearing about Dr Collins and his discoveries, crazy how long it takes for this info to start getting traction.
Great book!
Buy it tonight for the discount; it's the last day. Great interview, also! I'm sharing extra copies of the book with friends. It is very readable for such heady subjects and it's fun!
I love the conversations that you are starting on this site!
Just ordered my copy can’t wait to get it!
A grumpy kid in a corner needs a caring adult or mature friend to help them realise that love isn't far away.
We all must open up!
Dr. McDowell forgot to take his backpack off ☺️
I'm glad to see Metaxas here! Great conversation!
You can taste the confirmation bias in this chat 🤣
@@portlandoregonblade8697 yeah, I grant that, but I think it has a place in any dialogue on science at the pop level
@@Biblino Please explain why?
Talking about presuppositions. Am I right in thinking that part of Sean’s work contract doesn’t allow him to come to non Christian conclusions?
"At the level of about 1700BC" dating the layers based on what? Geologic column.
And he even knows how many trees where destroyed. Amazing! Simply AMAZING.
Going on to describe temperatures needed to melt bricks and pottery. This suggest the pottery and bricks where created using equally high heat
I’m going to go right now and order it!
Sean, I love Eric Metaxas - keep having the guests on that you want. You can't please everybody.
GREAT. VIDEO, lots of good information.
It's frustrating to hear, "If an atheist is being honest, they believe in God." That's a repeated phrase by apologists that is very dismissive. As an atheist, I've certainly been guilty of thinking, "Really? You believe in an invisible wizard in the sky? No you don't, you're just scared of dying", but that sort of thinking just puts my thoughts onto someone else without actually taking the time to understand what they are thinking themselves.
You think people believe in God because we are afraid of dying? How about believing in God because I'm afraid of living a meaningless, empty life because life is full of the daily grind and then we are worm food.
Why are you an atheist? Science does not support atheism.
@@les2997 Science does not support theism either. You merely take the same assertion... god did it, and double down on that problem is hard, so god must have done it. Let''s say a god did not do it, could your methodology come to any other conclusion? If you had the wrong god? Could it identify a different god? You can't invoke science if you don't use the scientific method.
@@dorothyanderson8124 did you read his entire post? Your comment seems to indicate that you didn't
@@TaylorWalston Science of course supports theism. Self-created Universe is a logical fallacy.
Is the entirety of Mr Metaxas’s book going to amount to “because I don’t understand it or comprehend it - God”. The argument from incredulity is not a strong one. The intellectually honest response “I don’t know” is often the best answer. Guessing that magic happened is shutting down enquiry and far from logical.
@ around 12:25 he descends fully into the argument from incredulity and God of the gaps. His book is obviously not aimed at those nominated in its title. Preaching to the choir is extremely lucrative, especially in the USA. Eric will have new toys for Christmas this year.
@@Simon.the.Likeable You obviously don't understand what's being said. He's not disputing that what is being described is crazy and therefore not true (Argument from Incredulity) or saying that we don't know how the earth got to it's current form (God of the Gaps).
He's making a teleological argument that the collision between Thea and the mars sized object which resulted in the current earth and the moon is so unlikely to have occurred, that for it to happen at all is literally a miracle and therefore evidence for God's existence.
@@grantgooch5834 Yet he isn't qualified in any relevant domain, and those that are (actual astrophysicists) do not share his view that it was a miracle involving a magical deity. Which is exactly what an argument from incredulity is. He is incredibly intellectually dishonest.
@@MrGabou77 there is not as clear a divide as you might think. Many astrophysicists find the likelihood of our current state problematic without concepts such as multiple dimensions. There is less evidence for a multiverse then intelligent design. I’m not saying we should all fall to our knees but the theory is being considered with more acceptance.
@@grantgooch5834 So, Eric not believing that the process so unlikely to have occurred without the divine intervention of a miracle is not an argument from incredulity, got it.
I'm getting this book. I just hope I have time to read it.
I pre-ordered his book and I'm halfway thru the digital version now. I've always enjoyed his insights and he's a favorite author for sure. I think his arguments provide more than enough compelling evidence to answer the question. Although, I do wonder about something and perhaps the specific topic will come up eventually and he'll give his thoughts. As a believer who believes in the Biblical creation, I am curious on Eric's thoughts on the idea of a young earth versus billions of years. I get how in the book he uses the idea of the big bang theory to point toward a creator. I'm just curious on his take of how that idea coincides with the Biblical account.
Check out some of Dr Hugh Ross' videos on UA-cam.
ua-cam.com/video/afXQomQ7Gqo/v-deo.html
I found this video to be pretty fascinating. Hope it helps!
Kinda crazy life occurs on planets where life can occur. (and 300! gives more than enough chance for life, and it is actually something more like 10!, there are not than many constants)
Ron Reagan, A proud man. Isn't that the issue?
"The James Tour Stuff" is especially interesting. "Chemistry does not care about life" but would have to in order for any OOl scenario to work.
Thank you gents! Much love your way! May our Lord bless you and call you forward into the work He has for you! I am built up by the work of Meyers, Axe, Behe, et al. I recall hearing the ID thesis and my heart leapt inside my chest. I could be intellectually consistent with what my experience and science told me was REALITY ..... I have a fallback "grandson fight stopper". Whenever my two grandsons begin to pick at each other and do the big brother, little twerp, stupid bully who doesn't know anything "play" ..... always right in the middle of the devotion which we begin with a fun outing to play B'ball or do some other favorite activity with grampa ...... I begin to knock on the dashboard of the Pilot and say ..... reality check guys ..... do you remember where we are and what is real and what is illusion (or more to the point that vapor the Bible tells us we live in) I remind them that nothing around us is what we perceive it to be ...... this vehicle that right now is keeping the rain from getting us wet is nearly 90% space and 10% particulate ..... yet we talk about how "solid" it is. Nothing around us is solid ..... it is 90% space and the Bible says that at this moment HE is holding it all together by His word. He chose to give you to each other as brothers, he wired you each to be different (amazingly the little "twerp" is rapidly catching up and may be over 6' close to his brothers projected full height of 6'4"ish. You are NOT accidents, today, this moment is a gift to us from God and typically after some more yay, yaying, I ask if they want to go back in the house (yep they typically don't even get ouf of the driveway before they are at one another. But then I remind them that that God who is at this moment is holding their very bodies together, has given them to each other as gifts. And that they have value ..... we recite the Declaration .... "We hold these truths ..... alll created equal, endowed (endowees have to have a high level of value to be the recipients of an endowment, and as mutual endowee's their value cannot be taken away by cruel words or powerful governments, their value is from the ONE who holds this Honda together at this very moment and HE sees each of them as valuable, ...... they are responsible to see each other the way that creator does as well ..... OTHERWISE they are not only trashing the endowed value of the other ...... they are trashing their own value. All gets silent, we invite the God of the illustriative flourish of events and scenario after scenario detailed in the Bible, that REAL being that source of our reality to come and do again the miracle of Bethelehem and come into the manger of our hearts. I pray that we would not be closed to that God, but invite Him into our current mundane, nitty gritty scenario and bring His peace. I try to always to a reality check when we get together. Perry
Beautiful! Keep being an awesome granddad. We need more like you!!
So to Eric Metaxas atheism is "I know there is no god". Atheism speaks to belief. Agnosticism speaks to knowledge. Someone who says "I know there is no god" is a nostic atheist. Nostic (knowledge) atheism ( belief). I would consider myself an agnostic atheist. I don't know there is no god but I don't believe there is.
Yeah he has no idea what atheism is... Just completely misrepresents it then goes on to say he thinks agnostic atheism is completely reasonable...
@Matt Msk I made it through the first seven minutes. Yeah, he’s basically arguing against a strawman the whole time. Both Dawkins and Hitchens clarified what most atheists think of when they think of atheism. This guy isn’t arguing against anything relevant to the real discussion.
You have been duped into accepting a false definition of atheism by internet-atheists.
This is how REAL (academic) atheists define atheism:
"Atheism is the rejection of theism: a-theism. Atheists maintain some or all of the following claims: that theism is false; that theism is unbelievable; that theism is rationally unacceptable; that theism is morally unacceptable. (G. Oppy, "Arguments for Atheism," S. Bullivant & M. Ruse, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Atheism (OUP, 2014), 53.")
Atheism makes affirmative claims. Anyone who says otherwise is misinformed.
_____
It´s ONLY soft agnosticism ("I don´t know") which does not make any claims.
You would be classified as a *irreligious* agnostic.
Gnostic, not Nostic.
@@SheikhMawini it is actually gnostic. I initially made that same mistake. 'a' is the prefix same as in atheist
Christians that are thoroughly unconvinced of the existence of Greek gods or the wide pantheon of gods across time and many, many cultures, are themselves atheists in regards to those gods, so Christians, is your atheism dying, does this assertion ring true in your circumstance, or is the question “is atheism dead”, simply an irrelevant youtube tag line?
Peter sounds like you're rehashing that ridiculous Richard Dawkins line.
Peter Griffin, that argument is beyond lame. That’s a Ricky Gervais position that holds no water. There are statues of those created gods but there is no evidence that they existed. Smh.
@@anthonywhitney634 was it Dawkins? I heard Ricky Gervais use it in conversation with Steven Colbert. Really can’t stomach any of these new atheists. They misrepresent and in Hitchens case, it really seems he has a dislike for Yahweh. “I don’t believe in Him but I hate Him “
@@michaelbrickley2443 I heard it from Dawkins but they recycle each others material so who knows.
@@anthonywhitney634
Anthony, it sounds like you are rehashing that ridiculous (Christian that doesn’t get the statement or definitions of words) line🤷🏻
An atheist is just someone who asks for evidence. This chap uses the word repeatedly but doesn’t produce any. I suspect he doesn’t actually understand what the word means.
However, he would really like you to buy his book anyway.
If you want to make money, religion is the way to go....especially if you pander to Christians.💥
Well, first of all even if believing that god does not exist has to be taken off of the table, atheism is not dead, or it then depends on the definitions. Most atheist will claim that atheism simply refers to the lack of belief in a god (which, mind you, is NOT believing that god does not exist) and often strong atheism or active atheism will then refer to the actual position of disbelieving a god can exist. As such, perhaps one could state that "Strong Atheism is Dead".
Anyway, a different issue I take with Eric Metaxas' stance is regarding what it means to lack belief in a god. Consider some mythical beast that most people would believe does not exist, like pixies or gnomes. These creatures follow many of the same lines a god would, i.e. they act in mysterious ways (and thus people could have "experiences" with them) and they cannot be disproven, and perhaps people could even make claims to why its likely that they exist or that they are necessary. In any case, I would consider myself apixyist and agnomist, i.e. I lack the belief that these exists. However, this does not mean that I simply say who knows if they exist *shrug*. I heavily lean towards disbelieving in them even though I would never make this claim. And I believe many atheist take this same position when it comes to god or gods, even though they wouldnt claim that no god exists, they will lean towards dsbelieving in gods thus making them effectively strong atheists. More specifically on a scale of 0 to 1, where 0 is believing god does not exist and 1 is believe god does exist, they will take a position that is smaller than 0.5. People that are higher on this scale would perhaps think of themselves as spiritual or they might have a weak belief in some god that does not conform to any particular religion. Thus, they would most likely lack the descriptor atheist. I am saying this, since, in the debate between theists and atheists I often feel like theists assume that atheist are just smaller than 1 on that scale and as long as the mean of atheists is above 0.5 they are "winning the argument". In conclusion, him saying "It is no longer possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" is very questionable or well just wrong. I would say I am honest with myself and I would say I am an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
Anyway I always love feedback, so feel free to bash on this.
Basically what he really refuting (which even some scholar atheist will agree) is the new atheist statement that "there is NO evidence for God." I've seen some atheist admit there is some evidence that favors theism.
Agnostic Atheist here, I agree with the statement that if we’re intellectually honest we should be Agnostic. However, I believe that applies to Theism, as well as Atheism. We need to have more discussions about what we believe in, it is a fantastic mental exercise not enough of us do. 😁
I don't believe in things. Give me evidence and if the evidence is strong enough I will trust it, no belief needed.
We are having discussion about what atheism is, but these apologetics just don't want to understand it. It's just answer to one question, Do you think/believe in god/gods - No (atheist), gnostic or agnostic is personal matter...but no honest person would claim to know that no god type beings are not possible. Still there is no belief needed not to think gods are not real when looking at the evidence.
Apologetics just don't want to understand this and keep strawmaning what atheism is. It's kind of ridiculous as they claim to be so smart and wise yet they can't understand simple basic thing. Go figure!
We have heard of mutton being dressed up as lamb; Chucky Darwin's gee whiz bang theory is masturbation dressed up as hard science. A viral pox on the bastards such as Dicky Dawkins, who continue peddling it....all at taxpayer's expense of course.
if atheism is dead why are christians leaving the faith in droves.....doubt they are going to become Muslims
internet will be the death knell for christianity not so much for islam
Everyone is agnostic when it comes to a god. We don't know.
One is a belief claim, the other is a knowledge claim
I read Mr. Metaxas' Bonhoeffer bio and it was nice. I lost my trust in him when he lead on TBN with a Nancy Pelosi joke -- one of those just the mention of her is the joke jokes -- and I said, this guy is not a straight shooter.
Nancy Pelosi is a joke.
@@SheikhMawini Politics and faith all mixed up, says to me.
@@SheikhMawini Name a politician that isn't, honestly.
I mean, he calls Greg Locke a hero. That’s the preacher who prances about the stage while yelling that Tom Hanks is a pedophile satanist.
@@rgmrtn your faith will inform your politics lol
An interesting note for those YEC still out there is that Wayne Grudem has changed his position to one compatible with OEC.
So we should change our position cause Wayne Grudem did? Thanks, I'll let the Bible dictate my position.
I’m not a scientist. I was born and raised in the Presbyterian Church with parents who taught Sunday School so I took my faith for granted. I first heard about the fine tuning listening to a pastor named Lisandro Bojorquez in El Salvador. I gained confidence in my belief in the Flood and other challenges to evolution listening to a young man who moved to the States from Mexico when he was ten, I think. His name is Jorge Cota and his radio program on Radio Progreso 90.5 was More on Life. He claims to have learned from David T. More (sp?) but I never heard him speak.
Yea...all that is bullshit mate.
People are lying to you.
It's funny that things about the flood convince you, but no scientist
Gross, why would you platform Eric? This guy is completely nuts.
If someone had any good evidence for any god claim then it would certainly help to erradicate athiesm.
No date: nothing, nada, zilch.
Got my book today!
Most scientists aren’t Christians and most are quite happy with the research so far.
Whats ur source? I tried to look that up and what i found was different. Thats true for USA but not world wide. I found studies who showed that if the majority of a countries ppl believe in god, the majority of scientist of that country dont but if the majority of a countries ppl dont believe in god, the majority of scientist of that country do believe in god.
Majority rule does not dictate truth :)
Thanks
Someone please tell me how an infinite number of universes is any more absurd than an actual mind with an infinite amount of power creating just one universe. You can't say that it's absurd to assume something because of infinity and then assert that your claim is more reasonable when that very claim itself reduces into an infinity.
This isn't even to argue that it actually makes more sense for an infinite number of universes to exist, ESPECIALLY if a god exists because if god is infinite and given actus purus he can't have any potential, then an infinite potential for creation would necessarily only be satisfied by an infinite actualization. If our universe exists and we have no reason to assume that others cannot also exist, there is no reason to believe that ours is the only one. It's that simple.
There are approximately 200 billion trillion stars, about half with planets. It doesn't matter how many factors you want to add to fine tuning, the odds are still multiple possible life bearing planets in every single galaxy
I can't wait for the day that apologetics isn't dominated by biblical literalists.
What caused the infinite universes then? Because it wasn't the big bang since that happened in each universe after they were all created so what created the multiverse itself?
@@hdb9336 Given our lack of knowledge, it's entirely plausible that there may be a property of universes that is self causing in of itself. So it's not that something is causing them to exist, but that they cause themselves. Also, it's entirely possible that there is a generative property of something outside, but I still stand by the idea of it being a disembodied mind with a will and awareness of its own to be just as absurd any other idea we've concocted thus far. When we attempt to abductively know propositions about a realm that currently only exists in our imaginations, we are subjecting ourselves to an ignorance propelled by the hubris of the human mind
Dr. Sean! You're UA-cam channel has really grown. I remember watching when you had 10 or 20,000 subscribers. Congrats. Praise God! Blessings to you.
Thanks Ben. It’s humbling and thrilling at the same time. I’m glad it’s helpful!
@@SeanMcDowell Although I'm an atheist, I do find Sean McDowell a well read, talented and charitable apologists, one of the better IMHO.
Thats it. Im worshipping Juoiter from now on.
Thanks Jup'
Can’t wait to read his book. Yay!! Exciting!! God bless you!!! 🙏❤️
The natural mind looks and waits, repeats under the sun, your smart but blind. Ecclesiastes 3:15: “That which is, already has been; that which is to be, already has been; and God seeks what has been driven away.” The “natural man” cannot grasp that, for to him reality is based only on the evidence of the senses. The man of reason could justify the verse’s end, saying if it has any meaning then the writer must mean recurrence. The sun comes every day and the moon completes its cycle and the seasons come and go. If we took a picture of the universe today, the scientists can compute how long it will take to return to this point in the picture. So the intellectual man could justify the verse; but that is not what is meant, for it is addressed not to the man of reason or the man of sense, but to the man of Imagination. What is it all about? “That which is, already has been; that which is to be, already has been, and God seeks what has been driven away.”
I think it's fascinating to hear and see discussions between theists and atheists mainly because I am born in a country where religion(christianity) doesn't have a lot of impact. Atheism is way more common. I stand firmly in my disbelief after hearing a lot of arguments from both sides and I honestly can't find it resonable to believe in a god, any god that I know of. A hundred years ago we also were a mostly religious (christianity) country, but I think we since then have moved in an atheist direction with education (scientific methods, critical thinking, etc.), separation of church and state and most important separation of church and school . I think indoctrination of kids is poisoning their minds and ability to rationaly come to a conclusion about religion. We show our kids many different beliefs that people around the world have without proclamating that any of them är true or false. Anyone is aloud to belive in whatever, but most don't because they have learned how to be rational and scientific. Atheism is definitly not dead!
You are definitely showing the disadvantages of indoctrinating kids, as you clearly were indoctrinated against the rational thought as discussed in this video.
@@melodymiller8268 Congratulations! You are now the proud new owner of a tu quoque logically fallacy!
Cosmic airburst event? You mean lightning?
Aurora Borealis?
He says Einstein introduced the cosmological constant because he was intimated by the scientific establishment and the religious implications of an expanding universe. Is that true?
No. He added it to get his model of a static universe correct, in 1917. 14 Years later he removed it again because of the Hubble constant, which implies an expanding universe. That model (which implies the Big Bang) was developed by the atheist commie Alexander Friedmann and the catholic priest Georges Lemaitre. The latter warned that this model cannot and should not be used against atheism. So religious implications had nothing to do with it. Neither had the scientific establishment or both Friedmann and Lemaitre would have been "expelled".
Thanks for your question. It makes clear that this video is not worth my time.
No. The truth about the cosmological constant was to allow for a static universe, because that was the scientific consensus, and Einstein did not want to go all the way, to which his theory lead. However when evidence for an expanding universe were shown (1929, Hubble), he changed his mind and said it was his biggest blunder. Now the cosmological constant is still in the equation but with opposite sign to explain the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
Jupiter's gravity also jostles objects in the asteroid belt and sends them careening out of the belt and into the inner planets, so Jupiter giveth and Jupiter taketh away.
Glass half full much?
@@utopiabuster The cosmos giveth and the cosmos taketh away. Life/Death, Evolution/Extinction, Health/Illness. You think you are at the top of the food chain only to discover microbes feasting on you and your children. Look up my piece on the Secular Web, “Why we believe in a designer”
@@edwardtbabinski cringe
The retro spins of Venus and Uranus are great proof of a Creator with purpose for the creation
@@kb-mt8vr Or maybe Google,
Apr 30th: Why Do Venus and Uranus Spin The Wrong Way?
at cosmoquest
From a Christian perspective I believe the Athiest community is growing in many different aspects.
My husband is an Atheist and on a daily basis listens to many different Atheist podcast and follows many of the popular Atheist channels on YT, FB & Instagram and watches or listens to a variety of channels here at home or on his phone and otw to work or anytime and chance he has the opportunity to. Whether the discussion is about a topic concerning the LGBTQ community, politics, to the regular debates or call ins about about Religion vs Atheism he's constantly in touch with what is going on in general, in the two communities (religious vs Atheist) and I do the same with my Christian following but honestly he's more in tune and the knowledgeable one, while I'm always trying to catch up as the stay at home mom..sigh* he keeps me on my toes I'll tell you.
Not in academia. There it is in decline and has been for decades.
It´s only in the unwashed crowd on the internet where it is somewhat growing - though that is not a compliment, if atheism needs to retreat to the internet to get traction.
@@hhstark8663 And the atheism on the interwebs is a political/cultural thing more than a philosophical movement. Claiming "atheism" now is more of a passcode into a clubhouse than a declaration of ontology.
The best thing you can do in my opinion is not look at how something appears but look at it for what it actually is. What is seen is that your husband might be given to being in touch with all of these things going on in the atheist and religious communities, but his heart being attached to all these things has implications of things unseen, and if you can discover those unseen things, it would give you somewhat of an advantage in your interactions with your husband in my opinion. In other words, you listen for what is not being said, and you watch for what is not seen, and this would give you insight to see a situation for what it is rather than how it appears, and this might give you wisdom that would not be found in keeping up with these communities, because it will show you something new that may not be said or taught in these communities, and if you can gain a wisdom from observing and letting God give you revelation in what to do based on the Truth rather than mere appearance, then it would seem that your husband would be having to catch up with you rather than you having to catch up with the community.
It may not necessarily be the case that you would have to keep up with the community in order to have something valuable or significant to offer.
_________
Also, keep in mind that it is not just an intellectual issue regarding unbelievers, though one might insist that really is the case. I think the individual who hosts this channel is aware of that which is why he's taking a more friendly approach toward atheists, because there may be a heart issue involved that an unbeliever is not aware of or detecting.
It is these unseen things that a believer needs to become aware of.
If one were to ask Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus, "Why did you betray Jesus", Judas would of course have given his rationale and reasons for what he would consider is his rational mind as to why he is betraying Jesus, just as when you would ask an unbeliever "why don't you believe", one would give his or her reasons that they feel are rational and arguments toward why they hold their views, but even though Judas Iscariot could have had actual reasons for his denial of Jesus and betrayal of him, it was also the case that Satan had entered into Judas Iscariot which influenced his thinking in response to Jesus in that way, which means even though there might be a rationale for something, that is not where the issue originates, even if that's what the unbeliever believes. It originates from the supernatural, because there's a supernatural reason that underlies the rationale one has against God, and that ultimately would seem to mean that rational arguments or logical discussions alone may not always convince the listener, *but a change of heart.*
If you're going to try to speak to atheists, you have to use wisdom, and wisdom *goes beyond* "being educated". It's a heart condition.
Sometimes wisdom *has nothing to do* with how educated you are, but the condition of a person's heart which influences once eyes to see the truth for what it is, because a person can be blind to it.
For example, if you remember Cipher from the movie The Matrix, even though he had the truth and knew the Matrix was a lie, because of a heart condition, he still rejected the truth and wanted to make himself willingly ignorant of the truth in order to return back to the Matrix.
That's not to say that those who live in The Matrix don't have wisdom or don't have an education, and that's not even to say that there aren't some truths to the blue pill, but it is to say that one would have to look at how something appears on the surface rather than what it actually is, and the heart is connected to one's ability to see the unseen, and to understand what is not being said, and this would give you insight in how to approach your husband.
To give an example of seeing what is not seen and hearing what is not heard, and this is the true definition of biblical faith:
In the Old Testament, Moses sends Joshua and Caleb, 10 spies to search out the Promised Land. The 10 spies return and gave an evil report (the blue pill🔵), while Joshua and Caleb gave a good report (the red pill🔴). Those who gave an evil report we're saying things like "We cannot take the land! They are mightier than we, and we are weaker than them. They are more skillful in battle. They are larger in number. They are huge and we are like grasshoppers in their sight". I'm paraphrasing, of course. the scripture says that they said the words were "we are grasshoppers in their sight", but I hope you will understand I'm trying to paint a picture. You know what the interesting thing is about the evil report? they used what was *true* to come to their conclusion. when you speak to your husband, he will use things that are true to come to his conclusions *in some cases.*
However, they who gave a good report 🔴 were not like those who gave the evil report 🔵. Those who gave the good report, the red pill, understood something that those of the blue pills did not understand, because as they viewed the land, they remembered how God was with them and delivered them from the egyptians, how God was with them in Egypt in pillars of fire and smoke, how the might of God's voice was so great that the people said "speak to us and we will hear, but don't let God speak to us lest we die", and God had delivered them from other people who fought against them, and so they knew that God would also deliver them of the promised land into their hands, and the might and strength in numbers of the people of those Nations became irrelevant even though it was true that they were strong.
with that said, there's a difference between that which "is true", and *THE TRUTH.* There is a difference... between... what is true... and... *THE TRUTH.*
*PART 2*
Your husband, not being a believer, will offer you what is true, because he will use how things appear on the surface, all of the things which pertains to the flesh because he does not believe in the spiritual. THE TRUTH is that which underlies the things that are physically seen, which is one the direct message of The Matrix film.
When you speak and interact with your husband, be patient and watch and observe and listen *in faith.* You will see things you wouldn't have seen when you do that.
Both the blue pill 🔵 and the red pill 🔴used things that were true to come to the conclusion. However, there's a blue pill interpretation and a red pill interpretation, one of them having a correct perspective and another one having an incorrect perspective, and it was the condition of the heart that distorts the view of the truth, even if one is using what is true to come to that conclusion, which means that a person can be deceived by observing things how they appear rather than what it actually is.
Thus, when an atheist says "faith is believing things without evidence", this is a blue pill conclusion which looks at how something appears on the surface. One of the true definitions of faith, in my opinion, is to have *insight,* to see something as it truly is rather than how it merely appears.
God will give you wisdom, because the wisdom of God is opposite or opposed to the wisdom of this world. they are not the same kinds of wisdom, and this is why the unbeliever cannot come to believe, because the wisdom of God is a stumbling block to the world because the nature of the Supernatural is different than the nature of the natural, and they are seemingly opposites, hence why the unbeliever believes faith is absurd and yet it is still the truth, just as is the message in The Matrix 4 Resurrections trailer concerning the psychiatrist who wore the blue glasses while interviewing the mental patient who actually had the truth, Thomas Anderson, Neo. (I encourage you to watch The Matrix 4 trailer for reference).
____________
The conscious mind of a person and the person's subconscious are two different things, and a person can say one thing in his conscious mind but subconsciously disagree or contradict with his own sayings of what he claims to believe. For example, an atheist would not acknowledge the existence of the spirit in his expression of love. An atheist might say that "love is a chemical, oxytocin, and it is also accompanied by a state of the brain".
However, what a person truly lives out may suggest what a person actually believes in spite of what he claims from his worldview, and when a given spouse shows true genuine belief in love and treats it as a powerful thing, then he is treating it as *something more* than a drug called "oxytocin" or a mere idea, *but (again) something more.* So, a person's subconscious is telling you one thing where love is more or greater than just an idea or drug, but one also has the conscious state of a person's mind that says it is "only a thought or a drug or chemical", and these two things are contradictory. This is why it is possible for an atheist to live out a contradictory life to that which he claims to believe, and this is why a person can actually believe himself when he says "I believe love is a chemical, but this is because he's appealing to the *conscious state* of his mind and rational thought process but not the subconscious which lives out *something different.*
For example, if an atheist says that love is just a chemical or an idea, and then that same person says to his spouse something along the lines of "I love you with all of my heart", then one is taking love *outside* of the realm of what he claims love is.
The term "heart" in "I love you with all my heart" does not refer to the muscle that pumps blood in your body, it is in reference to *the center, the core* of one's being. It's just as we would say "the heart of the matter". When someone expresses love this way, he's saying he has *a soul.* The expression means *"I am spiritually attached to you".* In that moment, an unbeliever is subconsciously acknowledging he has a soul, and the spouse who's receiving his love is also acknowledging it when he or she loves the person back.
This means that an unbeliever ultimately knows... but it is also possible for an unbeliever to only appeal to his conscious mind to deny that he knows.
This is why I believe we would not express love this way: "oh honey, I have this chemical sensation being released in my body which I'm labeling is love for you".
It would seem that the meaning which comes from this expression diminishes What Love Is, not only because it is a lengthier expression, but because one is saying it is nothing more than a chemical, and the chemical of love being only a drug would be no different than any other drug or sensation and no more meaningful. Indigestion would be just as meaningful as love. Any drug that you can think of would be just as meaningful. just fill in the blank. This is why when we applying deep affection at this level, we are treating it as something more than a mere chemical or idea, pointing to the supernatural, and therefore pointing to God's existence.
An unbeliever can respond and say "we develop love through evolution because love helps us survive", but that is not really an answer to the issue, because that doesn't mean we *don't* treat love as something more (pointing to God), it in fact is grasping toward certain things that may even be true, but it distorts from other things that are true that give a fuller picture, such as this aspect of love which doesn't go away simply because one is able to reference it's "usefulness" in evolution. This is why it would seem to be a blue pill response.
Explaining a natural aspect of the physical chemicals of love does not mean that there isn't a supernatural aspect, and the point is not about denying that there is a natural aspect, it is pointing out that we live contrary to what we claim love ultimately is, so that while one might explain the evolutionary process, and explain the release of oxytocin in the body, or explain the status of one's mind, a person will contradict his own denial of It's supernatural connection through the way he lives and the way he loves which treats it has more than just the chemical or an idea, but something real beyond words that cannot be described, and no explanation can do it justice, which is why it has to be expressed through songs, or through theatrical plays, or through movies and illustrations, and art, because the significance is deeper than what words can describe, and when we treat love this way, we take it outside of the realm of mere ideas or chemicals but are acknowledging that there's some kind of Truth connected to it that is not part of physical reality or what we physically observe.
That's why I would say a person cannot ultimately deny that there is something more about love, because even that person will contradict his own denial of it by the way he lives and the way he loves.
With that, I just want to remind a person listening to this that he should listen for what is not being said, and see what is not seen on the surface in order to gain the truth beyond how something merely appears, and pureness of the heart of the one reading this will assist in its proper interpretation.
The heart is connected to one's discovery of the truth...
Hebrews 3:15 - ...To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts...
@@hhstark8663 Do you have any data to back up that claim my dude?
All I can find is studies that say that scientists across the board identify less as religious than the general population. Do you have any studies showing that developing over time?
Isaiah 44:24 quotes G-d as saying he is stretching the heavens by himself. The Hebrew verb Netah is used in the participle form meaning that G-d alone is stretching the heavens. Seems like what Einstein discovered about the expansion of the universe confirms what the prophet Isaiah of blessed memory quoted G-d as saying
Professor Dave has a series of videos debunking James Tour
Your question makes absolutely no sense.. (Is atheism dead?)
Another ridiculous way to put that would be..
"Is needing more proof and evidence of a Creator dead?".
Come on Sean, you've interviewed atheists before. It sounds as if you still have no idea what atheism is.
It's what the book was called wasn't it, also a turn around for the book "Is God dead", did you watch the video, I thought it was respectful to atheists
@@hannahhannah5742 Wait, so he wrote a Christian Apologetics book to counter another Christian Apologetics book? Are Christians trying to eat themselves from the inside out?
@@-._.-KRiS-._.- No I believe it was a Dawking book that he was critiquing but I watched the video a while ago now
@@-._.-KRiS-._.- But even if it wasn't, do you not think it's good to critique any book to ensure that they are accurate and methodical. It is how science works, someone puts forward an idea and it gets critiqued so we come to an accurate representation of the truth
The "God is dead" concept is much older than the 1966 Time magazine cover story that is referred to at the start of this video: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead
Actually, that concept is in a way reflected in the conversation between Eve and the Serpent in Genesis. Did God really say...? That provocative and misleading question seems to imply that the God of the Scriptures is not real. The meaning of everything is irrelevant to the natural human. Eve's reaction to that question could have been more humble, admitting that she wasn't sure but then going back to the source of the questioned statement and verifying it. But rather that double-checking what she wasn't sure about, she accepted the provocative and misleading suggestion at face value without verification. That's our human nature. Just look at many comments in this video. We tend to say things without understanding them well.
I preordered the book! This channel over the last few months has become a great resource for new reading material, and I'm grateful for that :)
The more we learn the less we know ,what a coincidence ?!
Ok so let me make sure I understand this. Things are amazing(beauty argument) therefore, a lack of belief in the supernatural is dead??
bUt LoOk aT tHe tReEs!
Painfully misunderstood. Eric is not a scientist, he is a respected host and communicator, his books are collections of research and theories from established scientific resources. Astrophysicists are facing increasingly more complex odds when explaining life without concepts such as the multiverse which have less evidence then the theory of intelligent design. Agnosticism is more widely accepted within the scientific community, atheism is no longer a intellectual high ground to build your house upon.
@@JamFactoryUK I respect your position but these are not new concepts. The argument from beauty is nothing new. For my part, Atheism is not a philosophical position, it is not a religion and does not require faith. Eric is irresponsible for categorizing atheist as such. It's a sorry attempt to shift the burden of proof. With all do respect my friend and I mean it, I just don't believe that there is any evidence for any God and as the gaps close, our numbers grow leaving less room for mythological explanations. I wish you the best and appreciate your engagement.
//Painfully misunderstood. Eric is not a scientist//
Oh don't worry, I understood that quite well. :)
//Astrophysicists are facing increasingly more complex odds when explaining life without concepts such as the multiverse which have less evidence then the theory of intelligent design.//
I don't think that the multiverse is necessary to explain life. I'm not sure how relevant it is to the origins of life, to be honest. There are likely trillions upon trillions of planets in our universe. It seems that *some* of them would be suitable to life, even if those conditions are exceedingly rare. That alone is enough to address all of Eric's "local fine tuning" points. For universe level fine tuning, I'm not convinced that the universe *is* all that fine tuned. Sure, if things were different than life *as we know it* may not have evolved...but that doesn't mean no life would. I don't think we know enough about how life comes about to say with much precision what range of conditions would lead to life and what ones wouldn't.
In any case, I don't think it's that people don't want to accept ID so they flee to the multiverse. Multiverse falls out naturally from some inflationary models of the early universe. It is likely we live in a universe that underwent early inflation. That doesn't mean we live in a multiverse, but it at least maeks it a plausible idea worth exploring.
//Agnosticism is more widely accepted within the scientific community, atheism is no longer a intellectual high ground to build your house upon.//
Can you define what you mean by agnosticism & atheism? When I say I'm an atheist, I mean that I do not believe in a god, but I do not have any epistemic certainty about it (belief != knowledge), since the god concept is ill-defined and likely unfalsifiable in principle. The last Pew poll I saw on the topic was from 2009 and indicated that 51% of scientists believed in some kind of "higher power". That may have changed since then, but at least as of that point it doesn't seem like there was this huge revival of religiosity among scientists. (www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/) If you have more recent data I'd love to see it.
Regardless, unless there's some hidden gem in his book that Eric for whatever reason chose to leave out of his interview, there's nothing new here. It's the same old arguments we've been hearing from creationists for years, sometimes decades.
Among other things, such as our genetic code being arbitrary...the failure of abiogenesis etc etc. There are multiple fatal holes in evolution.
As long as I'm alive atheism will endure. Despite the provocative clickbait title I will tune in to see what Sean has to say. He has earned my respect through honest dialog with Drew(GMS)
Atheism is Dead.
@@Bolagh Thanks for that. Now you get back to guarding your bridge.
It’s the title of his new book. I agree that it’s provocative and went back and forth on it…
By the way, thanks for watching David!
I love you brother God bless you
Yes, if conditions on Earth hadn’t worked out to be just right for humans to evolve, then we wouldn’t be here - but perhaps something else would be.
In other words, some other potential types of lifeforms got screwed.
Eric is making it seem like the first cells were as complex as is currently. No one thinks this. The first cells might have been as simple as a cell wall with different chemical climates on the inside and outside allowing for energy exchange. Not even life yet. The only thing needed for this non-life cell to grow increasingly complex and -possibly- become life, would be for it to be able to exist for long enough to become more complex and split.
Total assumption. You don’t know that.
@@dco8886 yes. Just like his assumption that it's impossible for cells to form naturally is unfounded.
33:00 what about all the people who struggled with religion and came to atheism, I guess them (you know the 30% of the popution) dont exist
How do the live chats here attract so many trolls who have no interest in any substantive discussion. No other christian live chats I've ever seen are this bad. You must really be doing something right
My thoughts exactly. I just close the chats it's too distracting. I think most atheist feel we as Christians are anti-intellectual. At least for me I came to Christ in the reverse. I investigated the data and for me it was enough. Christianity has the most coherent answer to origin meaning morality and destiny.
I get people always challenging my views however I'm so grounded and my life is a living testimony of how it changed my desires.
@@abullard8409 I had a very similar journey. That is exactly why i want to engage on these topics, even in brief in a youtube chat, and there just isn't any constructive dialog
@@tombadil5164 The bottom line is when a person has closed their mind to the possibility then they're committed to their views we can't change it 🤷
I find that most atheist won't even hear my views on there being a transcendent being, let alone Jesus and the resurrection.
@@abullard8409 About atheists - I talked with some person, who is an atheist, about how many people are non-believers in my country,Poland - And according to data, it was around 9-10% of the entire population - around 81 percent were believers and around 8 percent (iirc) was A devout believers
I showed him a data - and he literally tried to find excuses, to prove to me that there are more atheists than the data shows...
For example, he came up With idea that "they must have used some church documents - and that's why there are so many believers - Because only few people actually did an apostasy" - he completely ignored that this Poll was done by Self-declaration of participants
he also tried to argue,that "there is more atheists than 10%, because he sees that people around him are basically only the atheists or agnostics, so there must be more than 9-10% of atheists"
Also, he argued that "group of 3000 People (that was the representative sample of that poll) could not reflect the views of 38 000 000 people - If the people doing the poll wanted to be taken seriously, they should have ask all 38 million people in poland"
This guy, as well as many other atheists in comments in that group and under video about that date, could not understand, what the "representative sample" is.
But they all acted so "smug" and so "sophisticated", while making huge amount of logical fallacies - Anegdotical evidence, Consensus bias and many more.
@@abullard8409 - are you open to the idea that there is no god? Have you seriously entertained the idea? You may have, but unfortunately my hunch is that a majority of believers once in, wall themselves off to ever being wrong about the spiritual realm. For those of us who have left the faith, some of us have done so with much tears shed and personal/relational risk. Yes, we may come across as obstinate, but once one changes such a radical belief, it’s hopefully understandable that there is a bit of a mess to work through.
Fantastic interview. In worship I can only say "Our God is an awesome God, He reigns from heaven above, With wisdom, power, and love, Our God is an awesome God". 🙌
Life would have started regardless just not us. As far as James Tour is concerned please see professors Dave Explains video on Tour
ua-cam.com/video/SixyZ7DkSjA/v-deo.html
Haha..."professor" Dave. James tour's responses blew "professor's" attacks out of the water.
@@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831 are you sure you looked at the same video I did?
AMAZING, AMAZING, AMAZING.
Well, as soon as christians start doing miracles like Jesus promised they would in John 14:12-14 etc (healing via prayer amputated arms & legs would be a good start) then I'll start paying more attention to all these obtuse & obfuscated arguments for gods existing.
There are many miracles in the Catholic Church connected to the Saints. There are very strict criteria for miracles too. The issue is no one questioning God sees this as "evidence".
@@christianthinker2536 Show me one re-attached limb. Just one.
Ridiculous. 🤣
"Look around you" is not proof of god, try harder.
Most of you weak heathens who dismiss God are chews on fake accounts. This dot is more worth than you are ------------------------>.
Try looking at Jupiter in the souther hemisphere. Lovely and bright.
Metaxas is always fun to listen to .
claiming this universe is fine, tuned is not evidence that this universe is fine tuned. So that claimed evidence is, is not evidence, and just one big assertion.
Claiming that it isn’t isn’t evidence that it isn’t
@@SheikhMawini
Do what, that does not change anything that I have ready wrote.
Luke 17: (hint) 20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Yep. It's make-belief. That's why it's _"within you"_
A meaning without god! Are you serious! Life only has meaning if you know it will come to an end. As far as I see there is no meaning in a life that you know will never end.
Hmmmm ?
Ever rode in a hot air balloon ?
Metaxa is a rather unpleasant greek version of whisky.
Leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth.
Which scientific research papers have pointed toward gods btw? Love to read those.
I like how McDowel refers to a universe fint-tuned 'in our vicinity' lol. Go 2 miles up into the atmosphere and see how long you survive. Or 1 kilometre under water to see how well you breath.
I never heard of Metaxa (apart the unpleasant alcoholic drink) and i now know why.
It has been dead since the fall of man...
What lots of people (even pastors) don't (yet) understand.
God created us according to His own image and likeness. Godly.
Mankind/the first Adam fell. The image of God in man got lost. That's why there is all this predicament on earth (selfishness, greed, lust, wars, sicknesses, death, etc).
We are all born into that mess.
For the fall of man a perfect atoning sacrifice had to be made.... that is what God did in Christ.
With His own once and for all perefect sacrifice, He paid the debt for the fall of man for us, so we can be indwelled by His Spirit again and finally receive the divine life of the ages back, the first Adam let got of in the fall of man. An amazing act of grace and love by our creator.
That is what you see happening in Christ's first disciples. They too healed all and walked in unselfish love.
And yes.... that is still avaible today. The holy blood is in place, the Holy Spirit is here to give us understanding, power and transform us back to origin.
Not to be debated about, but to be embraced and be-come.
So: The Kingdom of God already came. Through Christ, in Spiritform, in those that understand.
Hence the divine healing miracles we experience.
God manifested in Christ to give us back the divine life mankind lost in the fall of Adam.
Christ, the exact image of the invisible God.
The image we were created after in Gen 1.
The image we lost in the fall of man.
The image that can be freely restored by Christ's blood and Holy Spirit working IN us.
What a plan. What a solution. What a love. What a God. Jesus is amazing.
It is the ultimate conclusion of the word and plan of God. God came full circle.
He Himself stooped down from glory to restore us back to original created value: Christlikeness. Walking in divine healing power and unselfish love.
Jesus, born of the Spirit of God, filled with the spirit of God. The "Son" of God, the incarnated word, God in the flesh.
For three years He healed all, raised the dead, casted out demons, controlled nature, spoke pure divine truth.
He said:
"Follow Me. If you see Me, you see the Father. The Father and I are one. The glory I have IN My Father, I give to you. It pleases the Father to give you His Kingdom/Holy Spirit/divine nature. I will send Holy Spirit, the same as Me, He will be IN you, guide you into truth and give you explosive power. The same miracles i do, you will do too, because you will understand that the Father is IN Me and I am IN you. Freely I give you My Kingdom/Holy Spirit/divine nature, heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out demons, freely I give, freely share" Etc, etc, etc.
I have experienced thousands of beautifull healing miracles through the power of Holy Spirit IN me already. Broken bones, cancers, covid, all kinds of infirmities healed in seconds. Demons manifesting and casted out by a simple "get out, in Jesus name".
Jesus. De name above all names. In Him all power and wisdom is sourced and.... He calls us one with Him. God in man and man in God again. C'mon Jesus!!
So.... again: God stooped down IN Christ to restore us back to Gen 1:27 were He said: "Let us make man according to our image and likeness and let them have authority.....": walk as Christ.
Christ, the exact image of the invisible God. The image we were created after and being restored to by His atoning blood for the fall of man and indwelling Holy Spirit.
You are free to receive this original divine life of the ages by Holy Spirit of Christ/God. Ask Him to guide you into truth. Read the Gospel of John and fall in love with your creator.
You are not made for the fall of man and its effects, but for the image/glory of God and to walk like Christ. Holy Spirit is the guide and transforming power that will get you there. Amazing grace.
A big leap in faith can be made when we start realizing we are already IN Christ, IN the last Adam.
Free from the fall! Loved! Growing into awareness of our new (yet old) godly identity. Changing by Holy Spirit. The most fullfilled life ever.
Paul healed all on Malta. He understood and wrote:
"As in the first Adam ALL died (lost the divine nature), so also ALL were made alive IN Christ to walk in Zoë (= divine life) again".
"IN Christ (the last Adam) we are co-cruisified (dead to the fall and its effects), co-raised (justified/made righteousness, holy, blameless, above reproach), co-seated (one with Him)"
"The fullness of deity dwells in Christ and YOU HAVE BEEN MADE COMPLETE IN HIM, who is the head of every principality and power".
So.... thank you Jesus! Thank you for redeeming me from the fall of man. Thank you for your Holy Spirit that makes this new (yet old) divine life come alive in me. You are amazing!
In the shadow of Peter the sick healed... He understood too and wrote:
"By Gods power (Holy Spirit) and knowing Christ, we have become partakers of the divine nature and have escaped the fall of man".
The divine life of the ages has been returned to us by Jesus once and for all perfect atoning sacrifice for the debt of the fall of man and His indwelling Holy Spirit in us. Jesus/God is amazing!!!
Ask Him to give you revelation and change you to the way it was before the fall of man: Christlikeness.
He will do so. For it is written: "the Spirit brings forth after His own kind".
"I have come to give you Zoë (divine life) in abundance...."
all dogmatic belief, zero argument here to the existence of magical thinking.
A long rant filled with cherry picked quotes from the bible, what a surprise.
I believe the type of Atheism we see on Twitter and UA-cam will be on the decline steeply in the years to come but for different reasons then the speaker. Atheists always point to the decline in church attendance and the rise in “ Nones.” Nones aren’t Atheists though. I believe we’ve reached the peak of four horsemen influenced “ New Atheism.” Even a huge chunk of the Atheists I know and talk to on a regular basis are getting pretty tired of it.
I'm an atheist. I've never pointed to a decline in church attendance as a reason for it. I've only got a lack of evidence behind my absence of belief in god(s).
@@tortuga3402 There's a lot of evidence
@@paradisecityX0 Is there anything better than "look at the trees" style arguments? If you can find a really supporting argument then you should present it on a platform that reaches a lot of atheists. Like Axp.
@@kolliq Lifestyle atheists live in a closed materialist paradigm of can't > isn't logic. Present me a God I find palatable to all my other metaphysical suppositions, and I'll believe, is what they say. That leaves instinctive atheists (non-polemical, gut reaction) and serious atheists who can navigate belief and non-belief without cynicism. The latter are notable by their absence, at least on the internet.
@@borderlands6606 Did I understand correctly that you were trying to say - It is not possible to epistemologically prove the existence or non-existence of any deity?
Okay, so, I think we need to establish and enforce the difference between being a theist/atheist and gnostic/agnostic. They are not married concepts.
Theist/Atheist is the claim of belief that a God or Gods firmly does or does not exist. A Gnostic/Agnostic is the claim of belief that the prior claim is true.
Tldr: Gnostic/Agnostic is claim of knowledge, Theist/Atheist is claim of belief.
Examples:
Gnostic Theist- believes a god/gods exists, claims to know it/they exist.
Agnostic Theist- believes a god/gods exist, does not claim the belief is true.
Gnostic Atheist- does not believe a god/gods exist, claims to know it/they do not exist.
Agnostic Atheist- does not believe a god/gods exist, does not claim to know if it/they exist.
I am incapable of blind faith. I am an agnostic atheist. I do not know if it/they exist or not. But, without imperical evidence, I cannot believe in them.
As a academic philosopher this drives me insane. I do think it comes from a good place, that is to be intellectually humble within the atheist community -- that is to say "Well, I'm not certain" which is awesome, good..but these definitions fail to understand the relationship between belief/knowledge as well as encompassing all that 'can be' if it were.
A belief is nothing more than giving weight to a proposition.
Examples:
God exist.
God does not exist.
All widows are women.
The world is round.
A belief can in fact have a huge degree of certainty or merely a 51% of certainty.
Knowledge, in Epistemology is generally defined as "justified-true-belief".
Take a step back, if I state, "My car is parked outside" despite what actually is the case, the belief still stands. It becomes justified-true-belief when the proposition is actually true, outside while holding that my axioms for believing the car is outside is true (Auto theft is super low, I parked it there myself, i saw it a few seconds ago, thus you didn't arrive at the proportion out of luck). There is a lot more to it (Gettier problem).
Thus knowledge is a type of belief a 'justified-true-belief'.
Just share this because there seems to be a misconception of what belief and knowledge is insofar as academia/philosophy is concern.
For any proposition, you may hold three stances.
Since this is religious centric, lets use that:
Theism: I believe god exist.
Agnostic: I have a suspension of belief/lack of belief in god.
Atheist: I believe god does not exist.
The degree of certainty is not important, and is trivial in what makes a belief , a justified-true-belief (knowledge) is, as well.
The utility of this chart or examples you mention also fail to capture belief in what it is and is somewhat silly. A claim/belief is the same thing. Thus saying "does not believe a god/gods exist, does not claim to know if it/they exist" is the same as saying "does not claim a god/gods exist, does not claim to know if it/they exist"
While the attempt is to capture certainty, all beliefs, claims, propositions have varying degree of certainty which are trivial within
epistemology. What is important once the proposition is giving credence is if it is justified-true-belief. Those things which are true (despite what you or I believe) does not change on ones claim.
@@jaram6049 I'd like to start with an appreciation to the response. I always enjoy discussion, especially in this context.
To me, belief and knowledge aren't intrinsically one in the same. Though, as you point out, they become so, when knowledge is gained on a matter. I concede this point, and thank you for pointing that out.
I feel on this topic, we agree regarding theism and atheism. Though, the knowledge of, regarding gnostic and agnostic is what I'm trying to convey.
You use the real world example of your car. A solid, physical object you know exists. But, I feel, regarding the idea of spirituality and the desire or lack thereof of a creator or afterlife, whathaveyou; the issue becomes less tangible.
Say there is a god, or gods. There is no tangible way to positively know it or they exist. In that respect, I concur that said knowledge would be as you stated, a "true belief," if we are to attach qualifiers to it.
My point comes from speaking with many who label themselves as agnostic, and of course, my own perspective.
Those I've spoken with, who I refer to as agnostic theists, are those who believe there is a "force" or god/gods in existence. However, they avoid any doctrine due to a lack of knowledge regarding what is "true." (After all, as I point out at times, everyone is atheistic to an extent. Whether to all theologies, or just all of them aside from the one that person follows. Eg. Odin is fake, Jesus is real.)
So, I pose to you then, what of those mentioned, or my own view where I am evidence focused, though do not deny the possibility of such, if compelling evidence was presented? Because, like your car outside, I can take your word that it is, but I, myself, do not know if it is or isn't.
As am I.
@@sephi7ac seems as if my reply is not showing up, not too sure why. I'll try to fix it.
Edit: I have no idea what happened, some sort of spam filter, but my reply is taking into consideration we agree on the relationship of knowledge and belief, so I'm leaving that out of your definitions, and going to go further in explaining things which hopefully makes things clear. And it still not showing up...
Nobody asks how life started?? Since when?! The question of abiogenesis often comes up in conversations about evolution and the existence of god. And, there’s been at least one study that has proven that the beginnings of life can come from “nothing.” But, even if there was no evidence to back that up, it doesn’t prove a supreme being type of creator. That’s classic god-of-the-gaps thinking. The theory of fine-tuning is not evidence of a creator either. The puddle analogy is one of my favorites for that one.
It's always odd when an apologist says, "The science is implying there is a god" but the overwhelming majority of scientists disagree. You can't imply something in science that you take no position on. You either demonstrate something or you don't. Science doesn't assume anything, if it can't outright prove something to be true or false it simply remains as an unknown. This is why you can't use science to prove or disprove a religion, trying to do so is word salad.
The best worst example has always been the argument that since the big bang theory doesn't posit WHY the big bang happened, it only really demonstrates WHAT happened, theists tend to say, "Well of course it's god". From their perspective that makes perfect sense, who else could do it right? Except that's a malformed question. First, why do you assume it's a "who"? Why does it HAVE to have an outside cause rather than an internal one? The big bang theory doesn't say matter bamfed in from nothing, it explains how all matter existed as a singularity then began expanding. If that singularity exists in a state of infinity (IE it doesn't start or stop existing, just always is), then in an infinite amount of available time all possibilities are eventualities.
How does that work? Well say you have an infinite number of cards in a hat. Each card has a different number on them. You're told to pick one at random until you pick the number 7. With an infinite number of chances, the odds of you picking 7 are 100% even though there are an infinite number of OTHER cards you could get. With infinite chances, you will draw all potential numbers as a matter of certainty. This is also what destroys the fine tuning argument. Theists assume the universe is fine tuned. First of all, why do you assume this is the first and only time a universe has existed? Maybe the universe expands and contracts, eventually collapsing back into a singularity that expands into a universe an infinite number of times back and forth. This would mean there are an infinite number of attempts, and we exist because this was one of the rare successes.
Also the idea that the universe is fine tuned is kind of silly. We know that if the math was different life wouldn't be able to exist as we know it. But that doesn't answer the idea that OTHER life that we can't conceive wouldn't exist. We exist in this form because this form happens to work with the math best. The constraints of the universe are what dictate how we can evolve. The mathematical constants of gravity and determine the maximum size a human can grow, and while famous examples (such as Andre the Giant) have existed, you'll note they typically struggle with complications from their size. This is because the mathematical constants prevent us from growing much larger than we are now, and they're pushing the very border of the limit. If the constants were different, who's say that instead of life not existing at all, it would just be different to accommodate the new constants?
It's the smug certainty that has always bothered me. If you can say "We have to assume" about any claim, you've left the realm of science. Why? Because no we don't have to assume anything. If we can't test it or demonstrate it, I'll teach you the only scientific phrase you'll ever need to know; "We don't know yet." Throwing in data without tests is simply not science. Saying things "must" be something isn't science unless you demonstrate that to be true. When the answer isn't demonstrated, the proper phrase in science is always, "We don't know yet."
I agree with you 100% Science does not prove nor disprove any religion's viability as far as theological claims are made. Science doesn't venture into the theological/philosphical, and the theological/philosophical does not venture into the scientific. For instance, I am a graduate student working on textual criticism of NT manuscripts. Our approach is scientific in that we ask questions, create hypothesis, and explore data and physical evidence to answer those questions. Its like a mixture of archeology, history, anthropology, etc. The fact that the material we examine is typically religious literature does not mean we can make theological or religious claims because of scientific, textual evidence. They're two separate worlds.
@@thelanternexpress9371 Thanks for a specific example of how science can be used involving religious artifacts, holy books, and culture while avoiding making statements on the beliefs held by those religious people. I feel like a lot of apologists forget that this is the boundary of science, and proving that claims existed doesn't say anything about the claims' validity.
@@sleepy1697 Agreed. In my field, apologists don't do very well because of the robust system we can approach the data with. Of course, it is not perfect, like any scientific system. There are still those that try to misinterpret or appropriate our work for their benefit nonetheless, unfortunately.
It is even worse. Science have shown that causality and locality/space is emergent properties, and that means that we know there was no causality at the beginning of big bang. It leads to possibilities that the cause of the big bang came later than the big bang. The new physics is based on experiment by Scully and Drühl, 1982.
Hello @Sleepy, ty for ur long explanation. I disagree on some points tho.
Yes i agree that u cant prove/dissprove a beeing above physics (god) with physics. But there is kinda a loophole. For example moral doesnt exist in phyiscs and it doenst make sence in physics. Physics doesnt say that a dead human is worse than a living human beeing. So if u believe that moral is true and exist therefor something above physics has to exist. Sure you cant prove that moral exists but u still indirectly use physics for ur believe in a higher power/smt super natural.
"Science doesnt assume anything". Every system of prove (mathematical system) is build on Axioms which are assumed to be true. Furthermore every system is incomplete and you cant prove that a system is consistent (if u can prove that x = A and x =/= A at the same time it not consistent). That was proven by Gödel and much of the distaste of Hilbert who wanted to greate a system of prove (~1930).
If i translate prove to my mothertongue (german) we wouldnt use that word in physics. Prove is something for mathe but not for physics. To prove something to be true in physics u have to prove that its true at every point of time and at every point in the universe which is not realy possible. But this might just be language barrier.
"Well say you have an infinite number of cards in a hat. Each card has a different number on them. You're told to pick one at random until you pick the number 7." If all your cards numbers are even, you still can have ininte cards, still every number can be different. Therefor it fulfills ur criteria but you will never draw a 7 cause 7 isnt even.
"If that singularity exists in a state of infinity (IE it doesn't start or stop existing, just always is), then in an infinite amount of available time all possibilities are eventualities." In chess its impossible to checkmate if both sides only have a king even tho u have infinite turns. With inifinite time, infinite different orders of mass in the univsere exist, that doesnt mean that every order will exist at some point of time.
"We know that if the math was different life wouldn't be able to exist." You meant if the natural consants (G, speed of light ... ) would be different, no? If the math would be different, conclusion are different and unpreditctalbe. Different math -> example 1+1 =/= 2 anymore. So how can you say that life, even as we know it, isnt possible.
Considering that church attendance is at an all time low, I would say that atheism is alive and kicking.
Exactly. It is people like Sean and Eric that are driving people away from faith, not towards it. One thing is for sure, "Conservative Talk Show Host" will go down in history as the worst credendial man has ever flaunted.
There’s no life in atheism
@@m-music2269 I'm alive and leading a happy life. No god needed.
@@m-music2269 awww, sweet baby still doesn't realise they're in a cult
No worship does not mean no belief in God
As a linguist, the other question no evolutionist can answer is how ancient languages developed these exceedingly complex grammatical structures, so needlessly complex that they have been simplifying ever since without any significant loss in the ability to communicate, and how all these completely unrelated language groups developed simultaneously and independently since people of different language groups coming into contact with each other is one of the things that causes grammars to simplify. Tower of Babel is the only viable explanation.
You do understand that language development and evolution are entirely different things right? That is that grammatical complexity is a sociological phenomenon not an evolutionary one. But of course, as a religionist it’s easier to just use the god of the gaps “we don’t know all the details so god did it”. And people wonder why education destroys religion.
@@DerekHarding You're completely dodging the issue. And what is a "religionist?" Everyone is a religionist unless you're a complete nihilist. Most evolutionists and atheists I talk to are so wedded to a philosophy of naturalism that they are incapable (or unwilling) to consider the possibility of reality outside of what is the paradigm of physically measurable.
Haha what ?
1957 called, they’d like their more timely topic back.
Ha! k72. That was a god one. :-)
All studies done on this question show that atheism is rising as education becomes more available, and technology and science improve. Metaxas' silly arguments, his ignorance, his violent actions, and his rhetoric against people he doesn't like is certainly not helping Christianity grow. If anything Metaxas is leading more people to atheism, and I thank him for it.
C'mon Sean you're better then this. At least I thought so at one time.
Better to believe a lie, that there is no God or evidence of him? Your definition of better, is corrupted.
Yeah I don’t think he is. A while back he let this “ex-gay” come on this show and tell parents to reject their gay kids because “it’s better in the long run.” I thought Sean was better to but apparently not.
Listened to the scientific explanation for the moon and I'm like, " and they said the bible is a fairytale"
Not a subject that the author argues against, he is happy to accept the scientific explanation for the moon. From your response I'd guess you are more of the opinion that is was created in place?
Confused, how he believes in God of the Bible and Jesus. However, not in the biblical creation account. I wonder which (G)god he believes in. Does he believe in the actual account of Jesus raised from the dead?
This entire conversation addresses the topic question based on a very constrained and narrow definition of atheism that doesn't seem to fit most atheists - and thus runs off the cliff from there. Kind of like an atheist discovering that only a very few believe in Odin and then declaring theism must be dead.
@Quack Epistemologist The simplest definition is simply someone who doesn't believe in the existence of any deity. There are positive variations that will declare there are no Gods of any kind, but after being an atheist myself for over 20 years, those individuals seem to be quite rare. The vast majority usually just say they aren't convinced regarding the existence of any deities. Some will consider the existence of certain specific deities as less likely than others.
@Quack Epistemologist *shrug* Usages of words are determined by people - and people don't always agree. It's not as though there are word police that can descend from on high and declare, "But that's the wrong usage!" My experience is that most who don't believe in deities use the term "atheist" to mean they aren't convinced and don't believe in any deities, so that usage makes me an atheist, regardless of anyone's disagreement.
That said, I prefer the term, "Hopeful Agnostic" :)
@Quack Epistemologist Got it. By my usage, anyone who doesn't believe in a deity is an atheist, including agnostics. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in any deities, although I'm also an agnostic as I proclaim no knowledge either way. The terms can be complimentary and are not mutually exclusive. Technically this makes me an agnostic atheist and this appears to be the most popular form of atheism.
@Quack Epistemologist I would classify some Gods as so unlikely as to fit in that category - but I wouldn't classify all God concepts the same.
I love Eric. He has a great sense of humor and he's so passionate when he speaks.
Matthew 7: 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22: Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ “ (Jesus is talking to the church, not sinners.) God has higher expectations for those who claim to be one of His and will be judged by that standard, separately from sinners.
John berated the end times church of Laodicea in Revelation 3:15 “I know your works, that you art neither cold nor hot. 16 So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth. 17 Because you say, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and know not that you art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.”
1 Timothy 1:16 “They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.” (Trump and his cult are abominable, disobedient, and of a reprobate mind, controlled by demons.)
Romans 1:22 “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator.” (Trump’s cult and false prophets have shown Trump’s Word is more important than the word of God.) Hosea 4:6 “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because you have rejected knowledge, I will also reject you, that you shall be no priest to me: seeing you have forgotten the
law of your God, I will also forget your children.” Trump Christians do not want to discuss the possibility of Trump being the anti-Christ. They do not want to hear the facts and even reject what the Bible says. Isaiah 66:4 “I also will choose their delusions and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spoke, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes and chose that in which I delighted not.” God has chosen the delusion of the lies of Trump to test the church, but they tremble in fear of the truth, minorities, socialism, and all others. They cling to their fears, instead of clinging to Jesus and His principles
Allow some data to answer this question, rather than bias. No, atheism isn't dead. Nor is it dying. The current global trends have Islam projected to be nearly the majority religion in 2050, and globally the number of people who identify with the label Atheist is likely to stay around the same as 2010. However, those who identify with the label agnostic, or who think religion is not important to daily life is on the rise, especially in western countries.
It always baffles me when statements like this are made, on either side. You mentioned the time magazine cover that asked if god is dead, and I would disagree with that sentiment just as fervently as it's inverse. Religious ideology is designed to spread, so it's not just going to die one day. Atheists speak openly about their beliefs or lack there of, and that will never die either.
This isn't a question that can be asked honestly outside of a local context (in the US, it's Christianity that is dying, from 81% in 2003 to 72% in 2018) regardless it has a clear answer that can be discovered with a Google search, not by a 30 minute interview with a man who is so confused about the past he can't decide if he is pro or anti nazi. (See his politicizing of Bonhoeffer's tragic situation)
Sociologically, you may be right. He’s making a rational point though. I hear you though, that these kinds of statements can definitely be overstatements.
The questions should be did God ever live
This is the most trolling I've ever seen on a youtube channel. You must be doing good work, Sean. Keep it up!
I agree.. its either trolling, or they are triggered. 😄 #psalm 14:1
My condolences to any scientists who listened to this.
My sense is that atheism is not dead, if, at the very least, we acknowledge the traction new atheism appears to be having. My current take concerning this question is that atheism no longer enjoys the privilege it once did attached to visions of certitude attained through "reason". Not that all atheists were of the intellectual variety. However, the atheistic turn in academia tended to clothe the sentiment in a way that gave it intellectual respectability. Atheism supplanted the confidence once achieved by theism and deism. The story is complex, a subtheme being the critique of universal reason furnishing the scientism of the twentieth century. That type of exuberance has, thankfully, petered out to the point that we are now confronted by friendlier, "spiritual" iterations of atheism, for example, as Sam Harris's. Something like this feeds into views as Metaxas's that atheism might quite possibly be dead. I am glad that the "metaphysical" playing field has been flattened but I'm wary of clickbaity sentiments about its demise. Ideologies ebb and flow. If NDErs are right, nothing finally dies.
Gawd could kill atheism in an instant by coming out of his divine hiddenness.🙂
@@oliverhug3 I'm not sanguine about this. For every "coming out", there's a denial that it actually qualifies as such. It comes down to worldview and expectancy regarding rules of manifestation.
@@JimKanaris Shouldn't a god be able to come out in such a way that denial would be impossible? Or would this just devolve into the 'Can God make a rock so heavy even He can't lift it?' argument?
I think that people that are staunch athiest can not prove there is not a god of any sort but, you cannot prove any human god exists either. I think deconstruction of religions will continue until the internet is destroyed. I think it is good to have information from all sides on the internet. Humans are innately curious.
Muggles, I've seen you on trinity radio and read your story or parts (walked away from faith after many decades of being in the church) through many comments. I'd like to know what your alternate explanation of the facts surrounding the resurrection of Jesus would be...I think you need a good explanation to explain all the phenomenon following the resurrection time..... and also, what evidence you would require to believe that Jesus rose from the dead 2000 years ago. ie. testimony of Paul and Jesus brother James, disciples going to deaths without recanting, no body, no one ever recanting, explosion of Christianity, no motivation of sex, power, or money by the disciples...there was nothing to gain earthly from it, and even the carrying down of the tradition by Polycarp down to the Apostle John....
Not to mention the ridiculous mountain of concurrent prophecy and imagery in the Old Testament that wasn't even largely known (and is still not accepted by Jews) as indicative of the messiah. Psalm 22, Psalm 53, Genesis 22, Jonah and the Whale, David and Goliath, on and on and on.... Thorns were an indicator of the curse in Genesis 1... Jesus wore them as a crown... there are so many things like that. Undesigned coincidences in the text, unimportant details in the accounts, extra biblical accounts of the main facts, consistent testimony and quoting of scriptures by contemporaries, archaeology discovers proof of pontius pilate, king David, sodom and Gomorrah...
Also, I think it is absurd knowing what we know about molecular biology, fine tuning, and a beginning of the universe to honestly give creedence to any scientific explanation for the origin or complexity of life outside of a transcendent mind.
Asking genuinely, Has your mind been skewed to accept the epistemology of the hyper-skeptic? Have you come to rely on what "scientific consensus" says and methodological naturalism to take the place of Jesus in your worldview?
Do you write off the accounts of Brother Andrew, Corrie Ten Boom, Tom Doyle (dreams and visions book), George Muller, Hudson Taylor....... If even just one of their miracle claims is true, then atheism is dead and Christianity is true. Can they all be telling lies, embellishing, and have been deceived?
Jesus still loves you muggles, and I know you hang out on these comments and videos because you must still be searching. Do you want to come back??? Maybe you have gone through this season to really show you Jesus is everything and nothing else makes sense, I don't know. I do pray right now that God would use you to testify to the folly of any other world system.