3 Things Atheists Should STOP Saying
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лип 2024
- To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
To purchase Cosmic Skeptic merchandise: cosmicskeptic.teemill.com/
-------------------------VIDEO NOTES-------------------------
Having spent the better part of five years talking about religion and atheism on UA-cam, the same talking points tend to regularly arise over and over again. I wanted to talk through some of those which I believe to be the least useful, and explain why.
-------------------------------LINKS--------------------------------
Subscribe to my new second UA-cam channel: / @alexoconnorclips
Genetically Modified Skeptic's Videos: • 4 Things Atheists Shou...
• 4 More Things Atheists...
My debate with Jonathan McLatchie: • DEBATE: Is Christianit...
My old video on the kalam cosmological argument: • The Kalam Cosmological...
Debunking my old video on the kalam: • COSMIC SKEPTIC DEBUNKED
Christopher Hitchens on antitheism: • Why was Hitch an Anti ...
My video, 'Could God Be Evil?': • Could God Be Evil?
------------------------TIMESTAMPS--------------------------
0:00 Intro
1:03 Arguments must independently establish a conclusion
5:15 “If God existed, I wouldn’t worship him.”
8:28 “Religion is irrational.”
---------------------SPECIAL THANKS-----------------------
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
Itamar Lev
Evan Allen
Faraz Harsini
James O'Neill
John Early
Austin Chiappetta
Sveline
Teymour Beydoun
Isaac Medina
Adam Gray
Nolan Kent
Jade
Monstar
Seth Balodi
Anon Training
David Nehlsen
----------------------------CONNECT-----------------------------
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Cosmic Skeptic Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
---------------------------CONTACT------------------------------
Business email: cosmicskeptic@gmail.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Lp. Последняя Реальность #107 РОДНОЙ ДОМ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IK3QKzKUlHM/mqdefault.jpg)
For early access and to support the channel: www.patreon.com/cosmicskeptic | Don't forget to check out my new, second UA-cam channel: ua-cam.com/channels/-WIym34xBTuFVRyd-5zVQg.html
Keep up the great vids Alex 👍
Alex, we must do something other than speaking... we must take action....
Get married and have a lot of children. The next battle is not ideological, it’s demographical.
Atheists MUST GET A LOT of children to counter the Muslim birth rates!!
They will rule the world in 100 years....
I’m an atheist from the Middle East 🤞🏼
@@abefanous9804 It's not demography. It's culture. We have to contribute to culture and when cultural efforts are made we can change a whole generation to accept some kind of religious tolerance (atheist detachment), like we could accept homosexuality or political rights for women or, some day, veganism as the baseline for how to treat animals.
@@abefanous9804 This can happen in your country. It can happen in Indonesia, it can happen in Nigeria. I'm reading a book by Ibn Warraq, called "Leaving the Allah Delusion Behind". It may be happening right now in some countries among the young, but it could also get worse. Not because of demography. Because of a change in the tides of Islam as a cultural movement in any particular country.
@@abefanous9804 I disagree that having lots of children is the answer. I think education is the key. It's been shown that the higher level of education a person attains, the less likely they are to be a theist. Remember, children aren't born believing 'gods' exist.
Wait I don’t remember making this
Seriously though, I’m glad to see this video. Promoting skepticism often entails offering criticism our own audience’s ideas, and this is only the most recent instance of you doing that well.
hi dude ive been watching you for years
You both have such great videos. I just wanted to say that
Have a good day
In fact he's been doing that quite a lot recently, Drew! I wonder if he is about to take a U turn.
Collaboration when?
You here? What is this, a crossover episode?
Gotta love a video from Cosmically Genetic Skeptic. Wonderful way to spend a lunch break!
I thought his name was Genetically Cosmified Skeptic?
@Skeptical Organism Username checks out but you're not Genetically Cosmified enough, mate.
You eat lunch in the late afternoon? Curious 🧐
@@k.5144 Bro he finished his last video recording at 3am, new years eve was not so long ago, leave the dude alone lmao
I know you. I'm subbed. Been for a few years now.
The fact that you give your "opponents" credit and have the ethics to criticize yourself is the reason why you're my favourite youtuber
It actually always surprises me how most of the people who watch UA-cam channels aren’t subscribed. I have the opposite problem where I subscribe to any channel that made a single video that I like.
Yea I see an old channel feel bad then sub lol
I stopped subscribing to channels a long time ago. I am not here to support anyone.
Bro, I do the *exact* same thing. I don't know if it's a problem or not.
Yo same! I just realized I had almost 700 subscriptions.
@@TheBarser exactly. Why would I?
Therapist: It's OK. Young Alex can't hurt you.
Young Alex: 0:23
Thought that was Potholer for a moment
Thought that was Potholer for a moment
@@jamesbuchanan2762 Never seen that channel before but it looks interesting, I'm gonna go change my picture now.
No. Repeating shit is not funny and wastes space. Also, if you think you can copy this then DJDDMXIRIJMOFOSPWPQLSKSKDIKCkkkdkeodocodkdkd934057271:dkdmdkdkff
@@oldfridge5059 I knew there would be replies like this.
Btw guys, he also has a Patreon.
Btw he's also vegan.
Really? Why didn't he mention it?
@Baby Kush I do care
No. He has a Patreo.
@@illuminate4622 We've got some new vegan bakery products at work ( a large British supermarket). They taste pretty close to the non-vegan products. I'm working my way through them :D :D
The second one seems like conceding a particularly pedantic semantic point. Especially with how this claim is usually made in the context of discussions about the atrocities of the old testament.
"If a being that commanded genocide/sex slavery/infanticide etc. existed, I wouldn't worship it" is pretty obviously the meaning of this statement. If the christian wants to interpret that as me claiming that the Christian god doesn't exist, then fine
@Jessie James Well clearly they do. Because the whole point of bringing up the nasty parts of the bible is to illustrate that the God it describes is not good.
I guess they could interpret it as "The Christian god is not the god of the bible"
But fundamentally the Christian is making a stupid assumption if they interpret "I wouldn't worship God because he condones rape/genocide/infanticide" as "Even though I agree that the commanded rape/infanticide/genocide in the Bible is the work of an all-loving, all-good good, I wouldn't worship it" and not "I think these passages preclude god being all good"
@@MrSpleenface I think it will more to a point to say if the Christian God exists in the image that those Christian describe(not all Christians will agree with them) to say if this is the God and God is good by definition then I will not worship him and i chose to be evil...
"Can't be evil by definition"
Just because someone sneaks in "can't be evil" into the definition, that doesn't change what I consider evil. You might as well define it as "worthy of worship" so that if it exists, I would worship it by definition
You are talking about two different things. Saying that something is "worthy" only demonstrates that it meets sufficient requirements for an action to take place if the individual chooses to. I guess you could also say that it increases the likelihood of the action. I'll present an analogy. Say that you are trying to find someone to be your friend. You've got the criteria in your head for what this would be. You find three people that meet those requirements. They would be "worthy" of your friendship but they don't become your friends simply because they exist with those attributes. That requires the personal choice to embark on the creation of those ties. If God is "worthy of worship", you are welcome as He has met the requirements for worship but still you do not have to because He exists. That's your first half.
Here's the next half. Within Christianity since Alex brings this up, God is defined as omni-benevolent. Regardless of one's subjective rational for good and evil, if the Christianity is true then He is good regardless of what one believes. You are entitled to what you consider evil but that does not make God evil subsequent the criteria you've established. He cannot be both good and evil. This is a contradiction.
@@joshuastevens1200 Most people don't have an eternal punishment set up for if you don't befriend them.
"He is good regardless of what one believes" is a meaningless statement. This is exactly why the Euthyphro dilemma exists. Defining God as omni-benevolent gives you basically two choices: Defining good as "anything God says or does," which means that saying that God is good is the same as saying God is God, which is meaningless; or appealing to some mysterious standard of good that God is always upholding, so that even if he violates our standard it doesn't violate his- which is equivalent to saying that God is good according to his own standard (again, meaningless).
In either case, if I say I wouldn't worship the Christian god because it is evil, someone saying "nuh-uh, God is good by definition" doesn't even attempt to address the problem.
@@Thatonedude917 Respectfully, the first part of your response is a straw man of both the Christian faith and my analogy. That's not what we're talking about currently.
I've read your response about three times. I don't want to misrepresent your position. I don't find it to be meaningless. The Euthyphro dilemma as you have stated well presents two and only two options given God's classification of omni-benevolence. Either A) God does it because it's good or B) It's good because God does it. What's interesting is that this dilemma presupposes that good exists. This is the center of the question. What is "good"? Hence, what we're dealing with is ontological. What is "good" objectively speaking? Without that, everything else is a matter of personal preference such as the straw man you presented which I assume you think is morally wrong. Anyway, when we deal with the ontological feature of the question it opens up third alternative C) God is the ontological source of good. I don't think that stating "God is good" is meaningless only that it describes an attribute about God and a point of significance in the same way I call myself and individual or if I say "I am me." Well, duh. I am but that statement is not meaningless. It is actually quite powerful. I haven't found that particular dynamic something to be hung up over.
However, I am addressing your original statement about being "worthy" because you have not dealt with it in your response. This is very different from your nominating the moral titles of malevolence or benevolence. The Christian God is either good or evil. It cannot be both. You've equated both of these statements. That's all I'm saying.
@@joshuastevens1200 It's not a strawman, but it is intentionally glib because I don't care about that part of the argument. You could insert anything into the definition of something and assert that it must be that way if it exists.
Saying "I am me" can be powerful if you're using it as shorthand to mean something else, but the proposition "myself = myself" or "God = God" is tautological and valueless.
Saying that God is the source of good doesn't solve the Euthyphro dilemma (especially when God is presumably the source of _everything)._ At best, it lets you deflect into a conversation about where whoever you're talking to gets their concept of good. Worse, it seems to imply the divine command theory.
It breaks down like this:
1. I say that I consider some god evil for some reason, let's just say "because he commits evil act X" for argument's sake.
2. You argue that that god isn't evil, not because X isn't an evil act, or because he didn't commit X, but because that god cannot be evil by definition.
3. My opinion on whether X is an evil act remains unchanged, and therefore my opinion of that god remains unchanged.
"The Christian God is either good or evil. It cannot be both." That statement is fine, but it's not the one in question. The problems is with saying "The Christian God is good. It cannot be evil."
@@Thatonedude917 I understand what it is that you're saying. The only problem I'm seeing is that the ontological identity of good is not being addressed in the Dilemma. You can say *insert god here* is evil. That's fine. If "God" is the ultimate being. There is nothing greater than said being if it exists. I think we can both agree on that part. We can also agree that good and evil also exist. The Christian God can be good. You think it's evil. Let's say for the sake of argument that God is evil. Using terms like that presupposes that objective good and evil exists. Given there is objective evil then therefore an objective good must also exist by logical necessity. So if God, the ultimate being, is evil. The ultimate evil so to speak, then there must be an ultimate good because it creates that contrast in of itself. It cannot be both as we've agreed. The issue with that is good can exist without evil. Evil cannot exist without good. Again because of the inevitable contrast. Therefore, God cannot be the ultimate evil but rather the ultimate good and what lies outside of that is evil. BUT if it is not God ontologically, then what is it? What "good" is the ultimate being referring to or as Aristotle put it, "the good".
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.”
― Mark Twain
How do you explain our universe, QE?
@@20july1944 Is this sarcasm? I can't tell
@@guicaldo7164 No, 100% serious question.
How do you explain our universe?
@@20july1944
No idea...
Do you know??
@@20july1944 Okay, if you're really asking this then it's gonna take some unpacking.
Short answer: I can't. But that's not the "gotcha" you think it is.
Imagine I flip a coin, but I don't look at the result. Someone asks me, "what was it? Heads or tails?" What would the right answer be? "Heads", or "I don't know"?
Same principle. We don't know how the universe came to be. Now, we can either own up to that and, at best, speculate... or we can guess an answer and preach it as though it's the ultimate truth, believing it's inherently superior than other positions merely because it provides _an_ answer, regardless of whether said answer is right or wrong.
In short, our inability to explain the origin of the universe has no bearing on whether your position is correct or not.
0:23 this is the best thing ever
It sure is.
I’ve never seen little Alex LMAOO
yesssssss 👀
As a Christian, I find that your traits of humility and humbleness compliment your intelligence quite well-- your videos are enjoyable, Alex.
how you people manage to believe something that directly contradicts science?
Can you PLEASE just let him believe what he wants to?
@@aman-yd4dw do you people let flat earthers believe that earth is flat? do you people let anti-vaxxers believe that vaccine is poison? do you let people believe that birds aren't real?
@@aman-yd4dw if i would have said i believe in santa and bigfoot, people would have laughed at me, nobody would have said that let me believe what i wanna believe.
@@MorbiusBlueBalls wdym by contradicts science?
As a Christian I find this really helpful. I find my faith continually evolving. It's good to examine and re-examine how and why I believe what I believe. I find your clear thinking and presentation excellent. Thank you.
You’re just a moron.
The last segment is the most underrated. As Alex said, you can have rational false beliefs under particular dispositions.
@Ahead Of Curve
Flat Earthers, Prosperity Gospel followers, and non-binary/gender fluid people come to mind...
@@DemonicRemption
How are Flat Earthers rational?
@@DemonicRemption i dont understand ur comment. what are u trying to say?
@@Richard_Nickerson Alex gave that very example; we appear to sit on a stationary Earth as the sun moves around us. In the absence of other information, Flat-Earth is a rational assumption.
@@DemonicRemption Don't get me wrong I am a gender abolitionist and highly anti-tribalism/stereotyping; but what's wrong with non-binary/gender fluid. In my mind they are just more evidence as to why gender should just go away.
Interestingly I've observed the opposite. The theists that I argue with try and use the kalam cosmological argument to prove that God exists. So that's why I have to try and make them understand that it only proves a first mover, if it were true. It's not that I'm assuming that they're trying to prove the existence of God, they assert that it proves it and hence I say that.
Yeah nowdays alex seems to be busy only about showing off how openminded he is (or just thinks to be)
Yea I think CS is strawmanning (some of) us here a bit. I'm also not particularily happy with his second assertion.
Somewhere I saw the whole chain of arguments (including Kalam) that aim to prove the link from the first supposition of Kalam to the monotheistic God and then point toward Christianity. Alas, I can't find that channel, I only remember that it was Catholic Christian believer channel and that it had a certain preview, showing a knight in armor in one of his videos. Idk if that channel still exists... But you're right, the Kalam argument doesn't prove that God who exists is even monotheistic, much less Christian version of God.
@@Raiseflag_Surrender Kalam doesn't prove the existence of a god at all, just a first cause for those who consider it solid
If the Kalam were true, how would it prove a “first mover”?
Maybe im misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you’re saying it would prove that the first cause would have to be conscious in some way.
Hands down one of the most thought provoking videos in the channel! It's this ability to look inward and do a bit of self inspection not as in beating oneself up needlessly but to not stay in one's bubble that I find most respect worthy about you. I'm an agnostic person who used to be a devout Christian. I firmly believe at the end of the day, what matters is living a good life which usually comes in the form of always striving to live one oneself whether you are a believer or not. Fantastic clip.
When I say that religion is irrational I mean religion as a concept of belief without sufficient evidence, not the people themselves. Maybe I should use the word 'faith' instead, but then it gets confused with 'trust'...
Yeah but simply saying "Religion is irrational" implies Religion inherently requires faith which I don't think it does. If revelation to God through the scientific method existed, then sure I would be religious, but I wouldn't need to have faith as the evidence would be factual in that scenario. I guess the only option is to say what you actually mean
7:48 this is finnicky explanation. It's true that claim "if christian god exists it's evil by christian god standards" is simply false but saying "if christian god exists it's evil by my moral standards" is perfectly valid. It doesn't matter that christians claim their god to be source of morals. By making the second claim one communicates existence of a concept that is separate from what "gods morality" is, which just happen to use the same world because both concepts try to tap into the same function space.
If you start with the assumption that God exists (just for argument's sake) then he's the source of morals and so you can't really say that it goes against your moral code, at least no more than a 5 year old child can say that when his father forces him to go to school is going against his moral code about slavery.
@@hullie7529 we're kinda in the same ballpark. Here's the thing: triangle is concept describing object that you can point out and show to others. But morality is a concept about rules. And if god is source of morals this in fact proves that morals are subjective (aka, this don't describe object or interaction between objects is but are prescriptive, try to change the interactions and are created by conscious being).
And this is true for many definitions. Because even there is something we want to describe we still have to put boundaries, which is a subjective judgment. Otherwise we would need to only use some type of philosophical theory of everything as everything obervable is connected.
We can replace morals with law and god with hypothetical government. Then obviously what government says is good, is good according to them and will be written as good in the law. But it still can say that I don't care about this because what they define as good goes against my goals and thus I create a competing proposition.
Of course the outcome is different. Breaking my rules won't send anybody to jail. But now we are entering the field of applied politics so I'll end here.
So to get back to the core of the topic. Yes, you can always say that you don't care about others intend and you can create your own words and definitions to convey the message.
I'm not confused. But the idea of god's morality is simply a paradox. Words are created to describe meaning and only after we create definitions to somehow standarize them. The meaning of morality is build on things like feeling personal harm and cooperation. Which means that the definition of god's morality is in fact a lie because it goes against the meaning (looking at how god and his actions are described in scripture). The definition describes something, but it's not a morality, hence calling it a morality is a lie. Or we would need to talk about some other universe we don't live in. You can still argue that morality is a set of rules create to kinda attach to the idea of morality. But then everybody can write such set of rules and claim they are objective because once they are written on paper they are objectively there.
It's like analysing a paradox of poking another planet with infinitely long stick. It shows that you can break laws of physics assuming that those laws of physics were already broken.
As for the experiencer-observer: this is how christianity describes its god. There are _some_ modern interpretations that claim those descriptions are "just humanizing" the "thing" what god's is supposed to be but such intepretation goes against, like, christian scripture and christrian tradition.
Anywho, the distinction between what is objective and what is subjective simply doesn't work in "grand scheme of things that involve humans" and we have at least two major definition because people want to use or impose different meanings depending on situation. So I can agree that one can call god's morality an objective one but such claim simply won't have any moral value behind it because it would be just a meaingless label. Calling it objective god's mental chupacabra would be as useful.
That was a long (and messy) reply. Let's make a shorter one. Everything boils down to the fact, that if you want to use a tool for grand projects (like language for philosophy) you need to learn nuances of the tool or those nuances will trick you into wrong conclusions.
So I suggest learning about the language itself first. Interviews about language with Noam Chomsky is a good start.
@Brielle Huggins So we are very close to agreement I see. The initial claim was "atheists cannot say that if god exists it would be immoral" and what I meant is this claim is false. And here you basicaly answers that. Because even if god exist that doesn't mean I - or anyone else - accept his words as the morality in the context of conversation. In fact the reality is that what I and many other people mean when talking about morality is already established. Which means that it is actually irrelevant whether or not gods morality is subjective or objective.
But if you do research on the topic of morality you will see that such proposition "god is source of morality" is either false or it describes reality that we don't live in, which makes it irrelevant (or proponents deliberately change the meaning of word morality which is just another type of lie).
Again, I'm not lost. In fact I am the one who doesn't use launguage like if it creates reality here :)
Ngl, I saw the notification and clicked on it expecting a Genetically Modified Sceptic video.
I found out GM Skeptic years ago when I was looking for your channel, after having watched a video UA-cam suggested the previous day.
Both have great content, so it was a win-win.
There is a new brand of discussion emerging on UA-cam as the platform matures into its second decade and it's fantastic to see. It's a discussion where deep respect is shown to opposing views and, astonishingly, self-criticism is wisely embraced in order to get to the core of the matter. This man, Rationality Rules and others are a personification of this new trend and it's very encouraging to see.
I liked your examples a lot, they perfectly made your arguments clear. The graphics supported this greatly too!
This video is so thought provoking that I feel compelled to keep all of those thoughts to myself.
I really enjoy how calm you are when you're making your points. I don't have that kind of calmth (which is now a word), but I admire it. Thanks for the work you do.
Calmness?
Great progress, Alex. Time and again you've demonstrated your commitment to the spirit of scepticism by continuing to examine your conclusions and acknowledging where your new insights supersede your previous understanding. Way to go!
The production of your videos are amazing!!
Hey Alex, I really like how thought provoking and well executed your videos are! Great stuff.
Also, a little over a month ago I transitioned from vegetarian to vegan thanks to one of your videos. What you do DOES have an impact! :)
@Agnostic Boy does it matter?
Lol another brainwashed vegan, the most dangerous and pointless diet/life style in history. Good luck damaging yourself
@@Darksaga28 dangerous? I’ve never been healthier and my blood work proves it. Not pointless either. It reduces animal suffering as well as my carbon footprint.
@@Darksaga28 You're brainwashed if you believe that vegan lifestyle is dangerous
@@flux5836 nah there's plenty evidence for that...
Always well thought-out and articulate. This is the best channel of its kind!!! Keep up the good work!!!
Very well put together.
I would sum it up as: Always make sure, what you are talking about and try your best not to equivocate.
2) “If god existed, I wouldn’t worship him.”
a. Claiming your abuser is “Justified” is a psychological error, a mental defect that is usually present in abuse victims who believe the rhetoric of their abuser. Being a moral person means that there are some acts that cannot by any means be justified. There is no exception to that rule for a deity since we are not willing to allow a creator to brutalize, rape, murder or otherwise befoul their creation once a certain level of sentience is present. I acknowledge the opening this grants vegans for the claiming that our treatment of animals is unjustifiable, and I agree with many tenants of that perspective, yet the moral stands. You cannot justify your way out of being a shitty person or god.
b. If you are a god that allows for the horrors that occur daily around the globe and probably throughout the universe, then the label you adhere to yourself as being justified and good is false on its own accounting since it is possible to have administrated the world to not have such evil in it. If that is not possible then you are not an all-knowing, all-powerful, and good being. Just because you lied about the description of good does not make you good, your actions (without justification) are what does that.
c. A word on cafeteria christianity. If a christian can pick and chose the parts of the faith they want to believe and reject the rest, which is how people eventually leave religion in my experience, then what is stopping an atheistic anti-theist like me from selecting Muhammad’s statutory rape (even then sex with a nine-year-old was illegal) of his third wife as a reason to reject Islam, or the support of slavery in Christianity to reject that mythology? You are allowing the theist side to get away with the fallacy of counting the hits and ignoring the misses while holding atheists to a higher standard. In and of itself a logical fallacy and a foolish thing to do if you support atheists.
d. When last I read the New Testament, there were 4, perhaps 5 distinctly different definitions of the man Jesus, much less the god. From his genealogy to the year he was born to the ideology surrounding his supposed resurrection there is no definition of who the man may have been without startlingly deep contradictions and mutually exclusive claims of fact. When you are talking to a Christian about their god and they want to prove who he was they must first decide which of the different and mutually exclusive accounts are the actual one and then justify why those selections are correct and the others wrong. Then and only then can you claim this is the one person all of these accounts were describing and then you get to say that part of that definition is that he was good. And then you have to defend why that passage, the one that says god is good, is worthy of inclusion, or should it be rejected the same way you rejected the bad version of his genealogy or the bad version of his birth year.
+
That's good reasoning. Reminds me of this video from Nonstampcollector: ua-cam.com/video/zeRDR1Ytzn0/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/Fo8HWzyEWZ8h/v-deo.htmlttps://ua-cam.com/video/Fo8HWzyEWZ8/v-deo.html
I feel like you watch a lot '' theramintrees'' if not check it out
Wow, i couldnt have said it better. Thank you for pointing out the problems of this video.
🤟🤟🤟🤟🤟🤟🤟
It's more about "if the triangle exists, it is green" rather than "if the triangle exists, it is a square". Evil vs good is more of an attribute that can be assigned to an object rather than being the object itself.
You misundrrstand him the definition of a Christian god is that he is good it is an inherent quality of him. More like saying if the blue triangle exists its green. Clearly nonsensical
@@mikakretzmann-clough8543 Oh ok makes more sense now.
@@mikakretzmann-clough8543 Except that what atheists are doing is actually "Count the friggin sides, there aren't 3!!!!!!11!!!!!". They are are challenging the idea of "He's right because he's right, and if you believed what I believed you'd believe that" as being dumb to begin with. They (and I, as I too have done this) are doing it poorly, but that's what's happening.
@@mikakretzmann-clough8543 yet I think (at least I hope) that most Christian's sense of good and evil would tell them that some actions of God depicted in the Bible (e.g. killing the firstborn children of Egypt) are indeed evil. Accepting at the same time that "God is inherently good", "action X is evil" and "God committed action X" is simply a sign of cognitive dissonance. From a logical standpoint, those three things can't be true together, at least one has to be false, so either the Bible is at least partially incorrect, killing children is not evil, or God is not good.
@@mikakretzmann-clough8543 except that no, it's not. If there is an omnipotent necessary mind that created the universe, incarnated in jesus, inspired the bible, etc, then even if that being is not the source of morality, it IS the christian god. If you refuse to recognize that, because of excuses based on definitions, then you don't understand how language works.
You have a knack for explaining complex ideas in a way which are more easily understood with a little effort.
Thanks.
My man still hurts because of the growing pains!
I really enjoyed this one, made me think of things in a way hadnt before. Thanks homie
Dude, I learn sooo much from you. Thank you so much for all the effort, clarity, and conciseness. Even though I disagree with you about the existence of God, I think you are the most polite and thoughtful atheist. It is so good to find someone who challenges the claims of Christianity in such an insightful way. Your arguments make me think and research a lot. Thanks. God bless you.
Man you're lighting is now so much better compared to when I first saw your early videos back in 17.
Plus, not only your growth here in YT but also the way you mature is very admirable.
Your intellect and way of seeing things is a gift, the way you handle arguments is very refreshing.
Keep looking man. I personally hope you choose to be with Jesus before it's too late but ultimately, it will be a choice you alone should make so we'll just keep waiting.
Love from Christians!
@CosmikSkeptic This is one of the BEST videos made by you! Thank you for opening our eyes a little wider!
ua-cam.com/video/Fo8HWzyEWZ8/v-deo.html
Great episode. Love this compassionate, questioning and logic.
Telling people to “stop” doing something doesn’t often go over well. It generates a kind of a trigger response of “fuck you,
don’t tell me what to do”.
I think the fact that he is also directly reprimanding his former self in this video helps his case.
He's holding himself to the same standard as anyone else, so it's not like he's just bossing everyone around and saying he knows better.
@Phil Andrew The idiot who milks an audience with this channel full of bullshit does not count as an intelligent atheist. He is just riding a wave without even understanding its cause. Usually he doesn't understand what he's talking about at all. I doubt he understands what the term atheism means. Last time i checked he mistook it for agnosticism.
@Phil Andrew
Nothing will ever make theism reasonable lol
Outside of God or Allah being real and floating down from heaven.... even then i wouldnt be impressed
@Phil Andrew That is no big deal. While this video is about atheists, the number of fallacies committed by theists is marginally larger for obvious reasons.
It would be hard to drop the levels of intelligence below that of the theists, even if you were to line us all up and bash the back of our heads with base ball bats.
@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727 Last time I checked, the meaning of words changes over time. The only purpose is to help the person you're speaking to understand what you mean. Agnosticism is a knowledge claim and atheism is a belief claim. While knowledge is a subset of belief, most people can differentiate between the two. I hope you can as well. Other than that, you sound bitter. Please seek help for your emotional issues.
If only all atheists were like this respectful person. I'm a Christian but I love this channel.
Cheers from Spain.
@Jamal Ramadan He may be referring to someone like GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic. He was caught out for some questionable behaviour when Andalusian Project made a refutation to GMS’ video “4 Lies Muslims Tell About ex-Muslims”. Andalusian Project’s video is called “4 Lies Muslims Tell About Ex-Muslims?”. Check it out, it should be required viewing for both Muslims and ex-Muslims.
He may also be referring to Sam Harris like when he called Somali women, “women in bags”. And Sam Harris published an essay defending racial profiling....yeah.....it wasn’t very good lol
I agree here. Down right friendly. Truly and sadly a unique delight to hear someone with an un hateful mind such as his.
He lacks the hostility and venom in his words most christians feel from atheism.
He is the most dangerous friend the church might have....
@Jamal Ramadan Look up the channel I took a shit in Jesuses mouth. thats what he is talking about the guy is an ass.
@Jamal Ramadan 👀👀👀
@@ibnmianal-buna3176 what's GMS questionable behaviour about the "4 lies Muslims tell about Ex- Muslims"?
Love the way you've built this channel, i subscribe to very few channels but think theres bigger things for you to come and thats why i support you
I am glad to see that you have mastered the segue from your topic of discussion to your topic of financial support so smoothly. I really think you are going to be an amazing teacher someday, awakening many young minds to the beauty of logical thinking.
I love a good in-group criticism
Honestly is the most useful kind.
About your second point... I'm really intrigued in how you can justify bringing this point as anything other than a strawman. This particular argument is used almost entirely as either 1) "I disagree with the actions, commands, and endorsements of your god as have been presented and therefore would not worship it even if true" or 2) some tenet of their religion precludes that god from certain actions or from proclaiming actions it takes/endorses as moral and therefore cannot be real as it is defined. I'm not sure if you simply worded your critique to avoid arguments people have already posted about, but this is a bad argument against claims that are not the strongest(nor even the most prolific).
I wholeheartedly agree!
Agree
ua-cam.com/video/Fo8HWzyEWZ8/v-deo.html
@@solomontruthlover5308 Zeus is necessary for morality. You are watching the wrong video
I agree
This is an analysis that is easily and often missed. Thanks for doing this one!
Excellent video mate. Praying for your best
What is up, Alex? Happy New year dude.
The issue of the Kalam argument is that it is a red herring in the effort to verify the existence of a God. A friend of mine said that Dingo the red-haired dragon created the Universe. The fact that he could prove that the Universe had a first cause, would not get him any nearer to proving Dingo created the Universe. This argument is only used by Theists to try and justify what is essentially a childish belief.
its crazy how badly CS misrepresented that argument, as if [we] hang all our own arguments on a _single_ thing.
he found a longwinded way to build that strawman.
Brilliant video. I've rarely heard such respect for logic and reason. This is good for my sanity.
I have no problem seeing and hearing the difference, and definitely appreciate you as well as GMS.
These eduvids are handy and useful!
ua-cam.com/video/Fo8HWzyEWZ8/v-deo.html
“I am often beset by atheistic doubts. Yet a torturing surmise sometimes haunts me: may not untapped soul possibilities exist? Is man not missing his real destiny if he fails to explore them?” -Autobiography of a Yogi
If you study evolution u soon realise man ain't anything special. Consciousness gradually evolved out of nature. There is no "soul".
Fate of man is something along this lines :
"Look at your body-
A painted puppet, a poor toy
Of jointed parts ready to collapse,
A diseased and suffering thing
With a head full of false imaginings"
@@dioc8699 Why is consciousness even possible in our universe? Why can’t organisms evolve senses like in a computer simulation but never gain consciousness?
I love that book !!!
@@dioc8699 If you start from the assumption that everything is dead and go from there I can see your point, but you're still starting with an assumption. Also, man reached the moon, do you think deer could do that? Why didn't humanity's self reflective nature arise until 5 major extinction events had come and gone? As far as I'm aware evolution doesn't even attempt to answer that question.
8:24 I always thought of Christianity basically arguing for a square triangle when they say that the bible is 100% accurate.
You can say it's 100% accurate based on the theology and ideas but not details in testimony accounts for example.
@@Obamnaz I'm not sure. Don't you see a straight contradiction between between being all good and choosing to murder literally the whole world except a handful of people?
@@kingbarriga If you look at it at face value, then it appears that way. But according to the Bible, the people who were killed were evil/not deserving of salvation. Perhaps if God didn't bring forth the flood, greater evil would have occurred later on. We simply don't know all the ramifications of why things happened or what would have happened.
Also God the Father is all-loving; being loving means he must enact justice as well. Look at this quote from this comment I saw:
"Exacting justice is not murder. Our judges and courts of law don't murder criminals by sentencing them to death. They're upholding the law. Our military weren't murderers for killing Nazi's who were attacking and killing other people. They were protecting our country as well as others."
Check out the video where I saw the comment:
ua-cam.com/video/aBpE2Ey1W0M/v-deo.html
@@Obamnaz Yeah I get the point, but the "ramifications" argument doesn´t work for me given than he still is in complete and absolute control of those consequences, as well as the initial state he himself created knowing it would lead to those exact outcomes (almost complete annihilation by drowning). If you think about it he could've just skipped everything before the flood and created Noah and his fam, even maybe with the memories that they would have had in the previous scenario. Would have saved a lot of innocent babies at the very least.
@@kingbarriga He could have eliminated all suffering but then it wouldn't have been loving, as we never had a chance to reject him. He is everything that we know to be objectively good by definition and love cannot be manifested if we were programmed to only choose good/God. In this reality, people are truly in charge of their eternity. God knows what will happen, but he will not interfere with our free-will/freedom to choose him or not. Unless we call on him of course.
I appreciate your growth in thought. I have seen you grow in the past few years in that you have definitely become more thoughtful (not considerate but think more deeply).
I think this type of attitude is the best way to interact in the world, not matter the side you choose. We are finite and have limited knowledge so we all cannot be right. However, we should at the very least, take the time to acknowledge that there is variance in epistemic justification of beliefs.
Great video! All great points, but I especially loved your third point!
I think this is a very common error people make when it comes to people who disagree with them, regardless of the claim. It's so easy to think that other people see and understand the same things we do. And this is really unhelpful in debates (or any kind of discussion) because if someone thinks that you think they're stupid (because you're implying they can't think or aren't thinking rationally) they stop listening to anything you say and only try to defend that they are rational, rather than defending the argument. :) At least that is what I think.
If 1/10 of the world are people like you we would live in a much better place
dear god, i am fine with even 1/1000 . please make it happen. we all think it's morally justified. - human
Roughly 10% of the population *are* NT rationals, but have to live with the 90% who are not rational.
@Purify Myers-Briggs type indicator. A bit of psychobabble, but its a system that really helps you think about building successful teams. The "N" means intuitive, the "T" means thinker. Have a look at keirsey.com
Silence, Simp!
@Vengeance Read the thread of my comments before misrepresenting me. You will see that I said MBTI is psychobabble (psychology is a pseudoscience) but gave a useful insight into building successful teams.
On the other hand, unless you are quoting what MBTI and Keirsey, you seem to making nonsense claims.
I appreciate your commitment to rigorous standards of truth, rather than to a "team sport" mentality of "Atheists vs Christians," in which one team is always right and the other team is always wrong.
I thoroughly enjoyed this! Plus the cute new style of edits you added :)
I’ve always enjoyed your channel but I think it’s getting even better
2013 Alex.... wow 😂
Looked like a foetus
@@JB_inks lol
BABY COSMIC
ua-cam.com/video/Fo8HWzyEWZ8/v-deo.html
When you're subscribed to both Cosmic Skeptic and Genetically Modified Skeptic and you don't know who are you watching 'til they start speaking.
And, even then, it takes me a second or two...
CS has a British accent, while GMS has an American accent. It's easy to tell which is which even if you're not looking.
Whoops, forgot to leave a like so I had to come back. I am glad you and Drew make these videos like this because I think about this a great deal. Great video
This is amazing. I appreciate your honesty.
I can 100% say the christian god is immoral, once we agree on the definition of morality, or the overall goal of human wellbeing.
Yep. If we are assuming the bible accurately describes this god, you can't simply define him as good.
@@ScripulousFingore6133 Well this is exactly the problem Alex talks about, it depends on what we mean by accurate description. If it means:
a) Bible (or Christianity) is accurate about the actions of God, the obvious conclusion is, that such god is evil
b) Bible is accurate both in description of God's action and their evaluation. In that case the conclusion is that God is good and our understanding of morality is plain wrong.
I dare to say that the second understanding is powerful weapon of mind control and is abused to force religious people to do horrible stuff in a good faith.
To the point of the video, Christians base morality out of the Bible and the history of Christian theology. Technically your statement is correct, except that a Christian will never agree with your definition of morality. To a Christian, morality has to do with what God says, not with human wellbeing.
And again to the point of the video, while there may be some excellent arguments out there for morality being about human well-being (I agree with this line of thinking), it is likely that most Christians have not heard or do not properly understand these arguments, and so they can still rationally come to the conclusion that God in the Bible is moral because he was justified in doing what he did, given the context of what was happening.
@@empatheticcurioushuman1206 well said. I would add as a former fundamentalist, that lots of Christians would refuse humanistic view of morality, because they would find the orientation on human well being as the the very nature of worldliness and source of sin.
@@amurape5497 But in either case, it still proves that the bible, the inerrant word of God that was sent down as a moral guide, does some immoral thing to the standard of us modern human. In Alex's point, he separated the God from the bible, as he focuses on the theist's depiction/mental image of a God, the all-powerful all-loving being, and rather than focus on being right or wrong, it's more about the theist's perspective regarding us. If we did say that we wouldn't worship, that pretty much shuts down all discussion as they know you're beyond arguing if they won't accept the 'all-powerful and all-loving'.
We can however, still argue that the God in the bible, is not all-powerful or all-loving, or just specifically say that 'if the God of the bible exist, I won't worship him', then proceeds to explain why
problem with kalam is that it is not even valid reasoning.
3:42 great. is there any argument that shows any "minor conclusion" ? I am not aware of any.
7:45 ok. but that would be special pleading,wouldn't it?
not only "it is God,not human",but in your example "it is our God,not any other god".
I understand that "by definition" reasoning, but then I am granting not only "christianity is true" ,but also "everything about my understanding of how morality works is nonsense".
I legitimately do not see how morality can possibly be based on God. I do not understand that concept.
Only conceivable way out of this I see, is "christianity is true,but bible is wrong, men somehow messed up stories in it."
9:18 but that is not what your statement was.
theistic religions are based on prenewtonian understanding of how world works... understanding,that is not used anywhere but in apoologetics anymore.... because it just doesn't work in real live to that extent.
it is not rational to use it,especially on topics they do.
without skepticism and knowledge about human bias and without understanding we have now, sure.. it could be rational.
it all depends on cognitive toolkit of individual.
it used to be rational to believe that heavier things fall faster than lighter, have you tried it with a rock and a feather, you fool?
arguments like this are simple arguments apologists use to rationalize their belief.
so yes. it could be rational to believe it.
k
+
ua-cam.com/video/Fo8HWzyEWZ8h/v-deo.htmlttps://ua-cam.com/video/Fo8HWzyEWZ8/v-deo.html
As a theist I enjoy watching Alex’s videos , it keeps me on my toes and videos like this make me smile seeing his growth
This is a really good video. I especially appreciate you differentiating between irrationality and falsehood; needs to be said!
"we can't say ''if the christian god exists, then it is evil'' '' ... wouldn't that just be accepting their premise/claims about their god?
Yeah I didn't really get what he was trying to say there. If everyone around me says that I'm perfect and I'm a good person no matter how much terrible shit I do, does that make me a good person automaticly ? if someone who is not like the sheep surrounding me point out to the bad things I do and conclude that I'm not as good as people around me think, he is false for making that claim ?
The word "if" means you are entertaining the premise that God is as Christians define God to be - which is entirely good.
@@MiidoKinGs You clearly did not get it. If (the christian) God allows evil, he must (by definition) have sufficient moral reasons to allow it, and still be consistent. Else, he would not allow it. Example: God is loving. But God also can punish. How come, if he is sooo loving? Its because he is also perfectly just and holly, therefore has a sufficient moral reason to judge one who broke the law. He must even punish him. Same with allowing crime and other evil
It means that by definition God is Good in the Christian worldview. If you say God is evil, then you are not talking about the Christian God, but another God.
@@josegadea1507 Sounds like a cheap out to me a kindergarten kid would use as an argument. I define moral and ethical good as the well being of sentient beings and increasing their happiness, while reducing suffering anywhere possible. Why am I obligated to accept the contradictory, imaginary definitions made by people in an ancient book without anyone ever having demonstrated that they either exist and even if they did that they'd necessarily be loving and good?
I could write a book and claim that universe farting pixies created the universe. They are also required human baby sacrifices once a month per 10.000 people. They're also ultimate moral arbiters and necessarily loving and good.
Wouldn't the burden of proof be on me or any follower of pixianity to demonstrate how human baby sacrifices are morally good? Why would you just let me get away with defining things however I please and offering no justification other than "because"?
smol alex
Excellent video, I believe this lays the groundwork for a much better conversation. I find several of your videos thought provoking, albeit we are not always in agreement. Keep up the good work.
Kind regards,
a Theist
Awesome video! Thanks!
As a Christian, I really like this video. Thanks for helping everyone to think critically about these topics.
ye
same
I think it's funny how many people in the comments are upset about the ground he's giving in this video.
Definitely a good video.
Same, I recently became a Christian covert but I'm interested in how unbelievers reason morals without a God.
Now I'm waiting for the we are not the same person remix with the two skeptics
I love it when my side of the argument gets stated truthfully by an opposing party. It warms my heart. Thanks mate.
Thanks for the vid. Always great.
So glad I'm watching my favorite skeptic channel, GMS! Who is this CosmicSkeptic guy he keeps talking about though?
Is your pfp an unus annus refrence?
ua-cam.com/video/Fo8HWzyEWZ8/v-deo.html
Good video overall, but I don't really see theists behave the way you say they're behaving in the real world. They do indeed seem to try and use these arguments as sort of "knockdown" arguments, not something that's non-definitive and a piece of plausibility in a bigger puzzle. I think you're giving the average theist way too much credit here. What you say may apply to a small percentage of scholars.
I can see why you'd be motivated to display open-mindedness with videos like this as it can make you seem less biased and more credible, but I think you should be careful not to go too far with it, at the expense of what's actually true.
I think the wellbeing of a society is more important than fighting for objective truth
And furthermore If you want to convince anyone of anything you need to think more about the person you want to convince rather than yourself
So respect is essential
@@Angela1111122222 Parts of religion may be compatible with well-being and even promote it in some cases, yes, but why not just have the promotion of well-being as the sole end? Abandon the delusional dogma, and just focus on promoting well-being in a secular and logical manner.
Religious dogma still does a lot of harm in society, for example all the thousands of religiously-motivated "crisis pregnancy centers" in the US that only exist to brainwash women with false information about abortion. Religion is the force that impels way too many people to reject scientific facts we actually know about the world (such as evolutionary biology and even climate change) and live in a delusion. Islam is barring progress in a lot of countries because of the Quran's savage and oppressive ideas, especially toward women. And the list goes on.
@@Elintasokas I agree with you, but we won't achieve any progress with us vs them mentality
Quite. Picking on the analogy that Alex gave, if you see a suspect at a crime scene, the difference is that you have an open mind that the killer could be anyone. Theists already claim to know who the killer is, even before they saw a suspect -in fact, it's fair to say they never even saw a suspect (god) to begin with. They are building their case backwards as they reached the conclusion that their god exists way before the argument is made.
So yes, atheists often jump ahead the argument that is currently being made because both (theist and atheist) realise that the argument is irrelevant, not that the argument should independently prove god.
@@Angela1111122222 We already have. While I wouldn't promote tribalism, I think it's of the utmost importance not to sellout on accurately representing positions actual people tend to take, just in order to seem like the enlightened centrist mediator authority with degrees by giving theists too much leeway. And I think this is sadly exactly what this video does and the trend this channel has followed for the past year.
I appreciate this video quite a bit! I have heard some arguments recently that were hard to listen to because the theist got attacked before making their points for some of, and sometimes all, of the points you've laid out.
Well done
Excellent video!!!
A "first mover" is a language trap which evokes some type of physical, even anthropomorphic, being. It might be better phrased as a "first movement" but even this phrase is fraught with lingual difficulties. Concept formation is always reflexive and reflective.
Technically a first mover is a primordial, sentient thing with an ability to act independently upon other objects with some kind of autonomy. Aristotelean cosmology is kind of dumb and outdated, but so are it's assumptions. Viewpoints are inevitably gonna come up like substance dualism, theory of forms, or some variations of soft naturalism dating back to the medieval ages that include alchemy and astrology. Also Aristotelean cause and effect is too linear to work with modern relativistic science. Claiming a real sentient entity "acted" prior the existence of space and time is just nonsensical.
Einstein was just another nail in the already buried coffin, my friend.
Why are we splitting hairs over a fantasy book?
I guess because that's what he has a degree in. Being as friendly and forgiving as he was with WLC was the first indicator of what was to come. Now he's literally reciting apologist arguments.
If you want to be taken seriously as an atheist or at least a rational person, I suggest you don`t dismiss the holy books as merely fantasy works. It is a slap on your credibility and intellectual maturity.
@@sammur1977 Snow white and the seven dwarves is a fantasy book too. I am pretty sure you know the book exists. There is something else in the book that does not.
@@niksx4454 I actually know what the holy books are and most importantly how and why they were put together. I cannot tell you this in a comment section because it takes dozens of pages to explain. Pages that I am writing myself at the moment. All holy books are partially fantasy and that is a fact. I know there are parts in them that are true but they are definitely not the parts that believers think. Supernatural does not exist. This is a fact. If you doubt that then I am sorry but you are just wrong and I will explain in great detail why as soon as I finish the bloody book whenever that happens. I know religions are useful for many people but many reasons for their usefulness ranges from deceptive ignorance to plain evil behavior.
@@howtheworldworks3 You writing a book about holy books and the original comment in which you come off as dismissive of people still discussing them is kinda confusing to me. Or maybe your book will be the one to end all discussions once and for all. Can't wait to read it if that's the case. All love.
This is the first time one of your videos has popped up in my feed in 5 years! I just wanna say congrats on how far you have came! I was watching you there for a bit from about 4k -15k subs...then for whatever reason drifted away. I remember you doing that vid where you got the wood subscriber award someone made for you. Awesome job man!
Excellent. Simply solid and nicely presented.
Surely you can say that "the depiction of the Christian God commonly promoted by Christians as the embodiment of pure love and forgiveness is inaccurate, as the Bible shows us that he is actually brutal, condemning, unforgiving, capricious and cruel, and as such is not worthy of worship."
I love that transition at 1:03 ! 👌
Perfect. I'm glad I have these new tools to refine my arguments
This video explains something important and rare, something that could be useful to keep in mind for any argument/debate whatsoever. Even when judging the exchange of arguments in third person.
I love comparing believing in God to believing in Santa Clause or believing in the Easter Bunny. Nothing wrong with that since they are literally the same thing.
how dare you? Santa is actually nice and just
@@sammur1977 lol. So what? In Greek mythology, the Great Emptiness/Abyss (Chaos) is the source of all existence. From which all gods and goddesses arise. That doesn't make it real.
ua-cam.com/video/Fo8HWzyEWZ8h/v-deo.htmlttps://ua-cam.com/video/Fo8HWzyEWZ8/v-deo.html
@Jessie James I'm from Austria, so English isn't my mother's tongue. I'm pretty sure you got the gist of what I was saying despite my imperfect use of words. Since you are so eager on words though, it's called "difference to there being a creator", not "difference to their being a creator" lol.
Thirdly I don't have to prove a negative lol. "You haven't proven that there are no unicorns, so unicorns are Source of existence." What a load of BS.
@Jessie James so you say that there is a creator. prove it.
Genetically Cosmified Skeptic.
Job done. Now, tea (RationaliTea Brews)
Welcome back! :D More and more videos lately.
Well balanced! Attempting to alliminate bias in yourself is always admirable
I'd just like to say that Alex had a skateboarding channel with an extremely cringey video years ago it was adorable 11/10
So glad you made this. I just watched your video on the Kalam out of curiosity about how atheists rebut it, and found those same issues you have now pointed out. I appreciate that
Well done, sir. Blessings from Norway.
Yo Alex, Muslim Atheist here! I love your videos bro and keep up the good work
How can you be a "muslim" atheist?
"Muslim Atheist" 🤔
xD
@@MohseenLala it’s like being a Jewish atheist. Muslim is also an ethnic group
@@prehistoricworld_ Nope. Muslim is not an ethnic group--unless you were being sarcastic.
'God is supremely good, therefore anything he does is justified.'
'I'm saying, when the President does it, it's NOT illegal.'
Legal means "approved by the state"
Good means "approved by the self"
God isn't a moral agent and he doesn't have moral virtue in the same way we do as nothing can be lost since he is purely actual
And intrinsicism never even made sense to me it's morality without context it just seems inconsistent like is Kant right?
@@hexzyle Legal means according to law, even if the state disapproves of it. For example, Nixon doing illegal acts while being head of state.
ua-cam.com/video/Fo8HWzyEWZ8/v-deo.html
@Anthony James God is not a moral agent in the classical theistic worldview
6:37 is so beautifully articulated in a way I've been trying to say for years. When you argue directly at the Christian, for example, that their god is evil, you're talking past them and thus not making any head way in the conversation. Being able to shift your paradigm to understand theirs makes for a more cohesive and useful conversation for most people, especially when they don't have the tools to leave their own Christian belief.
This is why you're such an amazing voice for atheists and skeptics, Alex; you are able to elucidate complex ideas and concepts in ways that are very digestible. I appreciate your channel as well as many others (like Genetically Modified Skeptic) and am thankful you can clearly express what many of us may be thinking. :)
Congratulations on 400k, Alex!
7:30 Of course you can say that the christian god isn't worth of worship even if he were to exist. Just because the defintion says he is all good, I for myself could still condeem his actions and say I don't like god therefore I wouldn't worship him, If christianity was true I would also by definition be able to not worship him lol.
It depends on how much you accept Christianity, or which ideas in it. For one, you can be a very theologically liberal Christian who believes 75% of the Bible is false and/or misinterpreted, if you reject the idea of Biblical inerrancy (some Christians do). That way you got around a lot of the objectionable content by saying that those parts were not inspired by God, and have been written as such due to misunderstandings in the culture. I know several Christians who don’t believe in hell and who think most of the Old Testament law was conceived and written exclusively by humans. That’s a sort of applying modern ethics to the Bible and only picking out the parts you like, and then calling that “God.” This obviously comes with it’s own set of problems, but I feel it’s a step above (and in the right direction) from strict Biblical inerrancy. This usually also coincides with refusal of Biblical literalism (at least as it applies to the Old Testament).
These Christians basically only accept the Gospels as real fact within the Bible, and interpret most of the Old Testament as metaphor and/or cultural legend. Reading the Bible in that manner will obviously paint a better picture of God. Also note that even some Christians don’t accept the penal substitution theory of the crucifixion or the doctrine of original sin. So that’s the liberal way of making Christianity more acceptable to the average modern person; just remove the bad parts for the seemingly obvious reason that they make no sense within the theory without resulting to the alternative, theologically conservative position.
And that position would be that because humans are inherently flawed and God is so perfect and incomprehensible, it’s easy to justify anything God does as being morally right. He works in mysterious ways, and who are we horrible, mortal people to judge him?
Eh, yes and no. If you don't believe he's worthy of worship you don't actually believe what they say about him, since one of the things they say is that he's worthy of worship. See, in their definition of the god that exists, is him being worthy of worship. So if you don't believe him worthy of worship then you don't believe in the god that they are talking about. Cause that god is worthy of worship by definition.
That said, Cosmic has it backwards here. That's not a problem with the atheist response, it's a problem with the religious person's question. They are essentially asking "If you were convinced I was right would you think I was right?", which is just a useless question. Then they are trying to use the response to that question as if it was a response to a similar, but actually useful question. Pretty sure there's a logical fallacy where people try to smuggle assuming they are right into the proof that they are right, and that's basically what they are leading you into with that question. TECHNICALLY, pointing that out would be a better response, but that's having a better way of dealing with someone else's mistake. They still made the mistake, not the atheist. The fact that there is no actual answer to their question that can be both honest and useful is the proof of that.
Edit: Just realized that technically Alex presented this argument not as a question from the christian "If you believed in the bible, would you worship god" but as a statement from the atheist without any such question. He technically referenced this in a vague way when he started talking, by saying that sometimes it's an appropriate response. I still feel he's glossing over that what people are actually talking about generally is the person's idea of god being worthy of worship based on the descriptions, but he makes good points about the nitty gritty of the phrasing.
One day you will kneel and confess to God if you like it or not . God alone is worthy of worship .
@@MH-oh8rn The fact a person can say "you will kneel if you like it or not" and think of themself as the good guy is a great example of how Christianity twists people's sense of right and wrong.
ua-cam.com/video/Fo8HWzyEWZ8h/v-deo.htmlttps://ua-cam.com/video/Fo8HWzyEWZ8/v-deo.html
to the question "did the theist ever claim that their god could do this " : almost always. Though, I do agree that we should pay attention to what our interlocutors are saying.
@Michelle de Vries
As a Christian, I feel theists should do the same. Because man did I trip over my own shoe laces arguing how the only evidence for God is through personal experience earlier this week. >.
@@DemonicRemption the argument from personal experience is one of the most fallacious arguments for the existence of gods there are.
So I agree that you “tripped“
@@lil_weasel219
Oh it isn't a fallacious argument, if you're only trying to justify why you're a theist and not trying to convert. That's always my intent when I use the personal experience argument. But instead I wasn't focusing on that intent, instead trying to argue every point the guy made.
Simply because I know I can't convince anyone of God's existence, and besides that's the job of a minister, while I'm a writer of fiction.
ua-cam.com/video/Fo8HWzyEWZ8/v-deo.html
Always a genius👑
Great video!!
Ahh man! Congrats for 400k subs🎉🎉👏👏