Can I just throw in how cool it is to see such ecumenical goodwill these days. Fifteen years ago it was all the rage to do nothing but throw shade at one another, but nowadays we get to see great conversations and friendships between prominent atheists and theists. Super cool!
Isn't that awesome! I was having a discussion a few weeks ago where I said that I think we're seeing the begging of a 300ish year curve that will end denominational divides, and used Cameron as an example of the process starting.
Indeed it is, we should live with peace and love. How beautiful! As Christians, we should be loving and come with humility and display the Gospel we so deeply defend through us, it should be expressed through our loving, calm and wholesome ways. Loved the discussion!
Christians need to strive to be intellectually honest. When we call you out on slavery and other things that disprove the bible, you need to take that on the chin and acknowledge you are wrong.
Thank you, all four of you, for listening to each other and bringing this peaceful and respectful conversation to us. I love it when people of different faiths care for each other and care about thinking and talking things through. I can tell there was so much interest in connecting with each other and being kind to one another. I'm especially proud of my two Christian brothers here. 😊 Good job all of you. Thank you!
Alex’s comparison there is possibly ideally analogous to Pascal’s Wager. I loved it. Took no joy out of LotR. I would argue that’s exactly what Tolkien would have written himself if he could’ve. The destruction of hope or trusting in hope is the primary work of evil in it, I would argue.
@Lukas... keep it up. Remember it took decades of friendships and debates before Flew finally conceded that he was wrong. Unfortunately he didnt live long enough after that to publicly concede more, but it was a step and Alex and joe are still young.
Aw...I wish I could go! - It's so funny that sitting here wishing I could attend a Christian event on the other side of the planet. I was such a harebrained and annoying anti-theist a few years back; for no reason whatsoever! I'm so grateful for guys like Cam and Alex that I've been listening to the last two years for having made me intellectually curious and way more interested in people in general! ❤️
I really enjoyed this discussion. I find myself not wanting to be a debate person, but a discussion between two people can be very beneficial. I would probably be classified as an agnostic Christian or a progressive creationist. Not because I want to be, but because I have found there is evidence the Earth is billions of years old, and because there is evidence for evolution. I have also found plenty of background evidence for my faith in Jesus, as opposed to Buddhism or Hinduism, etc. I have studied Christianity for several years. I basically say that if God exists, He is more complex than we are, and He leaves us some room to figure our world out for ourselves.
I do not understand why some despise the argumentative or dialectical way of speaking about God. It is not obvious to everyone, so the only way to dialogue, in my opinion, is through reason. Otherwise, I cannot think of how a greater understanding of this matter could come about. Do they expect others to forcefully understand their point of view, and if they don't, the worse for them? Doesn't seem like a good way to think.
Alex what Dostoevsky was pointing out is that in the story of creation, when it says that God created man in his image, he saying that 2000 years ago we all have agreed that we are the divine centers of creation and that we need to treat each other that way. We know this is true because we give prisoners rights. He's saying that if you don't see the divinity in people you have no problem whipping them out.
Inevitable. Most agnostics and atheists make religion out of something. Our psychology and sociology is wired for it. I’ve heard it called the “God antenna” and used as proof of existence. Regardless there’s no escape. The real question is who do you want to be your God?
About Alex's attempt to promote veganism, I look at it from a market mechanism perspective. The more vegans/vegetarians there are, the lower the demand for meat. The lower the demand, the lower the price. That means carnivors can buy and consume even more meat. So in the end you havent changed anything.
Do you think that if you took the total amount of meat consumed, then made half the human population vegan, that the meat consumption would go up equally? That seems highly unlikely to me.
@@SeekingVirtueA You mean the other half would double? No. But maybe +30% or so. A new balance will set in. But all in all, I think people who couldnt afford meat, let along good meat, would then be able to buy it because of the lowered prices.
I am always wondering, what is their epistemology? Because in philosophy there is a debate about realism, how to talk about "out there metaphysics". And it is a big problem. They seem to be doing speculative scholastic metaphysics, I actually think that is simply not possible.
You all were talking about a scenario where the evidence for Theism and Atheism is equal. I can't imagine how we would determine something like that objectively. Some people are persuaded by things that others are not persuaded by. It's a very subjective state of affairs. Even if the evidence really was equal between the two, I can't see how we could ever actually determine that.
The ultimate experiment in science would be to blow up the planet. But everyone has to die, or none of us will ever discover whether any of us was really correct. Mr. O'Connor can quote classic British literature. Can you?
Alex has a bachelors in philosophy and theology from St. John's College, Oxford. I don't think he's said if he'll be pursuing a PhD in the near future or not though.
@@mil401 Alex should go for that Ph.D at Oxford, England 🏴 and become the resident atheist guru online. Disclaimer: If he really takes my advice I excuse myself from any liability.
I have a question for Joe actually…why do you define theism as “good”? In this exchange, you said that you are pro theism and if you had to pick, you would choose theism because “it would be good”. How can we know that god (or a creator) would serve ultimate justice, redemption, forgiveness, reconciliation? Is this the definition of theism, or can one define god as unjust, condemning, merciless, deceptive, vengeful? It seems that there is at least as much evidence for an evil god/creator as there is for a good one?
Alex being 22 it’s obvious how young his ideas are and I’m 20 so I can relate anyways the fact he has that many UA-cam subscribers makes him feel like he is smarter then he actually is , he is the one who thinks pleasure is “just good” by asserting all we can do is follow pleasure and avoid pain . How much of a tautology can someone maintain before it blows up in there face
I agree, when you get that many subscribers and supporters can give you a big ego, and make you feel smarter than you are, he is a smart guy but not as quite as smart as he thinks.
I think Cam might think agnosticism is easier to defend because it actually is where he is at epostemically. He sees all the counters and it makes it look more like a draw to him.
@@tann_man He is saying he is roughly 50%. Why would that be easier than roughly 90%. If the evidence truly doesn't lean one way or another then the 50% will of course be easier to defend, but that would be a good thing. It's easier to defend the claim that you are 50% that Ceasar on his 3rd birthday had an even amount of hairs on his head due to the poverty of the evidence. Maybe you just agree with Joe and that's why his position seems easier to defend.
@@Oskar1000 idk why you keep attributing positions other people aren't taking. It’s very dishonest. Joe did a good job at explaining that an informed agnostic IS making and defending claims and therefore is just as much work. But - and this was both mine and Cameron’s point - at first glance this isn’t immediately apparent. It all depends on the agnostic’s approach.
“Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)” Hebrews 10:22-23 KJV “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” Romans 1:18-25 KJV “For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 1:22-31 KJV “And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.” John 9:39 KJV
Just a quick clarification question for what Alex said around 18:15 about him being more concerned for truth above all else. Jesus said, “I am the truth.” Standing before Pilate He said, “everyone who is on the side of truth listens to me.” So has Alex considered and/or reconciled Jesus claim-not just that He spoke true things, but that He was The Truth Incarnate-with his belief and conviction to pursue the truth above all things?
@@thadgrace Three general tests of truth that I know of: logical consistency (does it avoid breaking any of the laws of logic), empirical adequacy (can you use your senses to collect data through mediums such as science, archeology, history, etc), and experiential relevance (is it something you can experience personally in your everyday life).
@Joshua T Coe See Alex's discussion with Craig. He concedes that he holds that reality as we see it is pure illusion and that all existence is made up of a substance that exists purely on its own synergy to exist. To use Aristotelian-Aquinian metaphysics, he thinks existence is its own un-caused cause and all else is illusion in an epistemological sense. Its an extreme branch of realism that basically Craig says makes argument pointless since even the discussion has no real truth value.
My perspective upon the question of whether "atheists act as though God exists" and "is this a justifiable reason to believe in an actually existing God" would be this. To begin with the first question, I'd like to make this stake within the ground. Morality is contingent upon value. Value is contingent upon God. Therefore, morality is contingent upon God. (G->V->M). For the sake of argument, I like to sympathize with what Shelly Kagan had to say as a rebuttal to William Lane Craig on whether moral realism can exist in a naturalistic worldview. Dr. Craig claimed that if humans are nothing more than merely animals, what moral agency are humans a part of that animals aren't? Dr. Kagan answered this brilliantly through illustrating a story. Image a 3-year-old child walks into your library and rips a bunch of pages out of your books. Now imagine a 30-year-old man walks into your library and rips a bunch of pages out of your books. Who is held to a higher moral agency? The 30-year-old of course. My main issue is the problem of value within a consistent naturalistic worldview. CS Lewis once wrote along the lines, "if consciousness is nothing more than a consequence of chemical sequences within my brain, what greater value do these chemicals hold that the wind upon trees don't?" In fact, when Dr. Craig asked Dr. Kagan on this question Kagan conceded that there isn't any difference. Jordan Peterson once said along the lines "if you go down the road that your nothing more than a cancer cell upon a speck of dust, your entire moral structure will collapse." This seems to be what ultimately led him to the claim that "the world isn't made out of matter; it's made out of what matters. It's made out of meaning." What I believe Dostoevsky explores within his novel, 𝘊𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘗𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 is a meditation upon the implications of a consistent naturalistic worldview within relation towards this earlier mentioned syllogism of morality. I'll leave this here for consideration. Now as for the second question, "is this a justifiable reason to believe in an actually existing God?" I think it possibly could. When the second level of consideration (with video context you'll understand what I'm saying) between atheism and theism lines the question of how do we best explain the way we act, the concept of theism is much more rationally reflective of our human experience. This leads me along the lines of Immanuel Kant, who believed the assumption that God exists is necessary for morality (though for a different reason).
About Aragorn not believing the teeth dude that Frodo is dead, I would answer it this way: 1st Where is the body? No blood? 2nd why hasnt Sauron destroyed them yet? 3rd Why should we believe a filthy orc?
@@peanutkaboom6004 I agree that most people agree with that, but it`s important to distinguish between suffering, tragedy and evil. Those are not the same.
@@peanutkaboom6004 Yes, that is one definition of evil. A poor definition, I might say. But notice that suffering itself is not evil. It is the act of willingly inflicting unnecessary suffering on others that is evil. See the difference? And before you come back with a "gotcha": no, God is not a being in that sense. God is the source of all beings. With that in mind, any natural disaster or event that inflicts what we might see as unnecessary suffering is, by definition, not evil. This is better defined as tragedy. In these matters, I suggest you look for Augustine's views on evil. I also recommend a lecture by Jordan Peterson on Tragedy vs Evil. Unfortunately, I can't post any links here, but I'm sure you can find those contents.
@@rafaelforcadell I’m afraid woo-woo language like “source of all beings” does not vindicate an all powerful god from responsibility for building wanton suffering into its designs. Any all powerful god would have known precisely the suffering it was going to inflict by devising this particular creation. That doesn’t mean such a god does not exist; it only means we cannot call that all powerful god “morally perfect” or “maximally benevolent” or any variation thereof. A god that is omnipotent and omnibenevolent *cannot* exist in this reality; it is *impossible* given the facts we know about this universe.
Alex's suggestion that religion as it exists today is doing more harm than good seems historically ignorant. Things we take for granted in Western society, like the notion it's good to care for the poor and marginalized of society is a good thing, or that leaving your unwanted baby out to die is a bad thing, were not majorly held beliefs in the ancient world. Think of all of the orphanages, homeless shelters, and hospitals founded by religious organizations or individuals. Even many of those founded by non-religious people probably only exist as imitations of what the church was already doing. The best argument he could make is that, possibly, if religion were to disappear overnight, there would be enough conscientious atheists to take over those efforts, but there's no guarantee of that.
Without arguing with you that there were positives, you also have to face the reality of every religious conflict that was Christian in nature (eg the wars of religion, the inquisitions and crusades, the Troubles in Ireland), the maintenance of slavery, as well as persecution of women, people of colour, and sexual minorities.
Reacting to Alex about Nilhism: I do not believe that it is logical to expect that Evolution is a ground for our motivations (at least as the one compatible with a Christian world view). Evolution has selected the most Narcissistic and cruel behaviour for several thousands years. This can be seen in DNA data and in historical records. Gengiskan type of guy had much more kids than the others. The main reason that makes that we believe that auto-sacrifice can be good it is not evolution (it could be, if history had been different). Instead, ours believes about morality have been greatly influenced by Jesus (and usually "people does not died for things that they doubt"). One can see the data in my channel in 5 mn in the video : "Does our idea of good and evil comes from natural selection?
Natural selection is less about an individuals success in reproducing but more about the ability of the whole species to survive in a given environment, i guess i should also ask if bees also got the self sacrificing attributes from Jesus? These sorts of attributes are not just a human thing and we see them all be it in less sophisticated forms in other animals as well.
@@bjk8794 "the self sacrificing attributes from Jesus? These sorts of attributes are not just a human ". As C. Darwin well said: "If, for instance, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters, and no one would think of interfering". Thus, everything about morality is a question of circumstances. There are no place for "sorts of attributes that are not just a human". There is no place for any given sense of right and wrong. Morality is distinctive in that it is something needed by and only by the individuals of a social species. It is only a biological adaptation. If you think that this is not the case (for animals or Humans) you are no longer a naturalist. However, you can see in the video that "Evolution has selected the most Narcissistic and cruel behaviour for several thousands years. This can be seen in DNA data and in historical records." So, how do you explain that?
Hey Barry, long time no see :-) In the German language, it's Rüegger. Since English doesn't have ü, this is usually compensated for by ue which would technically make my name to look Rueegger. However, that's a lot of e's so, I've come to write myself as Ruegger in English. Hehe.
@@CapturingChristianity Cam please ask Alex O Connor to make a series with Joe on Ontological argumentS just like THE KALAM series by Rationality rule n Joe
The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument. *Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do:* He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6-7; 11:7-12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises-for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing- *Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome.* Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, *making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews.* (1 Cor.1:23) ------------------------------------------------------------------ The end is near? *The Bible’s New Testament contains a drumbeat of promises that Jesus is ready to return any day now, implying that it will happen so soon that it would be wise to keep it in mind when making any kind of life decision. But it didn’t happen.* The following is a sample of verses professing this theme: Matt 10:23: [Jesus said to his disciples] *‘When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next;* ***for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes’.*** (They fled through the towns but the Son of Man never came) Matt 16:28: [Jesus said to the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom’. Mark 9:1: And he [Jesus] said to them [the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power’. Mark 13:30: *[After detailing events up to end of world, Jesus says]* ‘Truly, I say to you, ***this generation will not pass away*** *before all these things take place’.* Mark 14:62: And Jesus said ***[to the high priest - died 1st cent. AD]*** ‘You will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’. (The high priest died and never saw the Son of Man) Rom 13:12: The day is *at hand.* 1 Cor 7:29: The appointed time has grown very short; from now on, *let those who have wives live as though they had none.* (Funny thing to say if you didn’t think the end was imminent) 1 Cor 7:31: For the form of this world is *passing away.* Phil 4:5: The Lord is *coming soon.* 1 Thess 4:15: *We who are alive, who are left* until the coming of the Lord. Hebrews 1:2: *In these last days* he has spoken to us by a Son. Hebrews 10:37: For yet a little while, and the coming one shall come and *shall not tarry.* James 5:8: The coming of the Lord is *at hand.* 1 Peter 1:20: He [Christ] was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the *end of the times.* 1 Peter 4:7: The end of all things is *at hand.* 1 John 2:18: *It is the last hour;* and as you have heard that antichrist is coming. Rev 1:1: The revelation of Jesus Christ (i.e., the end of the world)…to show to his servants what must *soon take place.* Rev 3:11: [Jesus said] ‘I am *coming soon’.* Rev 22:6: And the Lord…has sent his angel to show his servants what must *soon take place.* Rev 22:20: [Jesus said] ‘Surely I am *coming soon’.* *It is puzzling to understand why Christianity survived the failure of this prediction. It is not ambiguous.* This would be like a rich uncle who promises to give you $10,000 ‘very soon.’ Ten years pass and he still hasn’t given anything to you, but he still says he will do it very soon. Would you still believe that it will happen any day? No, you would realize that it is a false promise. *For some reason, Christians cannot comprehend that they have been scammed. Jesus is not coming back, not tomorrow, not next year, not ever. But they still think it will happen any day.* www.kyroot.com/ *Watch* Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman on UA-cam Google *"13x Jesus was wrong in the Bible - Life Lessons"* Google *"End Times - Evil Bible .com"* Google *"The End of All Things is At Hand - The Church Of Truth"* Google *"Resurrection - Fact or Myth - Omission Report"* Google *"What’s Missing from Codex Sinaiticus, the Oldest New Testament? - Biblical Archaeology Society"* Google *"The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference - Biblical Archaeology Society"* Google *"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"* Google *"Why Jesus? Nontract (August 1999) - Freedom From Religion Foundation"* Google *"272: JESUS’S 5200 AUTHENTIC WORDS - zingcreed"* Google *"43: IS THE FOURTH GOSPEL FICTION? - zingcreed"* Google *"Jesus Predicted a First Century Return Which Did Not Occur - by Alex Beyman - Medium"* Google *"Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return - Black Nonbelievers, Inc."*
Matt, if I could really blow up the planet, I would concede that nothing can be done about the vast amount of Ignorance in the world, since the world really demands Ignorance, and the Wise avoid returning to this place. And I would really do it. That's a promise you can take with you to the bank when you vote.
You may thought that I 'thought about it' before making this next illustrious post, but that's not quite the case. If I had really thought about it, I would have realized my Immoral interest lies in actually becoming The Devil. I then decided not to think. So when and if I'm really given the opportunity to blow up the planet, I will really and actually do it, without thinking too much about it first.
First, thanks for your superchats, Matt. Second, I haven't stopped addressing super chats. When I plan to address super chats during a stream, I announce that at the beginning of (or at some point during) the stream. Given the nature of this stream (and the limited amount of time we had to discuss), I didn't make such an announcement. I apologize for any confusion.
@@CapturingChristianity thanks for clarifying that. I didn't know that's how you did it on your channel and will take note for future live streams, though I did find it interesting how you addressed some of the normal chat.
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Matthew 11:28 KJV Jesus lives Jesus Christ is Lord For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3:23 Jesus loves you repent You're a sinner in need of a Savior 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. Romans 10:9-10 KJV
Many of them aren't worth the time. They're simply unthoughtful about the world's many possibilities. But it's always valuable to talk to a mathematician, or a man of letters.
Well right now, I've got a few minutes before a meeting, so I'm looking for the scene in an old computer game called Freelancer, where the protagonist, Trent, feels skeptical about the identity of a ------ because he knows that the man isn't smart enough to be a ------. Such a long game for only one quote that I still care about.
To the agnostic and atheist it is impossible for you to believe in Christ and the word of God because of romans 9 and many other bible passages in my opinion. Because God himself will not allow you to believe not just these two people Alex and Joe but all who do not believe. God says he will have compassion on whom He will have compassion and on the rest he harden’s so they do not receive the truth that one must be born again. In the garden of eden Adam and Eve gave up eternal life in order to be as gods from the lie of satan, so ALL onward are condemned except for the Lord who had compassion on some so they would be saved or they never would understand and come to the truth. My prayer is that Alex and Joe leave this foolishness and repent from there heresies before Christ returns. It is really quite sad that some will never turn to Christ even tho the truth is in plain sight and hence receive what is due recompense for people’s unbelief. Remember satan is the father of lies and will in all effort deceive the world to the end as he has been doing since Adam and Eve. Remember eternity is FOREVER no getting out of hell after this life, something to weigh out all, i guess!
So far they’ve discussed the problem of evil, the Christian emotional way of dealing with it (aka suffer savior), they talked about Crime and Punishment the Brothers Karmanov and how that ties to Intellect and belief in Christ. And I’m not even half way done
@@LarryRuffin-vy7hx So... general theism and the same old one dimensional philosophical discussions that have been done already? Still no mentions of Jesus Christ.
@@cindychristman8708 That sounds super insular and unproductive. Why shouldn’t Cam engage with humanity at large by discussing the faith from the fringes? For from what other entrance are we to expect the atheist to enter, if not from outside? What Cam is doing is what Christianity has always done; engage with the world. Hence why Christianity still exists today. If the only way you’re capable of dialoguing with disbelievers is through the use of Christian rhetoric, your words will fall on deaf ears, because you’re speaking a language they don’t understand (or refuse to).
@@bookishbrendan8875 I agree with Simon WoodburyForget and couldn't say it better myself. I would add that when Cameron says, "btw, Christianity is true" he would be well served to define exactly what he means and how he KNOWS the christian god exists.
@@SimonWoodburyForget I think you’re misunderstanding my point. You have to start somewhere, yes? If you’re engaging with a naturalist/materialist, why begin with the most orthodox principle tenants of your religion when you haven’t even come to terms with them on the mere possibility of there being something outside/above/apart of nature in the first place? It’s all well said and done to want them to understand your exact religion, but they’ll dismiss something like the divinity of Jesus out of hand if they haven’t assented to the possibility of there being the supernatural first. If the atheist in question is already open to that, then sure, shower them in the specifics of your faith. As an atheist myself, I don’t not believe because I have some sentimental or ethical beef with Christianity. I actually find Christianity beautiful, deep and extremely relevant to our culture today. Given that I already find the tradition beautiful, my contention instead comes with me not finding claims to the supernatural ontologically possible. Ergo, Cam’s dialectic is more interesting to an atheist like me because the philosophical approach it most relevant to my precise points of contention. Other atheists may chafe at other aspects of religion, and it is up to apologists of a different sort to cater to them. But for me, I find it is the philosophical tradition in Christianity that most merits my attention. Also, Cam’s not arguing for deism specifically, for even deism has specific claims (namely, that the creator or the universe has no further involvement in it).
I’m just gonna go ahead and say it. The presuppositional way of debating with atheists is how I know God would want his believers to “debate” with atheists. None of this seems to be doing Any good.
One big reason why I prefer Eastern Orthodox approaches. Sometimes the mystery is the point. Explaining it only creates reasons to divide. And I say that as a western scientist fully guilty of that tendency.
Over intellectualizing god? Yes Atheist games? I disagree sir. Actually one thing that keeps me from believing in god is this appearance of the necessity to “over intellectualize” god. I don’t understand why god needs really deep philosophical and intellectual arguments for his existence. If the Bible has any ounce of truth, the biggest ambassadors of god needed not deep theology. Moses needed “I Am”. Paul needed Jesus saves. The apostles performed miracles. And they each convinced plenty of people their god exists. I understand that at some level, there are people who want a logical and intellectual understanding of god. But when i did believe, I believed his love was strong enough to convince anyone who would hear the gospel. So either it’s not, he chooses not to let it, or it genuinely is the greatest truth of all mankind and the people who can’t bring themselves to believe in it will suffer eternally.
It’s the theologians and early church fathers who started the process of exploring God and how we can comprehend him to our limited abilities. We’ve been doing it since the Greek philosophers and Jewish priests are debunking Christianity and making arguments against it.
Alex. I would like to ask you a rather explicit question. Regarding your view on bestiality, you stated towards the end of this conversation that you are not a proponent of it by virtue of it being an exploitation from humans similar to how they are exploited in farming and other industrial practices, right? Would you support it on a case by case basis if an animal was discovered to be consenting? Let’s say, for example, an animal initiated sex with a woman and she consented or a man imitated sex with an animal and they clearly displayed behavioral cues that we observe in mating in the wild signifying consent, would you accept that as ethically good, neutral, or bad? And why?
Can I just throw in how cool it is to see such ecumenical goodwill these days. Fifteen years ago it was all the rage to do nothing but throw shade at one another, but nowadays we get to see great conversations and friendships between prominent atheists and theists. Super cool!
Isn't that awesome! I was having a discussion a few weeks ago where I said that I think we're seeing the begging of a 300ish year curve that will end denominational divides, and used Cameron as an example of the process starting.
Someone tell Aron Ra
Indeed it is, we should live with peace and love. How beautiful! As Christians, we should be loving and come with humility and display the Gospel we so deeply defend through us, it should be expressed through our loving, calm and wholesome ways. Loved the discussion!
Discussion starts at 9:25 (Joe's agnostic stance).
15:50 - Alex responds.
20:40 - Lukas responds.
24:40 - Open discussion (Alex on Agnosticism, Nihilism).
29:20 - Joe (Intellectually Responsible Agnosticism).
31:08 - Lukas (Thoughts on Skepticism).
32:13 - Joe (Types of Agnostics, and thoughts on Pro-theism).
38:50 - Alex (What's True and Rational?)
46:29 - Lukas (Pascal's Wager) & (Lukas & Alex: Morality & Determinism.)
1:02:40 - Lukas (Thoughts on Alex's Morals).
1:10:55 - Closing thoughts.
Lol Cameron is going to hire you
Great video. Appreciated the civil and charitable dialogue and am looking forward to more in the future.
We need to strive to have more tranquil discourse as displayed here.
More in the comments would be nice
Christians need to strive to be intellectually honest.
When we call you out on slavery and other things that disprove the bible, you need to take that on the chin and acknowledge you are wrong.
Thank you, all four of you, for listening to each other and bringing this peaceful and respectful conversation to us. I love it when people of different faiths care for each other and care about thinking and talking things through. I can tell there was so much interest in connecting with each other and being kind to one another. I'm especially proud of my two Christian brothers here. 😊 Good job all of you. Thank you!
This is so cool please do this more frequently
"Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the sons of God "
What a collab. This is incredible
This is Not Debate but This is Great Discussion.! I love it
I can't wait for these guys to come together to talk about Christianity some time!
ABSOLUTELY LOVED THIS! LOOKING FORWARD TO THE SHOW!
I’m not sure Alex’s compassion for animals makes up for his apparent disdain of the LOTR films… A borderline unforgivable sin.
Star Wars beats LOTR in every possible world
@@christianpaleocon6580
❤️‘Empire Strikes Back’
Exactly right!
The Prince of Egypt beats them all 👌
Alex’s comparison there is possibly ideally analogous to Pascal’s Wager. I loved it. Took no joy out of LotR. I would argue that’s exactly what Tolkien would have written himself if he could’ve. The destruction of hope or trusting in hope is the primary work of evil in it, I would argue.
This might be the best panel ever conceived in the history of internet debate/discussion.
Lukas is a beast 👌
@Lukas... keep it up. Remember it took decades of friendships and debates before Flew finally conceded that he was wrong. Unfortunately he didnt live long enough after that to publicly concede more, but it was a step and Alex and joe are still young.
you too Cam. Kudos.
Nice collab, would have been nice to hear some discussion about Christianity.
This is the video where he got his channels profile picture xD
Love this! Definitely want more!
This was a really interesting conversation.
Good work!
Aw...I wish I could go!
- It's so funny that sitting here wishing I could attend a Christian event on the other side of the planet.
I was such a harebrained and annoying anti-theist a few years back; for no reason whatsoever!
I'm so grateful for guys like Cam and Alex that I've been listening to the last two years for having made me intellectually curious and way more interested in people in general! ❤️
I actually watched the whole thing... Good job!
Could you please have cosmic skeptic on with josh yen/ apologetics for all and discuss Dostoevsky from their own perspectives, would be great!!!!
I really enjoyed this discussion. I find myself not wanting to be a debate person, but a discussion between two people can be very beneficial.
I would probably be classified as an agnostic Christian or a progressive creationist. Not because I want to be, but because I have found there is evidence the Earth is billions of years old, and because there is evidence for evolution. I have also found plenty of background evidence for my faith in Jesus, as opposed to Buddhism or Hinduism, etc. I have studied Christianity for several years. I basically say that if God exists, He is more complex than we are, and He leaves us some room to figure our world out for ourselves.
Great conversation!
Great discussion. Thanks for hosting!
~athiest sub
This was really good and fun to watch
I do not understand why some despise the argumentative or dialectical way of speaking about God. It is not obvious to everyone, so the only way to dialogue, in my opinion, is through reason. Otherwise, I cannot think of how a greater understanding of this matter could come about. Do they expect others to forcefully understand their point of view, and if they don't, the worse for them? Doesn't seem like a good way to think.
This is amazing. Love all of you guys.
Very fun discussion.
Alex what Dostoevsky was pointing out is that in the story of creation, when it says that God created man in his image, he saying that 2000 years ago we all have agreed that we are the divine centers of creation and that we need to treat each other that way.
We know this is true because we give prisoners rights.
He's saying that if you don't see the divinity in people you have no problem whipping them out.
I think recent cultural trends raise questions as to whether religion is actually inevitable it's just the form in which it will take.
Inevitable. Most agnostics and atheists make religion out of something. Our psychology and sociology is wired for it. I’ve heard it called the “God antenna” and used as proof of existence. Regardless there’s no escape. The real question is who do you want to be your God?
12:38 throwing something down to Alex
You all should get together and discuss the current world situation that or mental health.
Would be interesting
Darn, I'm all the way in South Africa, I cant come to the event 🙃
Same
1:13:42 best part
😂
I love Alex's dissing of LOTR
Love it
I'm a huge LOTR fan so it makes me sad that Alex doesn't like it
Do Christians consider hope a form of faith?
About Alex's attempt to promote veganism, I look at it from a market mechanism perspective.
The more vegans/vegetarians there are, the lower the demand for meat.
The lower the demand, the lower the price.
That means carnivors can buy and consume even more meat.
So in the end you havent changed anything.
Do you think that if you took the total amount of meat consumed, then made half the human population vegan, that the meat consumption would go up equally? That seems highly unlikely to me.
@@SeekingVirtueA You mean the other half would double?
No.
But maybe +30% or so.
A new balance will set in. But all in all, I think people who couldnt afford meat, let along good meat, would then be able to buy it because of the lowered prices.
The line-up in this video title is OP.
I am always wondering, what is their epistemology? Because in philosophy there is a debate about realism, how to talk about "out there metaphysics". And it is a big problem. They seem to be doing speculative scholastic metaphysics, I actually think that is simply not possible.
You all were talking about a scenario where the evidence for Theism and Atheism is equal. I can't imagine how we would determine something like that objectively. Some people are persuaded by things that others are not persuaded by. It's a very subjective state of affairs. Even if the evidence really was equal between the two, I can't see how we could ever actually determine that.
1:10:10 interest
Joe is like me, we are Kierkegaard's Knight of faith
Love the discussion! Not sure though how wise it is or helpful for anyone involved to give such a platform for those with no qualifications.
The ultimate experiment in science would be to blow up the planet. But everyone has to die, or none of us will ever discover whether any of us was really correct. Mr. O'Connor can quote classic British literature. Can you?
Alex has a bachelors in philosophy and theology from St. John's College, Oxford. I don't think he's said if he'll be pursuing a PhD in the near future or not though.
@@mil401 Alex should go for that Ph.D at Oxford, England 🏴 and become the resident atheist guru online.
Disclaimer: If he really takes my advice I excuse myself from any liability.
@@mil401 Very cool!
@@gristly_knuckle PhD is rarely a bad idea. If he thinks he’s gonna continue to study on his own he might as well.
Based collab.
Interesting discussion...
Escuchaste mi nueva música para Atraer el Amor? ❤️
I have a question for Joe actually…why do you define theism as “good”? In this exchange, you said that you are pro theism and if you had to pick, you would choose theism because “it would be good”. How can we know that god (or a creator) would serve ultimate justice, redemption, forgiveness, reconciliation? Is this the definition of theism, or can one define god as unjust, condemning, merciless, deceptive, vengeful? It seems that there is at least as much evidence for an evil god/creator as there is for a good one?
Spamming the Canadians! We are sorry that we say it wrong! 🤣 🇨🇦
Could you reference the video timestamp? I wasn’t completely sober.
Having these guys on and keeping it only 80mins long must be tough.
Alex being 22 it’s obvious how young his ideas are and I’m 20 so I can relate anyways the fact he has that many UA-cam subscribers makes him feel like he is smarter then he actually is , he is the one who thinks pleasure is “just good” by asserting all we can do is follow pleasure and avoid pain .
How much of a tautology can someone maintain before it blows up in there face
I agree, when you get that many subscribers and supporters can give you a big ego, and make you feel smarter than you are, he is a smart guy but not as quite as smart as he thinks.
I think Cam might think agnosticism is easier to defend because it actually is where he is at epostemically.
He sees all the counters and it makes it look more like a draw to him.
I’m not convinced. It seems harder to make and defend a claim you’re only 90% certain about than to say you’re unsure.
@@tann_man He is saying he is roughly 50%. Why would that be easier than roughly 90%.
If the evidence truly doesn't lean one way or another then the 50% will of course be easier to defend, but that would be a good thing. It's easier to defend the claim that you are 50% that Ceasar on his 3rd birthday had an even amount of hairs on his head due to the poverty of the evidence.
Maybe you just agree with Joe and that's why his position seems easier to defend.
@@Oskar1000 idk why you keep attributing positions other people aren't taking. It’s very dishonest.
Joe did a good job at explaining that an informed agnostic IS making and defending claims and therefore is just as much work. But - and this was both mine and Cameron’s point - at first glance this isn’t immediately apparent. It all depends on the agnostic’s approach.
@@tann_man where did I do that?
@@Oskar1000 “because [agnosticism] actually is where [Cam] is at epostemically.”
“Maybe you just agree with Joe”
“Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)”
Hebrews 10:22-23 KJV
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.”
Romans 1:18-25 KJV
“For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.”
1 Corinthians 1:22-31 KJV
“And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.” John 9:39 KJV
Just a quick clarification question for what Alex said around 18:15 about him being more concerned for truth above all else.
Jesus said, “I am the truth.” Standing before Pilate He said, “everyone who is on the side of truth listens to me.”
So has Alex considered and/or reconciled Jesus claim-not just that He spoke true things, but that He was The Truth Incarnate-with his belief and conviction to pursue the truth above all things?
It’s important to understand how Alex defines the word truth. How do you define the word truth? Truth is…
@@thadgrace I understand truth to mean “that which corresponds to reality.” I would have to see when and how Alex defines truth.
@@danielhoisington6973 Yes me too, how do we show that the claim Jesus makes aligns with reality?
@@thadgrace Three general tests of truth that I know of: logical consistency (does it avoid breaking any of the laws of logic), empirical adequacy (can you use your senses to collect data through mediums such as science, archeology, history, etc), and experiential relevance (is it something you can experience personally in your everyday life).
@@danielhoisington6973 Do you believe Jesus walked on water?
@Joshua T Coe See Alex's discussion with Craig. He concedes that he holds that reality as we see it is pure illusion and that all existence is made up of a substance that exists purely on its own synergy to exist. To use Aristotelian-Aquinian metaphysics, he thinks existence is its own un-caused cause and all else is illusion in an epistemological sense. Its an extreme branch of realism that basically Craig says makes argument pointless since even the discussion has no real truth value.
My perspective upon the question of whether "atheists act as though God exists" and "is this a justifiable reason to believe in an actually existing God" would be this. To begin with the first question, I'd like to make this stake within the ground. Morality is contingent upon value. Value is contingent upon God. Therefore, morality is contingent upon God. (G->V->M). For the sake of argument, I like to sympathize with what Shelly Kagan had to say as a rebuttal to William Lane Craig on whether moral realism can exist in a naturalistic worldview. Dr. Craig claimed that if humans are nothing more than merely animals, what moral agency are humans a part of that animals aren't? Dr. Kagan answered this brilliantly through illustrating a story. Image a 3-year-old child walks into your library and rips a bunch of pages out of your books. Now imagine a 30-year-old man walks into your library and rips a bunch of pages out of your books. Who is held to a higher moral agency? The 30-year-old of course. My main issue is the problem of value within a consistent naturalistic worldview. CS Lewis once wrote along the lines, "if consciousness is nothing more than a consequence of chemical sequences within my brain, what greater value do these chemicals hold that the wind upon trees don't?" In fact, when Dr. Craig asked Dr. Kagan on this question Kagan conceded that there isn't any difference. Jordan Peterson once said along the lines "if you go down the road that your nothing more than a cancer cell upon a speck of dust, your entire moral structure will collapse." This seems to be what ultimately led him to the claim that "the world isn't made out of matter; it's made out of what matters. It's made out of meaning." What I believe Dostoevsky explores within his novel, 𝘊𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘗𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 is a meditation upon the implications of a consistent naturalistic worldview within relation towards this earlier mentioned syllogism of morality. I'll leave this here for consideration. Now as for the second question, "is this a justifiable reason to believe in an actually existing God?" I think it possibly could. When the second level of consideration (with video context you'll understand what I'm saying) between atheism and theism lines the question of how do we best explain the way we act, the concept of theism is much more rationally reflective of our human experience. This leads me along the lines of Immanuel Kant, who believed the assumption that God exists is necessary for morality (though for a different reason).
About Aragorn not believing the teeth dude that Frodo is dead, I would answer it this way:
1st Where is the body? No blood?
2nd why hasnt Sauron destroyed them yet?
3rd Why should we believe a filthy orc?
i have a question can i belive in cells and the soul?
They hardly discussed Christianity which is my only criticism.
One comment on the Aragon Vs Mouth of Sauron analogy is that the 'evidence' is being presented by a known deceiver and a liar.
Hmmm…one major question would av been ‘what is the truth’?
That's the question Pontius Pilate asked. Interestingly enough Truth was right in front of him.
Here we go again. Suffering is not the same as evil. How many times I need to remember this?
Most people would agree that unnecessarily causing suffering is evil
@@peanutkaboom6004 I agree that most people agree with that, but it`s important to distinguish between suffering, tragedy and evil. Those are not the same.
@@rafaelforcadell So when a being with moral sense intentionally causes deep and unnecessary suffering on other beings, is that not evil?
@@peanutkaboom6004 Yes, that is one definition of evil. A poor definition, I might say. But notice that suffering itself is not evil. It is the act of willingly inflicting unnecessary suffering on others that is evil. See the difference? And before you come back with a "gotcha": no, God is not a being in that sense. God is the source of all beings. With that in mind, any natural disaster or event that inflicts what we might see as unnecessary suffering is, by definition, not evil. This is better defined as tragedy. In these matters, I suggest you look for Augustine's views on evil. I also recommend a lecture by Jordan Peterson on Tragedy vs Evil. Unfortunately, I can't post any links here, but I'm sure you can find those contents.
@@rafaelforcadell I’m afraid woo-woo language like “source of all beings” does not vindicate an all powerful god from responsibility for building wanton suffering into its designs. Any all powerful god would have known precisely the suffering it was going to inflict by devising this particular creation.
That doesn’t mean such a god does not exist; it only means we cannot call that all powerful god “morally perfect” or “maximally benevolent” or any variation thereof. A god that is omnipotent and omnibenevolent *cannot* exist in this reality; it is *impossible* given the facts we know about this universe.
Dillahunty says eating animals is alright, Alex says its wrong, who should i listen to.
Alex
Neither have any ground for decided "good" or "bad"
@@kylemckinney_22 i agree
@@kylemckinney_22 actually they probably have called REASON not God said so
Alex's suggestion that religion as it exists today is doing more harm than good seems historically ignorant. Things we take for granted in Western society, like the notion it's good to care for the poor and marginalized of society is a good thing, or that leaving your unwanted baby out to die is a bad thing, were not majorly held beliefs in the ancient world. Think of all of the orphanages, homeless shelters, and hospitals founded by religious organizations or individuals. Even many of those founded by non-religious people probably only exist as imitations of what the church was already doing. The best argument he could make is that, possibly, if religion were to disappear overnight, there would be enough conscientious atheists to take over those efforts, but there's no guarantee of that.
Without arguing with you that there were positives, you also have to face the reality of every religious conflict that was Christian in nature (eg the wars of religion, the inquisitions and crusades, the Troubles in Ireland), the maintenance of slavery, as well as persecution of women, people of colour, and sexual minorities.
The extended editions are indeed absolutely horrible.
Reacting to Alex about Nilhism: I do not believe that it is logical to expect that Evolution is a ground for our motivations (at least as the one compatible with a Christian world view). Evolution has selected the most Narcissistic and cruel behaviour for several thousands years. This can be seen in DNA data and in historical records. Gengiskan type of guy had much more kids than the others. The main reason that makes that we believe that auto-sacrifice can be good it is not evolution (it could be, if history had been different). Instead, ours believes about morality have been greatly influenced by Jesus (and usually "people does not died for things that they doubt"). One can see the data in my channel in 5 mn in the video : "Does our idea of good and evil comes from natural selection?
Great data!
Thanks!
Natural selection is less about an individuals success in reproducing but more about the ability of the whole species to survive in a given environment, i guess i should also ask if bees also got the self sacrificing attributes from Jesus? These sorts of attributes are not just a human thing and we see them all be it in less sophisticated forms in other animals as well.
@@bjk8794 "the self sacrificing attributes from Jesus? These sorts of attributes are not just a human ". As C. Darwin well said:
"If, for instance, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters, and no one would think of interfering".
Thus, everything about morality is a question of circumstances. There are no place for "sorts of attributes that are not just a human".
There is no place for any given sense of right and wrong. Morality is distinctive in that it is something needed by and only by the individuals of a social species. It is only a biological adaptation. If you think that this is not the case (for animals or Humans) you are no longer a naturalist.
However, you can see in the video that "Evolution has selected the most Narcissistic and cruel behaviour for several thousands years. This can be seen in DNA data and in historical records." So, how do you explain that?
Lukas's last name is misspelled.
He asked me to spell it that way.
Hey Barry, long time no see :-) In the German language, it's Rüegger. Since English doesn't have ü, this is usually compensated for by ue which would technically make my name to look Rueegger. However, that's a lot of e's so, I've come to write myself as Ruegger in English. Hehe.
@@CapturingChristianity Cam please ask Alex O Connor to make a series with Joe on Ontological argumentS just like THE KALAM series by Rationality rule n Joe
@@Deflate2020 hey please ask Alex O Connor to make a series with Joe on Ontological argumentS just like THE KALAM series by Rationality rule n Joe
The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument.
*Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do:* He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6-7; 11:7-12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises-for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing- *Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome.* Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, *making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews.* (1 Cor.1:23)
------------------------------------------------------------------
The end is near?
*The Bible’s New Testament contains a drumbeat of promises that Jesus is ready to return any day now, implying that it will happen so soon that it would be wise to keep it in mind when making any kind of life decision. But it didn’t happen.* The following is a sample of verses professing this theme:
Matt 10:23: [Jesus said to his disciples] *‘When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next;* ***for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes’.*** (They fled through the towns but the Son of Man never came)
Matt 16:28: [Jesus said to the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom’.
Mark 9:1: And he [Jesus] said to them [the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power’.
Mark 13:30: *[After detailing events up to end of world, Jesus says]* ‘Truly, I say to you, ***this generation will not pass away*** *before all these things take place’.*
Mark 14:62: And Jesus said ***[to the high priest - died 1st cent. AD]*** ‘You will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’. (The high priest died and never saw the Son of Man)
Rom 13:12: The day is *at hand.*
1 Cor 7:29: The appointed time has grown very short; from now on, *let those who have wives live as though they had none.* (Funny thing to say if you didn’t think the end was imminent)
1 Cor 7:31: For the form of this world is *passing away.*
Phil 4:5: The Lord is *coming soon.*
1 Thess 4:15: *We who are alive, who are left* until the coming of the Lord.
Hebrews 1:2: *In these last days* he has spoken to us by a Son.
Hebrews 10:37: For yet a little while, and the coming one shall come and *shall not tarry.*
James 5:8: The coming of the Lord is *at hand.*
1 Peter 1:20: He [Christ] was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the *end of the times.*
1 Peter 4:7: The end of all things is *at hand.*
1 John 2:18: *It is the last hour;* and as you have heard that antichrist is coming.
Rev 1:1: The revelation of Jesus Christ (i.e., the end of the world)…to show to his servants what must *soon take place.*
Rev 3:11: [Jesus said] ‘I am *coming soon’.*
Rev 22:6: And the Lord…has sent his angel to show his servants what must *soon take place.*
Rev 22:20: [Jesus said] ‘Surely I am *coming soon’.*
*It is puzzling to understand why Christianity survived the failure of this prediction. It is not ambiguous.* This would be like a rich uncle who promises to give you $10,000 ‘very soon.’ Ten years pass and he still hasn’t given anything to you, but he still says he will do it very soon. Would you still believe that it will happen any day? No, you would realize that it is a false promise. *For some reason, Christians cannot comprehend that they have been scammed. Jesus is not coming back, not tomorrow, not next year, not ever. But they still think it will happen any day.*
www.kyroot.com/
*Watch* Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman on UA-cam
Google *"13x Jesus was wrong in the Bible - Life Lessons"*
Google *"End Times - Evil Bible .com"*
Google *"The End of All Things is At Hand - The Church Of Truth"*
Google *"Resurrection - Fact or Myth - Omission Report"*
Google *"What’s Missing from Codex Sinaiticus, the Oldest New Testament? - Biblical Archaeology Society"*
Google *"The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference - Biblical Archaeology Society"*
Google *"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"*
Google *"Why Jesus? Nontract (August 1999) - Freedom From Religion Foundation"*
Google *"272: JESUS’S 5200 AUTHENTIC WORDS - zingcreed"*
Google *"43: IS THE FOURTH GOSPEL FICTION? - zingcreed"*
Google *"Jesus Predicted a First Century Return Which Did Not Occur - by Alex Beyman - Medium"*
Google *"Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return - Black Nonbelievers, Inc."*
Have you stopped addressing super chats? I donated twice. I guess there's no point donating any more.
Same. Bummer because I was planning on donating more than once.
Matt, if I could really blow up the planet, I would concede that nothing can be done about the vast amount of Ignorance in the world, since the world really demands Ignorance, and the Wise avoid returning to this place. And I would really do it. That's a promise you can take with you to the bank when you vote.
You may thought that I 'thought about it' before making this next illustrious post, but that's not quite the case. If I had really thought about it, I would have realized my Immoral interest lies in actually becoming The Devil. I then decided not to think. So when and if I'm really given the opportunity to blow up the planet, I will really and actually do it, without thinking too much about it first.
First, thanks for your superchats, Matt. Second, I haven't stopped addressing super chats. When I plan to address super chats during a stream, I announce that at the beginning of (or at some point during) the stream. Given the nature of this stream (and the limited amount of time we had to discuss), I didn't make such an announcement. I apologize for any confusion.
@@CapturingChristianity thanks for clarifying that. I didn't know that's how you did it on your channel and will take note for future live streams, though I did find it interesting how you addressed some of the normal chat.
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Matthew 11:28 KJV
Jesus lives
Jesus Christ is Lord
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Romans 3:23
Jesus loves you repent
You're a sinner in need of a Savior
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.
Romans 10:9-10 KJV
Speak with many atheists
Many of them aren't worth the time. They're simply unthoughtful about the world's many possibilities. But it's always valuable to talk to a mathematician, or a man of letters.
@@gristly_knuckle Talk with people who disagree with you
Well right now, I've got a few minutes before a meeting, so I'm looking for the scene in an old computer game called Freelancer, where the protagonist, Trent, feels skeptical about the identity of a ------ because he knows that the man isn't smart enough to be a ------. Such a long game for only one quote that I still care about.
Good debate man👍
To the agnostic and atheist it is impossible for you to believe in Christ and the word of God because of romans 9 and many other bible passages in my opinion. Because God himself will not allow you to believe not just these two people Alex and Joe but all who do not believe. God says he will have compassion on whom He will have compassion and on the rest he harden’s so they do not receive the truth that one must be born again. In the garden of eden Adam and Eve gave up eternal life in order to be as gods from the lie of satan, so ALL onward are condemned except for the Lord who had compassion on some so they would be saved or they never would understand and come to the truth. My prayer is that Alex and Joe leave this foolishness and repent from there heresies before Christ returns. It is really quite sad that some will never turn to Christ even tho the truth is in plain sight and hence receive what is due recompense for people’s unbelief. Remember satan is the father of lies and will in all effort deceive the world to the end as he has been doing since Adam and Eve. Remember eternity is FOREVER no getting out of hell after this life, something to weigh out all, i guess!
If you really Believe God is preventing them from Believing you should pray to God to change His mind! So, they can believe!
"Discussion of Christianity" hardly any mentions of Jesus Christ. lmao
?
So far they’ve discussed the problem of evil, the Christian emotional way of dealing with it (aka suffer savior), they talked about Crime and Punishment the Brothers Karmanov and how that ties to Intellect and belief in Christ. And I’m not even half way done
@@LarryRuffin-vy7hx So... general theism and the same old one dimensional philosophical discussions that have been done already? Still no mentions of Jesus Christ.
Your channel should be called Capturing Philosophy...you don't appear to have any interest in whether the core doctrines of Christianity are true.
Well, I have an upcoming stream on the incarnation. Does that count?
@@CapturingChristianity If you keep the focus on Jesus, then yes, that's a good start.
@@cindychristman8708 That sounds super insular and unproductive. Why shouldn’t Cam engage with humanity at large by discussing the faith from the fringes? For from what other entrance are we to expect the atheist to enter, if not from outside? What Cam is doing is what Christianity has always done; engage with the world. Hence why Christianity still exists today. If the only way you’re capable of dialoguing with disbelievers is through the use of Christian rhetoric, your words will fall on deaf ears, because you’re speaking a language they don’t understand (or refuse to).
@@bookishbrendan8875 I agree with Simon WoodburyForget and couldn't say it better myself.
I would add that when Cameron says, "btw, Christianity is true" he would be well served to define exactly what he means and how he KNOWS the christian god exists.
@@SimonWoodburyForget I think you’re misunderstanding my point. You have to start somewhere, yes? If you’re engaging with a naturalist/materialist, why begin with the most orthodox principle tenants of your religion when you haven’t even come to terms with them on the mere possibility of there being something outside/above/apart of nature in the first place? It’s all well said and done to want them to understand your exact religion, but they’ll dismiss something like the divinity of Jesus out of hand if they haven’t assented to the possibility of there being the supernatural first. If the atheist in question is already open to that, then sure, shower them in the specifics of your faith.
As an atheist myself, I don’t not believe because I have some sentimental or ethical beef with Christianity. I actually find Christianity beautiful, deep and extremely relevant to our culture today. Given that I already find the tradition beautiful, my contention instead comes with me not finding claims to the supernatural ontologically possible. Ergo, Cam’s dialectic is more interesting to an atheist like me because the philosophical approach it most relevant to my precise points of contention. Other atheists may chafe at other aspects of religion, and it is up to apologists of a different sort to cater to them. But for me, I find it is the philosophical tradition in Christianity that most merits my attention.
Also, Cam’s not arguing for deism specifically, for even deism has specific claims (namely, that the creator or the universe has no further involvement in it).
Does anyone else think the over intellectualizing God is going too far? Seems like we are just playing atheists games.
I’m just gonna go ahead and say it. The presuppositional way of debating with atheists is how I know God would want his believers to “debate” with atheists. None of this seems to be doing Any good.
One big reason why I prefer Eastern Orthodox approaches. Sometimes the mystery is the point. Explaining it only creates reasons to divide. And I say that as a western scientist fully guilty of that tendency.
Over intellectualizing god? Yes Atheist games? I disagree sir. Actually one thing that keeps me from believing in god is this appearance of the necessity to “over intellectualize” god. I don’t understand why god needs really deep philosophical and intellectual arguments for his existence. If the Bible has any ounce of truth, the biggest ambassadors of god needed not deep theology. Moses needed “I Am”. Paul needed Jesus saves. The apostles performed miracles. And they each convinced plenty of people their god exists. I understand that at some level, there are people who want a logical and intellectual understanding of god. But when i did believe, I believed his love was strong enough to convince anyone who would hear the gospel. So either it’s not, he chooses not to let it, or it genuinely is the greatest truth of all mankind and the people who can’t bring themselves to believe in it will suffer eternally.
It’s the theologians and early church fathers who started the process of exploring God and how we can comprehend him to our limited abilities.
We’ve been doing it since the Greek philosophers and Jewish priests are debunking Christianity and making arguments against it.
Just come give us a kiss then.
(No tongue... unless you're putting out the vibe).
Alex. I would like to ask you a rather explicit question. Regarding your view on bestiality, you stated towards the end of this conversation that you are not a proponent of it by virtue of it being an exploitation from humans similar to how they are exploited in farming and other industrial practices, right? Would you support it on a case by case basis if an animal was discovered to be consenting? Let’s say, for example, an animal initiated sex with a woman and she consented or a man imitated sex with an animal and they clearly displayed behavioral cues that we observe in mating in the wild signifying consent, would you accept that as ethically good, neutral, or bad? And why?
What an incredibly boring conversation about not Christianity
Debate jay dyer
M
J