What New Atheists Get Wrong About History
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 кві 2022
- Historian Nathan Johnstone joins me to discuss his book, "The New Atheism, Myth, and History." We will discuss how many of the new atheists have misrepresented historical events and facts to attack religion. From the Inquisition to Nazi Germany, there are many blunders new atheists have made.
Link to book: play.google.com/store/books/d...
www.amazon.com/New-Atheism-My... - Розваги
The problem has never been religion, it has always been the notion that one can in any way further "the greater good" with acts of moral evil.
True, it’s incredibly deceptive because in all honesty, it usually doesn’t even work, it would be more effective to remain honest and do good things throughout your whole life, that way, there is nothing anyone can find to accuse you of, your attempts at doing immoral things to further the greater good likely won’t even further the greater good, but the adverse effects of your failures linger.
Not that if it did work you should do it.
Sometimes Christianity advocates for something similar though, in emergency situations, the Bible allows you to disobey what are in most situations the moral commandments of God, like how David was feed consecrated bread although he wasn’t a priest, because he was in dire hunger and so he needed to be fed, and obviously the commandment of honoring your mother and father doesn’t really apply if they were to suddenly be chasing you with a hatchet with homicidal intent.
@@computergamescritical6917 That isn't what honoring father and mother is,it is to respect and love your parents but it never says you have to approve or support everything they do like the example you just gave with the hatchet you can defend yourself in that situation and still honor your parents
South Park’s Go God Go understood the implications and logical conclusion of new atheism, and Matt Parker/Trey Stone are agnostic at most.
@@computergamescritical6917 I'd say there is a general rule in the bible, and it is given, or more accurately explained by CHrist. THat which we put aside for, or obstain from to honor God may be set aside for our survival, or the survival of others. The example he gives is a Lost Lamb on the Sabbath.
God cares more about us as individuals than he does about ritual. The only exception being to not carry his name in vain. Which is basically the don't commit evil in the name of the greater good law. Though it does also cover not trying to invoke Gods name to garner personal wealth, or power. So I'm not sure that is quite the same. As the exception is clearly laid out, and is in many ways in direct opposition to the "Greater Good" argument. As God is the greatest good in Christianity, and honering him is one of the most righteous things one can do. Yet that still does not come before ones survival, or the well being of their community. Because to care for oneself and others is the greatest sacrament one could offer God...
I think I just worked something out that's been bothering me.
Christianity is still false with no historical evidence
My grampal was put in the gulag for being a Christian.. he told me that all Christians where persecuted in the Soviet union. He got out because Stolen died..
By the way, I hope you are safe sir with the ongoing situation
I didn't even know Stolen was sick! 😢
My grandpa and his brother-in-law smuggled Bibles into the USSR, and they had family and friends who were imprisoned or killed for their faith. Praise God the church still remained strong
@@MeanBeanComedy Ba-dum tiss!
As a historian myself I was waiting so long to hear someone form us, saying exactly what we knew long time ago! We should be more laud about it , and do not let scientist like mathematicians or physicist to be an authority on matters they really have not a clue!
Agreed as pop scientist of the last 50 years going back to the old cosmos show have shown many are not well versed in the History of their field.
@@pazuzil Please watch the above video.
but most of the bible is not historical, so what relevance is the opinion of historians?
In that case don’t like apologists talk about or act like an authority on matters they really don’t have a clue on….seems fair yes?
At the end of the day your subject is all about authority rather than academic rigorous. So stop BSing.
_”you can’t claim evidentialism and then NOT practice it.”_
Did you hear that …. Aron Ra? 😄
He's not interested in anything that doesn't align with his pre determined narrative
LOL.
To be fair a lot of atheist now literally said that they won't believe no matter what the evidence (Hemnant Mehta, Matt Dillahunty etc). They would say that the only way they would believe God is if God made them (ie. God knows what would convince them and God would satisfy that to convince them).
Why theres many different bibles with missing verses and added verses if the bible is words of God?
@@generaljg4373 Because, unlike the muslims who claim that Quran is perfectly preserved every single words, the Christian taught that the bible was copied through out centuries and there're errors (tho 95%+ of that error is insignificant and the few significant ones does not affect any principle Christian tenets).
@@bryansphere6359 theres bibles with missing verses that doesn't exist in some bibles it's a fact the bible is corrupt cant be the word of god
Great stream.
I think if theists and atheists worked together to actually understand what happened instead of digging in their heels on their positions (which may or may not be correct), it'd be a lot more fruitful.
I think that is absolutely right.
Agreed.
As an atheist my only disagreement is the claims that center around a god and religion. But as far as working together for the betterment of mankind we should all be on the same page on that.
Scientists should view atheism and theism like they view the Schrodinger principle, where 2 opposite outcomes can be true.
@@johnjeffreys6440 I disagree.
Man I've had my high school HISTORY teacher make tons of historical errors when it came to the bible and its history
I found it incredible that Christopher Hitchens would say that morality emerges because cultures that have immoral practices die out
Shows you how wrong he was, maybe he missed the Holocaust, Arabian slave trade (was ended by western oressure until 1960), and name your favorite recent African genocide?
Somehow cultures willing to do immoral acts are safe and sound, and replaced by worse ones...
If survival can be the only end of life, then must that not be the only real aim of morality?
@@nics4967 Survival is a broad term. The guys in the Soviet Union survived. But where they happy? Did they have a fulfilled live? There is Maslow's pyramid of needs. Being fed, warm and healthy are basic needs but upon being provided with them, humans aim for more. Self-fulfilment. Here's one subject where morality and philosophy comes into play. Often, what we consider to be immoral offers short-term gratification at the price of long-term consequences.
Of course, morality assists in survival by making sure you are not going to start pissing everyone around you off by being a cunt, on an individual and political basis but also in the first matter.
did he forget about Islamic culture? And the questionable practices Hindus had(like suti)? Footbinding in China? Compensated dating in Japan?
A late reminder that this is one of the best channels on UA-cam.
Also Jeffery Epstein and John McAfee didn't kill themselves
Congratulations on your amazing channel growing! I hope that your ministry gets bigger and stronger! GOD BLESS you!
He's earned it
But why theres many different bibles with missing verses and added verses if it's the word of God?
@@generaljg4373 Probably because they were/are heretical
@@generaljg4373 Different traductions but Protestants also have less books in the Bible than the Catholics because they just removed them at a certain time
@@georgios7191 it can also be that the Catholic added more books to the bible.
You would want to campare different translation of the bible, and compare it to the original language.
I'm sure it will take a long time but if a translation is not consistent with all the other scripture, then it shouldn't be used.
The Catholic also added teaching like, when you die as an unbeliever, you can still enter heaven after being punished in hell for a certain amount of time. I think it's called purgatory.
When in reality, when you die(unless you are brought back to life, which means you haven't died yet), you either go to heaven or hell (in general, the detail needs more explanation). If the Catholic really teaches what I mentioned above, that means they are teaching different messages from what Jesus has taught us.
And there's also issue about the 10 commandments that the Catholic teaches.
I think they removed the commandments about having an idol, and make up for it by repeating a commandments twice.
Happy Easter IP, and to everyone watching this Easter weekend.
Why in christianity people celebrate the sun God mithra holidays like Christmas and Easter if christianity is from god?
@@generaljg4373 what is the earliest manuscripts that mentioned the worship of Mithra.om.december 25?.can you give me the name of the manuscript
When looking at history we often look at it through the lens of the current culture’s values and systems (rather than the values and systems of whatever time period/culture we are looking at) and siamotainously fail to see the humanity of the people.
For the superchat from Carmel Crunk about the Spanish Inquisition.
After the reconquest of Spain and its re Christianization there were still many Muslims in the land as well as Jews who arguably faired better than the Christians. There was pressure for people to convert to Christianity or migrate. Many people didn't want to pick up and move so they converted. However, a short time later there were accusations that many didn't really convert. They would play Catholic in public but behind closed doors still practice their Jewish or Muslim traditions. And so the Inquisition played a roll in attempting to root this out. As I understand it wasn't to punish Jews or Muslims but those that fake converted.
Purchased the book! Great interview! Thank you! 👍👍
I appreciated that Dr. Nathan Johnstone was willing to bring objectivity.
What I don't get about these historians, is that we know that people have a tendency to erase the history they do not want. It's a common practice to erase what they do not want remembered.
Why do these historians omit that fact?
They acknowledge this practice with other things and are ok with it. Yet with the Bible, they want every piece of evidence because if not, they default to "it's made up".
And the other thing that brothers me, is that they think they can interpret the teachings and meanings of christianity without learning it from a biblical scholar. There are over 33,000 different denominations of christianity yet they think their interpretation is correct.
I haven't seen anyone debate these idiots and call them out on these things.
And Hitchens is a idiot. I used to be an atheist and loved that guy. Then I noticed he was shady. Someone would correct him on something and he would go to the next debate and still use that same thing he got corrected on, hoping the guy would not catch it. That's shady. He used debate tactics all the time. Why use debate tactics if you have truth?
So being of that, I started to do my own research and found that he would describe the Bible according to him. It was the Bible/gospels according to Hitchens.
So of course, the Bible sounded idiotic, because his twisted views were not actually what the Bible taught or the actual meanings.
Because the Bible fails historically and scientifically. Would you care for some examples or would contradictions be a nicer approach to the big wide range of BS in the big big ?
@@Dcm193 yes please give me an example of contradiction in the Bible.
While your at at, give an example of a failed history and a failed scientific.
I will answer your questions.
All I ask is you answer my questions in return.
@@user-fb2jb3gz1d 1 Corinthians 13 4-8. Then go to 1 John 4:16 see how god does the opposite of all of those things (I can name more contradictions if you would like) .historical errors, the world wide flood , the massive exodus from Egypt, Adam and Eve. Let’s move to scientific errors (by which I mean things that can shown naturally because using god as a cop out can be used by any religion) the ark, the flood , how cows can produce stripped calfs by mating in front of sticks, how ants have no leader, the firmament, the shape of the earth, how the earth stopped spinning, how plants were alive before sunlight, etc.
@@Dcm193 are you reading these verses 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 and q John 4:16?
Both are about love. Corinthians explains this love and John says God is this love.
That is no contradiction. Seriously dude, come on. And please don't make me write out the scriptures, just to prove your are wrong on these 2 verses. Admit it.......you did not read them because if you did, you wouldn't have used them or you simply took the word of someone else on this. I'm sure you're not stupid enough to have read them and said to yourself, "yeah, love is kind and forgiving in this verse and God is love in this verse....yeah baby, contradiction right there,in your face christian.". You can't be that stupid.
And as for your science stuff.......that's alot you mention. Let's pick the easy correction one first........
Plants before sunlight. We know plants need sunlight. I'm not going to argue against that. I agree with that.
God is said to have created the plants in the 3rd day. Then the very next day, he created the Sun, moon and stars; and placed them under the firmament.
Tell me, Mr science guy.........can plants survive a day without sunlight?
Seriously dude.........so far you gave very ignorant examples. Showing your ignorance of the Bible.
Now my turn.
You talk about BS stories in the Bible. I understand your point.
So what's your take on the creation of life, according to science?
I agree
Dear IP. Great idea bringing a historical aspect on the new atheists' ideology and expositng its fallacy. Can I say something brother? Are you taking care of yourself? Working hard on Good Friday. Please take time to be with the LORD.
Such an excellent interview. Thanks for doing this!
Great guest, great interview Michael. 👌🏼
This is a very important conversation because, religion does have history in it. But it’s sense of myth and didactic wisdom is much different than what some people think. These new atheists you highlight are often over-stimulated by their alleged findings and forget what the “myth part” did. Or in some instances didn’t do. Sadly, despite the advances in archaeology, there is a lot of hierarchical politics among scholars that obscures what the public really needs to know and better understand. I’m so thankful for your channel and the work you do. Keep on posting and doing your work. It’s important!!!!
Amazing book! I've read it one week ago and I must say that I benefited a lot from it!
IP is the bruce Lee of apologetics
Thank you
@@InspiringPhilosophy thank you for your awesome chanel. You video on the problem of evil was the best.
@InsiringPhilosophy Hey, dude, clever move there to toss-out using a methodology, to rule-out your biases! Cool! Shucks, I never do, because it's so clunky and gets in way of telling it like it is. You know?
Was Bruce Lee Christian? I doubt it.
@@covid19alpha2variantturboc7 never claimed he was. Let me brake it down. Bruce Lee was one of the greatest martial artist of his time. IP is one the greatest apologist of our time (in my opinion)
Great video. One issue I have with new atheists is how they just view all religion as illogical and harmful yet many of the greatest good and advancement to humanity came as a result of religion. The scientific method was developed by Christians. Heck! The main reason why slavery was abolished in my country of Nigeria was largely because the British, who colonized Us, were appealed by slavery due to their Judeo-Christian culture. Slavery existed in much of the world, especially Africa long before colonialism but Christianity and the British played the largest role in ending that evil. This notion that religion has done no good for the world is a weird and evil one and part of why I am grateful I never became a new atheist and stuck with my Catholicism.
That's just a myth. The Bible itself allows slavery, many Biblical prophets and saints owned slaves and even Jesus himself never condemned slavery, neither did the Catholic Church before the Abolition movement ended. Paul even states in the New Testament that slaves must abey their masters even if they are abusive.
So no, Christianity has nothing to do with the decline of slavery worldwide (none of the world's major religions traditionally rejected slavery) and there were just as many Christian anti-abolitionists as there were abolitionists. The very idea that slavery is evil is uniquely modern.
The real reason for the decline of slavery was the Industrial Revolution and all of the related technological advances that made slave labor unnecessary.
There's no such thing as "Judeo-Christian" culture, and the British themselves practiced slavery until the mid-1800s. British culture was never "Judeo-Christian" and by the time the Colonial era began they like the rest of Western Europe were largely secular.
@@lukejones7164 You are correct that the bible (old and new testament) both either don't condemn or allow slavery in some passages but that is not really a good excuse. The Bible also bans usury, rejects women's suffrage, and used to be anti-secular but considering that both Judaism and Christianity practice usury, promote women's suffrage, and embrace secularism to a degree, i think it is clear that our religions are not literally defined by everything in the Bible😏😏If the industrial revolution was, indeed, the MAIN reason behind teh abolitionist movement and end of slavery, then why did abolitionist movements and actual abolition by the British empire start as far back as the 1600s with Quaker Christian movements? The industrial revolution happened during the late 1700s till the mid 1800s😕😕
@@orboakin8074 If a practice goes against what the Bible teaches then it's not authentic Christianity nor Judaism, period. Also, Christianity and Judaism are not monolithic movements so to say that "Christianity" practices usury, women's suffrage, etc is disingenuous because there's far too many other Christians worldwide who don't. That's isn't an "excuse" it's simply the facts. If the Bible (Word of God) or Jesus himself doesn't't say something is evil then as a Christian you shouldn't consider it evil either.
The Abolition movement has nothing to do with Christianity, because if it did then it would have been instantly banned in every Christian society, but it isn't. Hell, it still exists in Africa today among Africans of all faiths and none.
(Minor edit required---> the British were "appalled" by slavery, not "appealed".^^ Very different words indeed!)
Video, c. 42:50---> As has been observed by many, too many arguments nowadays devolve to reductio ad Hitleram...^^
Excellent video. Nathan is so awesome. If we as people were more like him in the sense of not being so intolerant to the other side’s perspective, there would be less problems in the world.
I have discovered something truly amazing and remarkable about Paul's letters. I am both a quality engineer and statistician, using the same statistical analysis tools I have discovered something truly remarkable about Paul which statistically proves the Gospels were not written late but as early as 40 AD. This finding I have named it the Pauline Code. It has to do with finding all instances of Paul paraphrasing the OT without the use of words like "in the scriptures'' so anytime Paul uses an old testament concept without pointing back directly or indirectly I would denote that as an instance in minitabs using correlation coefficient formulas. Example: "Armor of God, Helmet of Faith". Anytime an instance like that pops up in his letters where he paraphrased the OT would count as an instance in a column. Then the instances where Paul paraphrases the NT would count as an instance in a separate column. This in turn with a 95% confidence level, at a .93 correlation coefficient shows that it's highly probable Paul had the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Maybe a now lost earlier version of John. So why is Paul more confident in quoting OT with more exactness than the NT? The answer eluded me for a time, but then reading acts it dawned on me as to why. Paul was born and raised as a Pharisee, since childhood he had plenty of time to learn and memorize the OT. Since Paul converted to Christ in his adulthood his studies of the NT were new to him and not as committed to memory as his childhood religious studies, so his use and quoting from NT would be much more fragmented versus his quotations of the OT. So the correlation is this; by using statistical analysis of Paul's use of the OT in a paraphrasing manner without using names like Abraham or Israel, and while paraphrasing using concepts and allusions with his own twist shows clearly Paul's method of quoting things is like that, and we know by Pauls time these OT verses he alludes to were already written. So if he does the same paraphrasing and allusions to the NT, why should we doubt that the NT Gospels were not already written by his time? If we can demonstrate Paul's methodology of alluding to the OT, why should we doubt his allusions to the Gospels demonstrates they were already written during his early ministry? Atheist and liberal scholars would have a hard time arguing against the data and box plot double blind test with correlation coefficient formulas to argue against the data! But their double standards will always be present! This data paired with both internal and external evidence(Early Traditions), shows without a shadow of a doubt the evidence is strong that the Gospels are not late forgeries! I placed constraints in this hypothesis testing by limiting my use of only the 7 undisputed letters of Paul.
Very interesting! Thanks for sharing. GBY!
Do you have a writeup somewhere?
...oh my goodness. Total gibberish. I'm far more convinced you discovered a new grammar, rather than a methodology.
@@HegelsOwl He is an engineer. What do you expect from communication? (I say this as a STEM guy. Communication is tough and, outside of areas of expertise, unintelligible phrases may disguise genuine insight)
@@HegelsOwl what do you mean?
Love your work Brother. Keep the faith!
Great interview. Thanks.
Great interview. This was so interesting and informative!
Thank you
Oh absolutely! I was especially impressed that he didn't use a methodology, to rule-out his biases, so he informed us only of his biases. You?
Christianity have no historical evidence just writings of old people in a fairytale book
@@HegelsOwl Anyone tell you trolling is so 2006.
@Mstthew Arenson ...huh?! Pointing-out a VALID fact is "trolling"? Your remark is so immature, that I need to ask what your age is, and if you're on meds for any sort of mental health issue.
The problem is humans, their vices and tendencies
Nope it think the problem is people who are critical of humans.
Came here from Lloyd’s channel…
Getting popcorn 🍿
One can deduce an atheist's rudimentary knowledge of religion via their poor claims about it's history. I'm not saying someone has to be a full blown historian to claim intellectual knowledge, but making elementary mistakes shows how overrated an atheist's contentions on religion are.
Take Western Christianity for example. Any atheist that suggests that: "early Christianity was mostly competing sects, that Constantine founded the church, that Council of Nicea established the bible, that Dark Ages described religious superstition, that Catholicism spread by the sword, etc...." automatically shows they have no real in-depth knowledge of history. And therefore, it can almost certainly be concluded their reasoning and logical skills as a whole are lacking as well.
It's similar to how in modern times people commonly make the false claims that Israel/Judaea has been at war for thousands of years, that Abraham Lincoln loved blacks/slaves as equals, that Afghanistan is unconquerable, that Columbus thought world was flat. These are obviously "pop-history" ideas that are objectively false, but persist nonetheless. And the sad part is these false ideas are sometimes even held by so called "intellectual/scientific" people (who are not historians), but who nonetheless are seen as reliable simply due to their prestige in irrelevant sections of academia.
Oh, shucks yeah; totally agree! Never realized it before (and is it just me, what?) that Christians never make errors like that when they write history. You notice this miracle too?! Why, gosh darn, some real sharp cookie, like IP, ought to do a video on this miracle, don'cha think? No, wait. IP just did! Okay, well, nevermind.
@@HegelsOwl Lol!
@@HegelsOwl What are you blathering about? Settle down, Beavis
Yeah, shucks, you're right, Mr. Butthead. Hiccup.
When I come across atheists that follow this train of thought I give them the same treatment they give Christians ..
" That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence "
They don't like their own catchy slogans being used against them because they are not used to holding up to their own standards
They avoid their burden of proof like the black plague
This is covering what Vox Day raised in "The Irrational Atheist" from around 2006.
Thank you for a very interesting discussion.
Great video! Something for everyone in this to learn from.
My perspective of the new atheist is that religion is bad because a select group of religious are bad. And that is absolutely all that is needed to prove that religion is bad.
M.
So how bad does religion have to be before it can be questioned?
I am just asking because I am a former Catholic and the diocese that I would be in recently paid out $100 millions in damages from sex abuse.
@@jamesparson There were plenty of sex abuse cases in Movie industry, school system, even in hospitals, but I have never heard someone say "We should delete Movie Industry/School/Medical System". You're totally free to question religion, people have being doing it for 2400 years now. I totally agree that if people do bad things they should be punished, no matter who they are or what group they belong to. But you cannot go like "There are lots of religious people who do bad things, so we should remove religion!" and when a lot of other groups of people do the same or even worse things say something like "Yeah, they were bad and we should condemn them, but let's not think thay are all the same!" That's just hypocrisy and double standards.
@@jamesparsondon't blame the message, blame the people.
Sorry I missed the live talk. This guy makes sense
Great conversation.
I would love to see IP's discussion with David Bentley Hart.
I wonder if St. Simon of Trent is discussed. Kinda important context for the Inquisition, just as the Knights Templar is.
Would the King of France be involved in that discussion?
12:05
When was the first? A couple dozen over a span of time implies an embedded problem, even if the numbers aren't many thousands. The problem was still embedded in the system.
What is the best way to argue or debate with logical positivist or empiricist?
A lot of positivists tend to take it for granted and it sounds like commonsense when they do so, so I'd recommend you make them address and explain their epistemological claims that seen commonsense at surface level but fall into incoherence when further examined.
@Jay Gee Ask a mechanic to use a screwdriver on itself, show that he can't, then announce screwdrivers are self-refuting.
Pressupositionalism makes quick work of impiricism
Would love to get the book, but it's a bit pricey for me and it's probably out of reach for most people.
Get an e-version
@@InspiringPhilosophy The ebook is $111 to buy and $42 to rent.
@@Frodojack wow thats indeed expensive!
Please, correct this thing you said towards the end. Heresy is not, as you said, disaffiliation with one's bishop, but deviation from the globally recognised, official teachings of the Church. It does not have as much to do with persons as individuals as such, as with doctrinal permutations and misrepresentations.
A million thanks for making this video, anyways. Clearly, we can make progress in the God talk only if we all play by the rules of logical reasoning, in honesty and respect for one another's point of view and worldview. But if we keep talking past, and shouting at, one another, nothing will ever come out of it. We shall only waste one another's time and our own energy and resources. Keep it rolling like that. Thank you for sharing this video. Happy Easter.
"Official teachings of the Church," reminds me of "Even the elect will be deceived," from Matt 24:24
Be careful of what the clergy consider "heresy".
The Cathars of southern France were considered heretics. When the Bishop that the Vatican sent couldn't defeat their scholar in debate, twice (debates where the teachings of Christ were used *against* the Catholic Bishop, and the Catholic Church in general), the Vatican sent an army to wipe them out.
Know them by their fruits.
The problem is not 'religion'. The problem is with the human heart.
In Greek, the problem is hamartia, the character flaw that dooms the hero in a Greek tragedy.
In Hebrew, the problem is khata, which means 'failure' or 'miss the goal'.
In the Bible, hamartia and khata are both translated by the English word 'sin'. Sin is a term from archery and means 'missing the mark'.
So, the problem is not 'religion'. The problem is our own human shortcoming. We come up short, miss the goal, and fail in our duties to God and each other. People behave sinfully, because it's human nature. You can't blame 'religion' for that!
Happy Black Saturday To Everyone
From another country🙂
I hit the 200th like!!!
Congrats, you win a free high five if you ever find me.
I'm jealous.
I would love to get this book but it’s too darn expensive.
0:27 shows starts
Would like to read that book but the price is now insane - £83 just for Kindle, £110 for paperback!
Dr. Bruce Gilleys books on Imperialism may answer the last super chat on Belgian genocide in Africa.
24:00
sam harris, while incorrect about many things, is correct about islam.
not about torturing muslims, but about islam.
simply read the koran, and the haddith.
Солженицын (Solzhenitsyn):Templeton Address, 1983
"Men Forgotten God"
"It is here that we see the dawn of hope: for no matter how formidably Communism bristles with tanks and rockets, no matter what successes it attains in seizing the planet, it is doomed never to vanquish Christianity."
"Those of us who have experienced and witnesses first-hand the atrocities and terror of communism understand fully why such evil takes root, how it grows and deceives, and the kind of hell it will ultimately unleash on the innocent and the faithful. Godlessness is always the first step towards tyranny and oppression!"
"Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."
"It was Dostoevsky, once again, who drew from the French Revolution and its seeming hatred of the Church the lesson that 'revolution must necessarily begin with atheism.' That is absolutely true. But the world had never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized, and tenaciously malevolent as that practiced by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin, and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principal driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not side effect, but the central pivot."
"The centralized atheism before whose armed might the whole world trembles still hates and fears this unarmed faith as much today as it did 60 years ago. Yes! All the savage persecutions loosed upon our people by a murderous state atheism, coupled with the corroding effects of its lies, and an avalanche of stultifying propaganda - all of these together have proven weaker than the thousand-year-old faith of our nation. This faith has not been destroyed; it remains the most sublime, the most cherished gift to which our lives and consciousness can attain."
Surprisely, Wikipedia admits the following:
USSR anti-religious campaign (1928-1941) [en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928%E2%80%931941)]
"More than 85,000 Orthodox priests were shot in 1937 alone."
"In the period between 1927 and 1940, the number of Orthodox Churches in the Russian Republic fell from 29,584 to less than 500.[4]
"This campaign, like the campaigns of other periods that formed the basis of the USSR's efforts to eliminate religion and replace it with atheism supported with a materialist world view, [6] was accompanied with official claims that there was no religious persecution in the USSR, and that believers who were being targeted were for other reasons. Believers were in fact being widely targeted and persecuted for their belief or promotion of religion, as part of the state's campaign to disseminate atheism, but officially the state claimed that no such persecution existed and that no such persecution existed and that the people being targeted-when they admitted that people were being targeted-were only being attacked for resistance to the state or breaking the law. [7]"
IMAGE "Five Year Plan" 1929 cover of Bezbozhnik (The Godless)
It is chilling & intellectually painful how the New Atheists & internet atheists claim to follow reason & evidence & just embrace a flat Earth equivalence in history. Dawkins stated that atheism didnt have anything to do with Stalinism & in the God Delusion 'no atheism would bulldoze a cathedral or Notre Dame. Unbelievable!!!
The top 3 atheist regimes of the 20th century murdered more people than all religious wars combined & all post Enlightenment.
Effectively, they say that doesn't count or "they didn't do so in the name of atheism." What priniciple of atheism was violated? What consequence of ultimate justice & objective morality would one have to face?
As far as history: the Communist Manifesto is clear Marx & Engels declared an abolition of religion, morality & the family...
Владимир Ленин (Lenin)
"Socialism and Religion" (12/3/1905 www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm)
"Our Programme is based entirely on the scientific, and moreover the materialist, world-outlook. An explanation of our Programme, therefore, necessarily includes an explanation of the true historical and economic roots of the religious fog. Our propaganda necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism;... We shall now probably have to follow the advice Engels once gave to the German Socialists: to translate and widely disseminate the literature of the eighteenth-century French Enlighteners and atheists.[1]...
...It would be stupid to think that, in a society based on the endless oppression and coarsening of the worker masses, religious prejudices could be dispelled by purely propaganda methods. It would be bourgeois narrow-mindedness to forget that the yoke of religion that weighs upon mankind is merely a product and reflection of the economic yoke within society. No number of pamphlets and no amount of preaching can enlighten the proletariat, if it is not enlightened by its own struggle against the dark forces of capitalism. Unity in this really revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class for the creation of a paradise on earth is more important to us than unity of proletarian opinion on paradise in heaven.
"That is the reason why we do not and should not set forth our atheism in our Programme; that is why we do not and should not prohibit proletarians who still retain vestiges of their old prejudices from associating themselves with our Party. We shall always preach the scientific world-outlook, and it is essential for us to combat the inconsistency of various 'Christians'".
"Religion must be declared a private affair. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule" ("Socialism & Religion").
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism" (best-quotations.com/authquotes.php?auth=651)
Surprisely, Wikipedia admits the following:
USSR anti-religious campaign (1928-1941) [en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928%E2%80%931941)]
"More than 85,000 Orthodox priests were shot in 1937 alone."
"In the period between 1927 and 1940, the number of Orthodox Churches in the Russian Republic fell from 29,584 to less than 500.[4]
"This campaign, like the campaigns of other periods that formed the basis of the USSR's efforts to eliminate religion and replace it with atheism supported with a materialist world view, [6] was accompanied with official claims that there was no religious persecution in the USSR, and that believers who were being targeted were for other reasons. Believers were in fact being widely targeted and persecuted for their belief or promotion of religion, as part of the state's campaign to disseminate atheism, but officially the state claimed that no such persecution existed and that no such persecution existed and that the people being targeted-when they admitted that people were being targeted-were only being attacked for resistance to the state or breaking the law. [7]"
IMAGE "Five Year Plan" 1929 cover of Bezbozhnik (The Godless)
Ah! This algorithm and autodelete that YT does!!! It took me like 20 min to finally be able to post the above quotes
I look forward to reading this book...when I can afford the $116 price tag. Any solutions
The solution is that he publishes a second edition after we spread the word.....'>>....
I saw the book is about $100, is it a textbook?
I want this book, but why it’s it so expensive?? $150??
The problem with taking the evidentiary position for authority is that if one evidentiary claim can be debunked a fence sitter becomes skeptical of their position and betrayal to atheists who follow those who espouse such positions.
When people feel betrayed they wont be convinced back to your side.
Why wouldn't you want people to believe that which is true? Most atheists base their beliefs on reason, rather than emotions or petty grudges.
@@merbst No they don't. They are people and people base most of their decision on emotion and justify it with reason in post.
Change a person's motivation and you change their reasoning.
Atheists have just as strong personal emotional reasons for believing what they do. Just because they tell themselves they are getting there through reason doesn't make their reason true. It makes it comfortable for their emotional problems.
The neatest witch trials are the ones in which they were "objectively" guilty. Like the people who poisoned others intentionally, or were honestly trying to kill someone using (at the time considered) magical methods. "You may not be a witch, but you did murder the town magistrate by poisoning, so you'll hang for it."
Why is his book so expensive? $70 for the kindle, 326 pages. You could be selling a lot more.
Sam Harris has admitted he believes in lying for "the greater good". If it hurts those he considers his enemies then it's justified.
Can someone please recommend me some other books on this topic? I would have liked to read this book but it is too expensive
_Bearing False Witness_ by Rodney Stark has a chapter on treatment of Jews and Muslims during the Spanish Inquisitions. Doesn't seem like he considers the truth to be remotely close to the "traditional depictions" of that subject.
"traditional depictions of that subject" were wildly distorted for political, religious, and anti - religious propaganda purposes.
A political religion would be a secular idology. And Nazīsm was strongly influenced by scientific atheisic eugenics theory. They also wanted to destroy the church. However they did have a pagan cult they were trying to start combining race stuff with weird occult stuff.
I think behind every group pushing secularism is a clique of elites who are fully bought into the exact opposite, and are involved in all kinds of spiritual/occult practices.
Or, as we have in America, a secular democracy/constitution
@@reality1958 Thomas Jefferson literally funded a group of nuns and held prayers in the capitol building
@@freddurstedgebono6029 yes and?
@@reality1958 dont know if I’d call that “secular”
I'd love to read the book, but it seems it's worth an arm and a leg.
I would buy the book if was not $100 US. What's the deal with that?
Not a lot demand for it. Price will drop if demand increases because the supply will have to increase to meet demand.
It's the same for other niche publications.
The Kindle copy of Frederick Hayek's Road to Serfdom is over £30. That's for a fucking download, but no one wants to know why the economics of Fascism were never capitalistic. It'll be harder to push that "far right" BS narrative.
Now apply the same logic to works showing what many generally believe to be true about Christianity, isn't true.
Then ask yourself why.
Rationalism and research trumping rationalism.
When I atheist makes a moral judgement where are they drawing thier moral standards ? A non theistic worldview doesn't provide a standard outside the feelings and opinions of the individual
There is no morality if all conscious action is the result of genetics and conditioning and will eventually be deleted. If I help someone, I only did it as a result of past events making it inevitable. Both I and the one I helped will be deleted. The same cause and result if I hurt anyone.
@@Mygoalwogel that does not make sense
@@jeffphelps1355 I agree. That's why Atheism isn't an option for me. I can't square a non-nihilistic version of Atheism.
Kind of amazing that you start by attacking the new athiests’ lack of evidentiary claims-and then fail to quote them directly a single time.
It's pity they went over the inquisition with regards to witches, but not the inquisition itself...
Any witch trial is one too many! Any religious inquisition is one too many!
I just find it funny and weird how non-religious leaders believe in something called "The Alignment".
Amen!
People treat history as either black or white it's lazy thinking .
One thing people need to consider when it comes to Christianty or Christians in history is
.they were the majority of the population at the time and thus . You will find Christians on every side of history
.in fact opposing eachother and supporting opposite sides . In theology in politics in ideology philosphy history economics science or whatever .
To prove my point . Look at Christians today . It's the most demographically diverse " religion " in the world .
The only issue is we divide ourselves by arbitrary sub demographics and forget we are all United in Christ which should be the priority in the first place
But christianity is in decline why God is making Christian's leave christianity if it's the truth? Christianity is not the truth
@@generaljg4373
Chrsitianty is not in decline . It's still increasing as a global percentage of the population
@@generaljg4373 God doesn't make anyone leave,people do that by choice
Why is this book so crazy expensive?
Because it's a work of scholarship.
I don’t get these science worshiping evangelical atheists. I know a lot of them are libertarian me-me’s but they attack all forms of spirituality worse than any religionist attacked them. Where are they coming from? I’m a Buddhist, I don’t worship gods but I have a spirituality and a right to it.
If they are not ideological why do they attack like evangelicals?
Pete quinones has a good video on the inquisition that shows a lot of the lies
Ye
Yeah I get a lot of our community isn’t really well versed in history. Most of our communities are philosophers, and commentators
Outside of price and carrier
Philosophers? Really? More like political commentators/scientists with a few philosophers thrown in the mix.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl tomatoe tomato
Anyone who critiques a disfavored group on the basis of historical claims has both moral and intellectual obligations to get the history right. Most of these atheist agitators are willing to use "any argument that works," thus taking advantage of the poor historical education of most of the population. "I'm not a historian" is not an alibi for making false claims about history that have been long debunked.
What can I say same old stuff in a different package.
Me seeing the title of this video: *visible glee*
Yep. IP is getting really good at telling believers what they want to hear. It's the smart way to cash-in on advertising dollars. IP's even shrewd enough to never use a methodology to rule-out his biases.
@@HegelsOwl Those are some nice baseless ad hominem statements you have there. It’d be a shame if someone…pointed them out as such!
Also, this isn’t even Mike telling us something here; it’s an atheist historian giving us information, so…?
@Ryan Howard Oh yeah? Huh. My charge, that IP uses no methodology, is not valid? Really! Le'me ask you something here, sir: Are you on any medications for a mental health condition? Or, rather, is it your depravity to think that you'll fall into possession of everything, some day, that makes you so bilind with ferocious hatred, that it's impossible for you to see what is obviously true?
The Hysterical Blunders.
Someone give this man an award!
This book is not cheap
All of them will reason out with the god of calvinist,... "it's his(calvigod) will to put ne in hell"...
Scientists should VIEW atheism and theism like they view the Schrodinger Principle, where 2 opposing states can be true.
What? Quantum principles only apply on a very small scale, we can’t appeal to them (even analogically) to say that both something and its direct negation / absence could be true at the same time.
Theism and atheism _can_ both be rational positions (there’s too many scientists and philosophers of both persuasions to think otherwise) _but both can’t be true._
@@mil401 Neither can the cat.
@@mil401 they can't both be true, but they can both be false
@@pentelegomenon1175 Both theism and not-theism can be false? I’m not sure how that works: if theism is false, than not-theism is true.
Maybe I’m missing something, but this seems like propositional logic 101. For any truth-apt proposition P, either P is true or P is false. If P and not-P are either both true or both false them you instantiate a contradiction.
Take the proposition P: “pi is exactly 3.0.” Either it is the case that P is true (and pi = 3.0) or is the case that P is false (and pi != 3.0). They can’t both be true or both be false, or else pi would both be equal to and not equal to 3.0, which is absurd.
The same logic applies for P: “a God exists.” If P is true, than not-P is false; if P is false, then not-P is true.
Either theism or atheism is true, but they can’t both be true or both be false.
@@mil401 atheists disbelieve more than just the existence of god
This is sort of assuming witchcraft isn’t a thing.
What are Nathan’s credentials? Just curious to know.
Search them up
Sadly the book is 100 bucks
Get an e-version
While I agree with him in general, I find this a curious subject to write an entire book on. The subject is hardly central to most discussions. Hitchens probably brought it up more than the others but Harris for example speaks far more about modern issues than about the inquisition. Aron Ra generally speaks about evolution & biblical mythology. Not sure why this was an issue.
"If you don't reach the same historical conclusions I have, then you've done history incorrectly." - Says everybody
"Therefore, we can never know history" - says no one.
@@kylemckinney_22 Agreed. The more accurate statement would be: "We can know *some* history, though not all of it, with varying degrees of confidence, and with that confidence often dependent on the nature of the historical claim."
You can have your own opinion, you cannot have your own facts.
@@chrismath149 Correct. And people's opinions are NOT part of the fact element, even if some would like to think so.
@@madmax2976 But facts are presented by historical evidence: sources (in any and all forms). If you come to the conclusion that the world is flat you are wrong.
If you follow the opinion of New Atheists, you are equally wrong.
If they were less commercials I might watch the whole show. 14 1/2 minutes in and I am out
Use adblock on a pc.
Black legend, Anti-clericalism, anti-Catholicism.
There is no evidence that will convince people if they simply refuse to believe the Bible due to lack of proof.
Luke 16:31
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets *(the Bible),* neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead *(proof).*
God says that there is enough proof seen in creation so that men are without excuse.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, *so that men are without excuse.*
Romans 10:9-10
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Acts 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Sorry, just because a book written by men long ago says something doesn’t make it true.
@@therick363
God isn't doing things the way you suppose he should, so now you insist that you cannot tell that the truth is truth. That line might work on your fellow temper tantrum throwers but God sees through your phony ways. On judgement day he will reveal your every secret thought that you've had throughout your life. You're a fake.
Romans 2:15-16
So they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Christ Jesus, as proclaimed by my gospel.
What that verse means is that you have had to excuse or condemn the breaking of biblical laws...depending on whether the law-breaking benefited you or hurt you. This shows that you know what is right and therefore you know that the Bible is true.
While arguing against God you can get your mind so snagged up that you can actually think you're making sense. However, an honest sorting out of your thoughts, motivations and actions will prove you to be a liar.
Jeremiah 16:17
For My eyes are on all their ways. They are not hidden from My face, and their guilt is not concealed from My eyes.
Luke 12:3
What you have spoken in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the housetops.
Matthew 12:36
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
By engaging honestly and being a self-critical you further the atheist "cause" far more articulately and effectively than the self-satisfied New atheists you referenced
6:4 Hear, Israel: YAHAWAH is our God; YAHAWAH is One:
Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am YAHAWAH; and besides me there is no savior.
New Atheism is a cult of personality
LOL And just what is the worship of Jesus? After all, you don't have any credible evidence that he was divine!
@@slik00silk84 I don't believe in Jesus, Shiva, Zeus or most gods. But New Atheism is like a cult of personality
@@CCP-Lies How is New Atheism like a cult of personality? Please start by giving your definition for the two terms you are using there. I will tell you beforehand that I really do not see a demarcation point there in atheism historically.
@@CCP-Lies OH! And you do believe in some gods!
Michael Jones needs to take control of the guests answer and not let them ramble like this. This is one of the worst interviews that just got boring I have to say. This is very sad because I actually like the content his guest said but we need a synopsis of the books contents not its entirety explained to us like we are children. I think Michael is slightly missing the long format of this medium and not actually doing his job as a facilitator of that dialog
Has not recent history shown that Afghanistan IS unconquerable?^^ The British couldn't do it in the 19th century, the Russians couldn't do it in the 1970s and 1980s, and of course, most recently, after spending trillions of dollars on the war and attempted nation-building, the Americans fled the country with their tails metaphorically between their legs, leaving behind 85 billion dollars worth of weapons besides...
The rest, though, seems more correct; out of his own mouth, Lincoln had great contempt for blacks, and only passed the Emancipation Proclamation to prevail exclusively in slave states--- thus it was a cynical war-time measure.
No, Columbus probably did not conclude that the Earth was flat; his extraordinary skill in navigation, considering the primitive (or at least simplistic and undeveloped) tools at his disposal, but the fact he so wildly underestimated the distances involved in reaching the Orient by sailing west is quite baffling. Ironically, most of C.C.'s critics, and the wary monarchs who refused to fund his proposed expeditions, were more correct than he was. Very strange, in retrospect...
That is an expensive book!
Torturing until confession is irrational. Many people, including innocent, would say anything under torture so that it stops.
Modern atheism is not thoughtful, just a rather poor attempt to shoehorn postmodernism into an already untenable worldview.
New Atheism is a cult of personality where they deify Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris or Dennett
Nazis were into the occult, they were definitely cultish, I wouldnt call them secular, though.
This^
Correction: SOME Nazis were into the occult (Himmler, on a lower plane Hess), some into paganism (Bormann, Rosenberg) but some were into a scientific pantheism (Hitler). And some just looked for an excuse to enricht themselves (Göring).
re paganism is occult, my guy, the swastika is occult, the New man is occult, the excursions into Antarctica was from occult writings, the entire Aryan philosophy us from the occult.
@@jonherron7418 paganism (a huge umbrella term) isn't necessarily occult. The Swastika is an Indian symbol. What excursions into Antarctica?
@@str.77 The swastica is found all over the ancient world. Paganism is the occult for the profane. It's not hard to find information on the Nazis in Antarctica.