5 Reasons People Are Becoming Atheists (and how to respond!)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 чер 2024
- SOCIAL MEDIA
Newsletter: breakinginthehabit.org/newsle...
Facebook: goo.gl/UoeKWy
Instagram: goo.gl/ShMbhH
Podcast: feeds.libsyn.com/511948/rss
INTERESTED IN BECOMING A FRIAR?
United States: goo.gl/MXKb2R
Find your Vocation Director: goo.gl/2Jc52z
SUPPORT THE MISSION
Order my books: amzn.to/386QDpR
Donate Monthly: goo.gl/UrrwNC
One-time gifts: shorturl.at/4CwgV
MUSIC
Epidemicsound.com
You don't need 5 reasons. They are fleeing because they have more access to information and better education.
There are intelligent people on both the side of belief and non-belief its not merely as black and white as having information/education
@@angelleon1284 I hope you realize your response is a straw man. I never argued that educated people don't hold irrational beliefs. My point is that the more information you have and the more educated you become, the more likely you are to apply critical thinking, which helps insulate you from myths and superstitions.
@@JohnSpencer90 By that logic your claim is also a straw man that attempts to simply break down the idea of tendency towards atheism to mere information and education, insinuating that better education/information= atheism
@@angelleon1284 I won't do your research for you, but Various statistics ( PEW, ARIS, GSS) suggest a clear correlation between higher education levels and atheism, with educated individuals more likely to identify as atheists compared to the general population. However, you don't need to be an Atheist to conclude that Christian Theology is irrational, and is being held together mostly by baby boomers who are terrified of dying.
@@angelleon1284 I won't do your research for you, but Various statistics ( PEW, ARIS, GSS) suggest a clear correlation between higher education levels and atheism, with educated individuals more likely to identify as atheists compared to the general population. However, you don't need to be an Atheist to conclude that Christian Theology is incredibly over the top.
Technically secularism is just separation of religion from civil affairs and the state.And after European wars of religion in 16th, 17th and early 18th centuries it was quite a good idea.
there's no "technically" about it, this guy just lied through his teeth while proselytizing for jesus
The argument that “since science can’t explain something, it MUST be god” is about as flawed as flawed can be.
Yeah but when science cannot even explain it’s own assumptions, it must be concluded that science is INHERENTLY AND MAJORLY LIMITED
@@ChaiJung >
It is simple; When it happens then science looks for another way. It has no limitations other than constantly verifying its steps.
And the above is something you cannot do with faith.
With faith you can believe anything, but you will not know from it whether you are on the right or wrong path (you cannot verify it).
Like... when pdf file atheists claim that men can menstruate and give birth and nowhere in history has this been true, it's just a blatant lie?
Religion is limited by the lack of evidence based truths and religion hangs on to a monologue that is not supported by evidence nor is willing to change as new facts become known. Science, when stymied, looks for other paths and NEW ideas, and if proven, will change their views as needed.
@@jtapia0 oh, like... when pdf file atheists claim that men can menstruate and give birth while nowhere in history has this been true?
5:54
If you don't present evidence, then it's just acclamation.
And that's why people walk away. Claims without evidence are free to discard
Again, you skipped point number 1. If you fail to accept that, I can't really offer you much.
@@BreakingInTheHabit I don't skip it. I place it in discussion:
How do you know (with a verifiable method) that something exists beyond death?
If it is by faith, you can believe anything; You cannot know if what you believe by faith is true or false.
@@BreakingInTheHabit
And even if they did skip 1, this wouldn’t make your claim justified. Because rejecting materialism doesn’t get you to an afterlife, that’s a non sequitur.
@@BreakingInTheHabit your entire position relies on you begging the question. "If you for one moment accept the premise, that the super-natural is real and it's not just the material world, then we can in fact conclude that the super-natural exists." Get real or let it be
I'll be honest, as a former Catholic I used to enjoy the perspectives you brought when I came across your reaction videos. Not because I agreed with them, but because They were things that I could recognize and understand about how I used to think. It seemed to me that you were an honest interlocutor that was simply trying to help outsiders understand the perspective of Catholics. When I first saw this video however, I was disappointed because I started to run into some of the same lack of rationality that drove me from Christianity to begin with and didn't expect to find from an educated and supposedly practiced Catholic source. Then in the video response on The SkepTic's channel, how they broke down the details that I don't pay attention to in a casual watching, they rightfully pointed out completely dishonest tactics complete with completely irrelevant sources flashing across the screen. My respect for you and this channel is lost. You've plummeted to the same tactics as everyone else. I'm severely disappointed and affirmed in my decision to distance myself from Christianity.
Welcome to the Dark Side!
Complete lack of self awareness. Starts off by stating that some of the cause of people turning away from religion is the fault of the religious, then spends the entire video doing the things that religious people do which turns people away from religion.
"to celebrate individualism" we will tell you who to worship, how to worship, what to eat, what to wear, what to listen, what to read, and how to think. All in the name of individualism 😊
I lost my mother, my home, some pets, was homeless, was in a car accident, & found I have cancer. All within three years. Religion keeps me going. I’m far more religious now than ever before. I couldn’t imagine my life now without my belief in God.
I will pray that you get better
God help you!
Amen. If it wasn't for God. Looking back. I'd be dead. Plain and simple. Everyone has abandoned me at some point. God has not. This is truth. I don't deserve Him. But I know it was and is Him.
Most folks who still believe even a little bit I believe have no problem with God. It's people. And capital C Church.
❤
How hard would you find it to believe that my situation is shockingly similar? It's a test brother, it may be too late for this mortal would but not too late for our eternal souls. Feel free to respond back to me, I'd love to hear your long story.
Thank you for straight up admitting that you use emotional manipulation to get around the fact that there is no rational reason to believe what you preach. That sort of intellectual dishonesty is exactly the kind of behavior in theists that drives people towards atheism.
As an atheist I've still harboring the same motivation for being faithless as when I first became faithless as a child: I don't know. I don't know is something the religious fear more than the devil himself. I don't know how the universe was created. I don't care either. It's irrelevant. In fact, if one just says "I don't know" to every aspect of faith one can truly find peace. I don't know what happens after death. I live my life by what I do know and that is enough.
I think you are quite right. It is a very very rare occurrence when a christian will admit "I don't know" about their religion/theology/deity.
I have yet to meet an honest religious apologist.
This video didn't change that.
What dishonest thing did he say?
@@kaizer4506 You really don't know?
@@Steelmage99 You clearly have nothing, and so you attack the person rather than his arguments
@@kaizer4506
Well, basically everything he said about atheists is wrong and I am pretty sure he knows it. So that would be dishonest.
@@kaizer4506 OK, so you don't know.
As a rule, members of group A shouldn't present the stances and motivations of group B.
For instance, an atheist shouldn't present *_what_* a theist believes, and *_why_* they believe it.
Would you agree with that?
Thank you so much, I really needed that!
You only need to do ONE THING when responding to an atheist: Prove that your god (or any other god, for that matter) exists. That's all, is that easy.
Give it a try someday instead of misrepresenting what the other side says...
I think you're completely missing the point. Like, completely. The whole problem with atheism is that it is a deficient worldview that claims that only that which is provable is real or meaningful. This is a modern fallacy that eliminates all other forms of truth (art, history, beauty, poetry, literature, intuition, love) and is self-contradictory (logical positivism rejects assumptions about the existence of an underlying reality, but uncritically accepts the existence of empirical data). Why should we have to play by your rules and throw out what humans have known for centuries?
And to your second point, just because I did not answer the question with empirical evidence doesn't mean that I misrepresented what "the other side says." I may not have convinced you, but each of these five points are academic definitions of the concepts alive in our world.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Nope. You are misrepresenting the other side as if they were saying X or Y (any of those 5 things you mentioned in the video), when atheism is just the lack of belief in a deity, that's all.
Just an idea: Listen for one moment to the other side, so you can stop putting words in their mouths. Maybe talk to VicedRhino, TheSkepTick or any of the other guys that have been responding to your content.
@@BreakingInTheHabit *"The whole problem with atheism is that it is a deficient worldview that claims that only that which is provable is real or meaningful."*
To quote you: "I think you're completely missing the point. Like, completely." You even make MY point for me when you say: "This is a modern fallacy that eliminates all other forms of truth (art, history, beauty, poetry, literature, intuition, love)"
So why would you think we're saying what you point out is self evident?
@@BreakingInTheHabit Im sorry but what kind of "truth" is poetry? Could you tell what the "truth" value a verse has? It can cause emotions in a reader, yes. But the fact that it will cause them in one person and not in another is immediately discrediting it as "truth".
Your argument here is nothing more than a word salad...
@BreakingInTheHabit Atheism does not destroy those things. In general most Atheist explain things with rational logic but that doesn't mean that poetry or art can't exist. No one is 100% rational because we are simply emotional beings.
As a non-religious person, this video is perhaps the cleanest explanation of where our worldviews diverge I've seen, which is a feat of communication. I don't agree with you at all, but I'm impressed by your clarity.
How can it be, that pdf file atheists believe what atheist religion claims, that men can give birth, but then at the same time they reject the claim of islame, that women can be pregnant for ten years?
There's zero evidence for either claim, they're both blatant lies. So why do they choose one lie over another lie? Is it because atheist religion teaches hypocrasy? Dishonesty? deceit?
So.. are we bags of flesh substituted by neurons and chemical reactions?
keep it up with the great videos, fr. casey! i sincerely hope you become the next pope after francis.
This is a bucket full of red herrings. Very few of the here purported strengths of religion are, as a matter of fact, monopolies of religions. "I have wept at a string quartet of Schubert" (R. Dawkins). “If you want to be awe inspired, let me just tell you that those of us who do not believe that we are divinely created, let alone divinely supervised, are not immune to the idea of awe and beauty and the transcendent." (Chr. Hitchens)
I agree with you that determinism is a depressing idea and robs each person of moral responsibility. However, I've never understood the theistic assertion that just because this "feels" absurd, it is therefore false. If the evidence points in that direction... how can our feelings insist they know better?
Put another way: It feels absurd to me that the earth is round (based on my experience walking around on flat ground). Does this make the earth no longer a globe?
That’s the core of apologetics about free will, objective morality, and ultimate purpose as well. “If those didn’t actually exist, then I would feel emotionally dissatisfied, so therefore they must exist.”
The sad irony is that atheists don’t even feel emotional distress about this. We’re actually fine, and happy, and have plenty of meaning and purpose and moral consideration. It’s Christian indoctrination that tells you that you’ll be a rudderless nihilist without their god, and they tell you this over and over again.
I think you only feel a “god shaped hole in your heart” because they cut a chunk out of your sense of personal agency, self-esteem, and confidence, probably while you were still a child.For those of us who weren’t abused in that way, we get along just fine without the Christian “cure.” 😊
@@weirdwilliam8500 Perhaps. I don't often feel like my life is rudderless, but I can see why it might feel necessary for some to believe in an objective source of morality. I think for most people that the "lighthouse" of morality that God/Gods provide is actually really helpful and good for society.
On the other hand: even if we discovered tomorrow that morality was absolutely subjective, I don't believe that the entire world would necessarily descend into barbarism. There does seem to be an innate sense of right and wrong in each person. This could lend credence to a naturalistic explanation of morality, but you could make the argument that our innate sense of morality comes from God whether we believe in him or not. The latter doesn't really compel me, but it's there.
@@jakejmullin Fair enough, but ask 10 different Christians what the objective morals from god are, and you’ll get 10 different answers. Religion is just subjective morality that claims an institutional authority.
@@weirdwilliam8500what you're referring to is subjective *understanding* of something. People can understand something totally real in 10 different ways, but that wouldn't make it any less real.
I'm atheist but I agree with many of your points except point 3. We definitely have to fix this world one way or another for our future generations.
Our Christian faith commands us to do everything we can to make this world a place of peace and justice. My point is simply that it is not the only world we have and it is not worth losing our souls over or giving into despair when things aren't perfect.
@@BreakingInTheHabit It 100% is the only world we have and I will not see it destroyed because a bunch of cultist lunatics think it's not important to keep our planet habitable.
That is if we even have future generations 🤷🏾♂️
@@chibu3212 trust me there are still many people who still advocate for nuclear families.
@@czar6203 a lack of a nuclear family doesn't mean we won't have future generations though.
I'm an atheist, but I want to put a respectful challenge to you. Monotheism sees God as a perfect being, an entity beyond human conception. Therefore your theology should teach both that 1) there is ultimate truth and 2) no one human will ever understand it all.
I would argue this should push one towards relativism. to be in awe of the vastness of truth and the vastness of the world, is to accept that there are limits on all of our perspectives, limits none of us can fully comprehend.
We need to distinguish between truth as a metaphysical concept (the thing in itself) and our epistemology (how we know what we know.) We will never know the whole truth, correct, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, and more importantly, it doesn’t mean we know nothing! There are moral imperatives that are objectively true, unchanging, and fully understood by our faith (murder is bad.)
Catholic here- gave you a thumbs up for the good question!
Did his response satisfy you? Me, no.
At one level you’re right… when we’ve said a million true things about God we haven’t said anything that really reveals God in the way a spiritual experience might. But we also believe our interior senses can experience God as an immediate reality, that that has been so through history, and that God has deliberately communicated truths to us through religious tradition, and that there are sound theological arguments for why the Christian tradition represents the fullness of the truth that all human religious sentiment looks to. That does not lead to relativism - it’s process whereby we find our own deepest purest insights and intentions are harmonious with the insights of revelation
@@BreakingInTheHabit Moral imperatives? Hey man. Is slavery morally wrong? Your god blessed it, and gave instructions on how to get more of them...
Hi! Atheist materialist here, and I found this video really interesting! It didn't exactly rock my worldview, but I do think you presented some fascinating ideas that got me thinking. For example, the point about the beauty of the sunset got me wondering about the sense in which art and beauty are "irreducible". I'm sure you've put a lot of thought into the way that appreciation arises in a spiritual sense, but I have to admit, trying to reduce them to naturalistic phenomena still yelds very abstract results. It didn't take me to God, exactly, but it certainly has me appreaciating the immense complexity of the human psyche.
I would like to bring up that point about Nihilism, because I think equating it with things like hopelessness, apathy and distrust is something of a mischaracterization. I'm a nihilist myself, and found myself agreeing with everything you said about the world being a way better place to live now than it was in the past. I think nihilism, being the lack any greater or objective purpose, is a very liberating philosophy. It gives you the space to pursue those things which are meaningful and fulfilling to yourself, instead of serving some purpose which is out of your control. Not that those kinds of grander purposes aren't fulfilling necessarily. There are billions of people around the world who find them immensely meaningful, but I don't they're the only kind of meaning one can have. Nihilism, to me is less so the lack of purpose, and moreso a belief in subjective purpose rather than objective.
From what I've seen of your content, I think you're a really insightful guy and a great presenter. If anything, I wouldn't mind these videos being a bit longer. I think having more time could really help you bring your point across. For instance, with the segment about materialism, I didn't quite understand why you feel that you know we have a spiritual nature without being able to prove it. (Not that you can't know something without proving it of course. I know you're sentient, but I can't prove it, for example)
You present your points very well. I do believe in the triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) because there is always something that makes me believe in a higher power. I appreciate the fact that you want to understand opposing view points, as I myself do, because if we can understand one another we may find common ground even if we only agree to disagree.
"It gives you the space to pursue those things which are meaningful and fulfilling to yourself, instead of serving some purpose which is out of your control"
What purpose is there out there that is better than the one pursued by Christians? I understand wanting to pursue a subjective purpose that is fulfilling at an individual level but I feel if you want to be humble and do something more than serve yourself, you will inevitably fall in line with Christian beliefs.
Subjective purpose is a noble pursuit, but it has been tried before and the ultimate end point is vanity.
hedonism
Popularity
Greed/success
Status
Power
Altruism/charity
Children
Sadly, if you take a long term view, you are powerless to change the outcome for anything, excluding your own popularity, wealth, power or status. You may start out idealistic and motivated - good! But, it will eventually dawn on you that it was all vanity.
Prove me wrong, I would appreciate that. However, I don't mean to invalidate your subjective perspective, only to point out the rational ("objective") limitation of such subjective purpose to be self perpetuating.
The ETERNAL, ALL-POWERFUL, CREATOR of the universe says, "Can the gods of the other nations (religions) tell you the future? No! They are mere lifeless idols." But I..." and then He proceeds to FULFILL over one thousand prophecies in the Bible to demonstrate that God's word can be trusted.
The Bible in the Old Testament predicted the Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah; Jesus was. The Bible predicted the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem; Jesus was. The Bible predicted the Messiah would be called a Nazarene; Jesus grew up in Nazareth. The Bible said the Messiah would be rejected by His own people; most Jews rejected Christ. The Bible said the Messiah would have his hands and feet pierced; it happened to Christ on the cross. (Do you think Jesus or his followers made this happen to fulfill prophecy, NO Rome decided how He would die) The Bible said the Messiah would be given vinegar; Jesus was given vinegar when He was hanging on the cross. The Bible said the Messiah would be buried in a rich man's tomb; Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, who was very rich. The Bible said the Messiah would die a criminal's death; Jesus was crucified between two criminals. The Bible said The Messiah would NOT have any broken bones; it was customary for crucified individuals to have their bones broken to hasten death, but when they came to Jesus, He was already dead. The Bible said the Messiah would be despised; the mobs spit on Jesus and mocked Him on the cross. The Bible said the Messiah would be a light unto the Gentiles (non-Jews) the Jews, by and large do NOT believe in Jesus, it is Gentiles (non-Jews) around the world who worship the Jewish Messiah, Jesus. The Bible says Jerusalem "...kills the prophets." While Jesus was much more than just a prophet, He was killed in Jerusalem. The Bible said the Messiah would be from the lineage of King David; Jesus was. The Bible said the Messiah would be called from Egypt; the parents of the infant Jesus, took Him to Egypt, until they were told they could bring Him back; the King who wanted to kill Him had himself died. The Bible said the Messiah would have people gamble for His clothes; the soldiers at the crucifixion gambled for Jesus' cloak. The Bible said the Messiah would bring in a new covenant; Jesus did. His death on the cross, once for all did away with the need for the slaughtering of lambs at the Jewish temple. The Bible said the Messiah would come 483 years AFTER the decree to re-build the temple; Jesus made His triumphant entry into Jerusalem on the very day as predicted. The Bible said the Messiah would suffer; Jesus was beaten, had his beard ripped out of His face, and was brutally nailed to the cross. The Bible said the Messiah would be a prophet; Jesus predicted the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. The Bible said the Messiah would come riding on a donkey; Jesus did. The Bible said the Messiah would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver; Judas Iscariot was given 30 pieces of silver for betraying Jesus. The Bible said the Messiah would be a willing sacrifice; Jesus willingly went to the cross, and even predicted His death in Jerusalem. The Bible said the Messiah would be proceeded by a messenger; Jesus was heralded by John the Baptist. The Bible said the Messiah would be descended from Abraham; Jesus was a descendant of Abraham. The Bible said the Messiah would be lifted up; Jesus was lifted up on the cross. The Bible said the Messiah would perform signs of healing; Jesus did. There are literally three HUNDRED prophecies fulfilled by Jesus.
He also adds over one hundred scientific facts in scripture in all fields of science that were written down, thousands of years BEFORE the great scientists of the world would discover them. For example, up to a few hundred years ago surgeons used to wash their hands in basins of water, until they discovered it became a bowl of germs. They started using running water. The Bible instructed the use of running water thousands of years earlier. Soldiers used to die from disease, until they finally figured out to do their toilet business outside the camp. The Bible thousands of years before this, instructed the Israeli soldiers to take a small shovel outside the camp and bury their waste. Doctors used to drain blood (blood-letting) from sick patients, but thousands of years ago the Bible said, the life is in the blood. It wasn't until a couple hundred years ago, that oceanographers discovered mountains rising off the ocean floor, but the Bible thousands of years ago spoke of these mountains. The Bible says, "It is God who spreads out the stars." Astrophysicists now say the very fabric of space is spreading out taking the galaxies along for the ride. Up until about five hundred years ago, astronomers thought there was about 4,000-5,000 stars. But the Bible in Genesis compares the number of stars to the grains of sand along the seashore. Astronomers now say there are at least twice as many stars as sand on all the beaches of the world. Albert Einstein in his paper on relativity stated that matter, energy, space and time itself all had a beginning. But thousands of years earlier in Genesis chapter one the Bible says, "In the beginning (a reference to time having a beginning) God created the earth (matter) the heavens (space) and said let there be light (energy). I don't want to make this so long people won't read it, but you can go any Christian bookstore and find books on the hundreds and hundreds of fulfilled prophecies, in the Bible. There were 256 totally fulfilled prophecies concerning the birth, life, ministry, and death of Christ alone. So, God in HIS word has told of science thousands of years in advance of it being discovered by the great scientific minds of the world, He has spoken prophetic utterances that have come true, over and over again, in a literal, not metaphorical sense, again, to demonstrate His authority. He is God, we are His creation. This is His world, His universe. He is sovereign. Look, it's a great deal; surrender to His only means of forgiving our sins and reconciling ourselves to HIM, Christ dying on the cross, and reap eternal life, eternal peace, eternal health, and eternal joy. OR reject His offer of pardon and receive your just punishment. I choose Jesus Christ.
There are limits to human knowledge. It's not something many want to admit, but despite your best efforts to seek out meaning, you will never get there. This could cause a lapse into despair, and cause you to focus on the now and forget tomorrow (as they say eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die), but even this becomes meaningless eventually. But why do humans even seek meaning in life? Is this what seperates us from the animals.
Consider this passage from the Bible which may provide an answer "I have seen the burden God has laid on the human race. He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end. I know that there is nothing better for people than to be happy and to do good while they live. That each of them may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all their toil-this is the gift of God. I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that people will fear him..............God will bring into judgement both the righteous and the wicked, for there will be a time for every activity, a time to judge for every deed" (Ecc 3:10:12).
That was beautifully and succinctly expressed. Thank you. I had an exchange with an aetheist in a chat on free will. I argued that not having it would render psychotherapy (I’m a therapist) as moot because therapy is a focused willful reconditioning of the neural pathways which requires self-reflection and motivation.
Free will is one of those concepts in my opinion in which, just because we can have questions and disagreements, doesn’t mean it’ll work in practice. It’s like wanting the benefits of free will without prescribing to free will.
The problem here is that you've presented a false dichotomy, that one has free will or one does not. It doesn't work like that since from the moment you are born, your life is determined and shaped by your environment. So what we have is volition within a particular context.
@@almcdermid9669 We are conditioned by environment but we energetically interact with it and influence it as well with our conscious frontal cortex, unlike purely instinctual animals. At any given moment with clarity, honesty courage, the seeds of motivation, a person can push against conditioning and choose otherwise, ie. recondition. Ain’t easy but possible. I’ve see it all the time. Also, agreement is choice, eg. the world now agrees slavery is wrong.
@@themobbit9061 That happened to me 4 years ago; now I'm an atheist.
But we are conditioned, which why geography plays a part in what religion one becomes.
@@themobbit9061 Slavery was always.
How truthful you are, Padre! Thank-you for this reflection! God Bless You!
He is not being truthful; he's strawmanning atheism.
I left the church because I lost several people close to me to violence in rapid succession when I was in highschool and early in college.
As I contemplated why these things happened, I asked myself these questions.
Is God willing to prevent suffering, but unable?
Then he can't be omnipotent.
Is He able, but unwilling?
Then He is malevolent.
Is He both able and willing?
Then from where does evil come?
Is He neither able nor willing?
Then why call Him God?
God created us to love us, and wanted us to love him in return. There is no love without free will, so he gave us that as well. If you cannot choose to be apart from God, then you can’t truly choose to be with him either.
The first people chose to be apart from God and so welcomed all that is not God: sin, suffering, evil desires and pain.
Christians also believe that suffering is brief and minor compared to the infinite good that comes next. You may disagree with this view of God, but this view is not inherently contradictory
@@kaizer4506 Stop pretending you know what the gods want/need/think. We know you are making it up.
@@kaizer4506 do angels have free will? genuinely curious
@@user-sm1bi5ix6lYes, yet they never fell away, except satan. But since Angels are created directly from god, and not by s3x, it couldn’t be passed on on.
@@Gurly23Anti-UTTP so god created creatures with free will that still chose to worship him? Then why mess it up and make humans?
You obviously have no idea why most people become atheists (or are feeling safer about publicly acknowledging their atheism), but you’ve done a good job of straw-manning their views.
It would all be so much easier if God would unambiguously show himself to all people.
God could prevent so much evil by doing so but God does not.
I discussed this in two other videos, in case you're interested:
ua-cam.com/video/mO0V5A4wi4M/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/6AbVfZHu-S0/v-deo.html
LOL, did you write this script with ChatGPT? Thankfully, religion is superfluous nowadays. You don't need religion to appreciate beauty and wonder. I'm an artist and a lifelong 67 year old atheist who loves life and all it has to offer.
The classics fall on deaf ears in our poor age.
@@BreakingInTheHabit I can say meaningless things too. The blacksmith's dog made a bolt for the door.
@@jonrendell Did he get there while bolting ?
This is right up there with "people are becoming heliocentric: Does house arrest work"
Oh the misunderstandings of history… the story of Galileo that everyone thinks they know was made up in the late 19th century by an anti-Catholic fundamentalist. Even Harvard knows so: www.amazon.com/Galileo-Other-Myths-Science-Religion/dp/0674057414
@@BreakingInTheHabit Yes, of course. It's all propaganda. Because the catholic church would never do anything violent or abhorrent. Hey, how many cathars are there in southern France today? None? Gosh, I wonder where they went!
@@BreakingInTheHabit nothing like a good old pay wall am i right?
also there's this thing called don't judge a book its cover you people like to use a lot you've never actually read that part of galileo did u?
why don't u talk about myth 9 in the book that's right after Galileo?
"that Christianity gave birth to modern science " since a lot of seem to use it?
also the book just says , "he wasn't tortured like the myths since he was friends with the pope and he was elderly, also he was given threats of torture but never tortured itself"
You WANT there to be a god/spirit/soul. But wanting something to exist does not make it exist
Faith in the western world being in a downward trend is one of the best bits of news for the human species in a long, long, long time.
It really is. Religion causes nothing but conflict and promotes archaic beliefs some of which are outright barbaric.
explain how?
@@stingrayshat because now we can move forward instead of living with a bronze age mentality. We don't need a ancient book that gives instructions on slavery and mass genocides to base our morals on.
@@stingrayshat
That is like someone saying we have finally become a post-scarcity society, that is great news our species and some dingbat coming along and saying "Explain how that is great news."
It is pretty darn self-explanatory.
Where will civilization be when all morals have been tossed aside? No morality based on anything but God has ever stood the test of time
Ignorance is not a prerequisite for awe and wonder. I experience awe and wonder about things I have a detailed understanding of all the time. I know what the various lights in the night sky are and how they got there (at least over the last 13 billion years - it's a little unclear before that), but I'm still filled with awe when I look up at them and consider the vastness of the universe and my tiny place in it. The juxtaposition of how important my life is to me and how completely insignificant it is to the universe is wonderful to me. The life of an atheist is not as empty as you seem to think.
Empty enough to troll religious UA-cam videos, apparently.
@@Dan-km8zy Do only people with empty lives talk about religion? Casey's life must be incredibly empty, then.
@@thomasdalton1508 No, people who proclaim their awe at the vastness of the universe and the fullness of life it brings without religion, and then spend their time posting contrarian jabs on UA-cam are more empty than they think they are.
@@Dan-km8zy What of the lives of those that tell them their lives are empty?
@@thomasdalton1508 You tell me? You've uncovered the minutia of the universe and feel yourself superior. Educate me, like you pretended to in your original post.
0:46 - 1: Scientific materialism
2:26 - 2: Rationalism
4:10 - 3: Secularism
5:56 - 4: Relativism
7:23 - 5: Nihilism
Top notch video fr. Casey! Just finished watching this one and the "Christians are driving people away from Church" and they are some of you finest work. Succinct and (in)formative. Thanks a lot!
Knowledge is the enemy of religion.
I did better than an atheist in my class but ey. You do you.
@@omegajg7459 With age comes wisdom, then you will realize that it was a jab at religious dogma.
@@omegajg7459 Do you want a cookie?
@@Rick_Gonja Nah, I wanna take a break from seeing this comment
No, not true, knowledge is the wisdom of religion the Catholic Church created. Universitys College Schools Hospitals Scientific research Of all Branches Including Biology Geology Astronomy and Chemistry Math and many more so the church is a Patrion of sciences and education a Across the world Sense early centuries the church's was the labs for scientist and hospitals college was a Please where moks Taught scientific studies to Students. You can look it up Not only that Christianity Change the whole world by Music Culture laws art Technology and Military and Power, Businesses Society Philosophy Theology history and Pioneers and exploration. So yeah people should think christianity for Society And for all the glory that it did to the world Even through this day the church Hold no Hate to science Though they are Catholic. And the catholic church has Dynasies Across the world in colleges in cities and countries that has Marriages For the communities Most of the founding fathers of modern science Were people of clarity of the church The first Nurses were Actually nuns of the church All the way up to 20 Century There saints in the Middle ages that
Did Medical research⚕️ For centuries It begin since the fourth century the medical research of Biology. So yes the knowledge I's From the church So as reason and logic. God Bless you ✝️🇻🇦
If senses, emotions and conventions can all be flawed, how can we possibly be sure that the bible isn't flawed? We only ever experience it through our senses and emotions.
You can’t. But that’s the very mindset I’m trying to show is foolish: there are very few things you can know for sure, and if you throw out everything that can’t be proven absolutely, you’re going to throw out most of life.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Wow, that's not true AT ALL. if there are things we don't know for sure, isn't it more honest to admit that and try to learn rather than make up something to rectify your ignorance, like a god, then claim knowledge?
@@BreakingInTheHabit How is it foolish to accept you can't know things for sure? I'm a bit confused by that perspective.
I don't even know I exist for sure, but I can still act as though I am despite that because that action still makes more logical sense given my options.
I don't know if the bible is flawed or not, but I can act as though it is, because that action makes the most logical sense.
I don't NEED to know things with absolute certainty to make conclusions and decisions.
@@BreakingInTheHabit
The Problem of Hard Solipsism is not solvable by prayer and wishes. There is only one thing you can ever know for sure and that is that you exist. Cogito, ergo sum.
But aside from that, literally _everything_ could be an illusion or a simulation. There is no way we would be able to tell the difference.
We just have to act as if that isn't the case. Even though it is. No religion or lack thereof solves or gets rid of that problem.
Been a fan for nearly a couple years, UFR got me through a lot of my work days and long nights. Keep your light bright Father Casey.
My separation from the church as a former Catholic is a bit different. I think people assumed I'm "mad at the church" or "I just want to sin."
In actuality, I greatly miss the church. I deeply wish I could be a believer. There are so many parts of the faith (warts and all) that I loved being around. My problem is that i can't force myself to believe what I am unconvinced of. I have a degree in religious studies, and I am fascinated by many of the things people hold to be true, but I myself remain unconvinced. That is what I grieve.
Talk about straw manning and hasty generalisation fallacies.
You can't just call something a straw man if you don't like it. I have given the textbook definitions of each of these ideas.
@@BreakingInTheHabit I agree you definitions are quite reasonable the problem is in asserting these are positions that all atheists hold.
A brain may be a bunch of cells but very few people claim it is just that in the same way as a mobile phone is not just a lump of metal.
@@BreakingInTheHabit "I have given the textbook definitions of each of these ideas."
It's not textbooks who are leaving Christianity, it's people.
So you should talk about actual people and their views and positions, and not about textbook definitions.
@@BreakingInTheHabit You're SO CLOSE to getting it.
@@BreakingInTheHabit
So according to you this:
Cannibal : a human that eats other humans. Zombie : A person that rises from the dead. Catholic : Cannibals that worship a water walking zombie.
Isn't a strawman because it's just listing definitions. Surely you can at least see that it is (like your claims) disingenuous at best?
I’m an agnostic because I wrestle with the ideology behind both sides of the coin. Science & Faith… the way I see it, imagine millions of steps leading up. At the top is the answers to the questions of all creation. But it’s too high for anyone to actually see and so we go by faith. However as we stand on the ground science solved the problem of step 1 step 2 step 3 and maybe a few more steps but there are millions more steps to get to the top. And this is where we are in reality. We trust in those few first steps because maybe that of science has solved the first piece of the stairs puzzle. But nowhere near the notion of what is actually at the top.
What makes me agnostic is the notion of what if… and it is rare a moment we get to feel something that feels beyond our ability.
See most atheistic views would want proof. Show a real miricle then we will believe what is at the top. But then I say… what about music? Music has a scientific formula - if you vibrate these things at the right frequency it can make a pleasant sound add a few different vibrations together and we have a song. Great 👍 science solved it, now tell me how science says how if they find the right song it can move you. At the same time a song that moves someone can be different to different people. And you could say psychology may have answers for this but there is too many algorithms to explain it. How complex. It’s almost like something bigger than us created something that ressenates to everyone but is not the same thing to all. How’s that for a miricle. As I said I am agnostic. Wrestling between science and faith… but I have stood in a church, and heard music that moved me. Ive heard music from all kinds of people not just church and it moved me. It spoke to my soul. And that to me is a miricle everytime it happens.
So maybe music might be the key to unlocking the closed doors of declining numbers?
". But then I say… what about music? Music has a scientific formula - if you vibrate these things at the right frequency it can make a pleasant sound add a few different vibrations together and we have a song. Great science solved it, now tell me how science says how if they find the right song it can move you."
... I don't think you understand the difference between observation of reality and personal taste
I'm an atheist - an agnostic atheist - but I don't demand proof. I just ask for *one piece of good evidence* that one or more of those gods are real, rather than just imaginary. That's because evidence is how we distinguish reality from delusion and wishful-thinking. But *one* is always too much to ask of theists.
If you have some _other_ method of distinguishing reality from delusion and wishful-thinking, some more _reliable_ method, I'd love to hear it. But as far as I can tell so far, religious beliefs seem indistinguishable from wishful-thinking.
Worldwide, faith-based people _overwhelmingly_ believe in whichever religion and whichever god or gods they were taught to believe as a child. And Christians can't even agree with _other Christians_ about much of anything, let alone with the other faith-based people in the world, even when they're all supposedly following the same magic book supposedly provided to them by the same supposedly all-knowing deity!
Of course, I enjoy music - inside and outside of a church. But what does that have to do with a god? _Any_ god, let alone a particular one? Music is great, but is it... magic? Why would you think so.
The ETERNAL, ALL-POWERFUL, CREATOR of the universe says, "Can the gods of the other nations (religions) tell you the future? No! They are mere lifeless idols." But I..." and then He proceeds to FULFILL over one thousand prophecies in the Bible to demonstrate that God's word can be trusted.
The Bible in the Old Testament predicted the Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah; Jesus was. The Bible predicted the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem; Jesus was. The Bible predicted the Messiah would be called a Nazarene; Jesus grew up in Nazareth. The Bible said the Messiah would be rejected by His own people; most Jews rejected Christ. The Bible said the Messiah would have his hands and feet pierced; it happened to Christ on the cross. (Do you think Jesus or his followers made this happen to fulfill prophecy, NO Rome decided how He would die) The Bible said the Messiah would be given vinegar; Jesus was given vinegar when He was hanging on the cross. The Bible said the Messiah would be buried in a rich man's tomb; Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, who was very rich. The Bible said the Messiah would die a criminal's death; Jesus was crucified between two criminals. The Bible said The Messiah would NOT have any broken bones; it was customary for crucified individuals to have their bones broken to hasten death, but when they came to Jesus, He was already dead. The Bible said the Messiah would be despised; the mobs spit on Jesus and mocked Him on the cross. The Bible said the Messiah would be a light unto the Gentiles (non-Jews) the Jews, by and large do NOT believe in Jesus, it is Gentiles (non-Jews) around the world who worship the Jewish Messiah, Jesus. The Bible says Jerusalem "...kills the prophets." While Jesus was much more than just a prophet, He was killed in Jerusalem. The Bible said the Messiah would be from the lineage of King David; Jesus was. The Bible said the Messiah would be called from Egypt; the parents of the infant Jesus, took Him to Egypt, until they were told they could bring Him back; the King who wanted to kill Him had himself died. The Bible said the Messiah would have people gamble for His clothes; the soldiers at the crucifixion gambled for Jesus' cloak. The Bible said the Messiah would bring in a new covenant; Jesus did. His death on the cross, once for all did away with the need for the slaughtering of lambs at the Jewish temple. The Bible said the Messiah would come 483 years AFTER the decree to re-build the temple; Jesus made His triumphant entry into Jerusalem on the very day as predicted. The Bible said the Messiah would suffer; Jesus was beaten, had his beard ripped out of His face, and was brutally nailed to the cross. The Bible said the Messiah would be a prophet; Jesus predicted the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. The Bible said the Messiah would come riding on a donkey; Jesus did. The Bible said the Messiah would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver; Judas Iscariot was given 30 pieces of silver for betraying Jesus. The Bible said the Messiah would be a willing sacrifice; Jesus willingly went to the cross, and even predicted His death in Jerusalem. The Bible said the Messiah would be proceeded by a messenger; Jesus was heralded by John the Baptist. The Bible said the Messiah would be descended from Abraham; Jesus was a descendant of Abraham. The Bible said the Messiah would be lifted up; Jesus was lifted up on the cross. The Bible said the Messiah would perform signs of healing; Jesus did. There are literally three HUNDRED prophecies fulfilled by Jesus.
He also adds over one hundred scientific facts in scripture in all fields of science that were written down, thousands of years BEFORE the great scientists of the world would discover them. For example, up to a few hundred years ago surgeons used to wash their hands in basins of water, until they discovered it became a bowl of germs. They started using running water. The Bible instructed the use of running water thousands of years earlier. Soldiers used to die from disease, until they finally figured out to do their toilet business outside the camp. The Bible thousands of years before this, instructed the Israeli soldiers to take a small shovel outside the camp and bury their waste. Doctors used to drain blood (blood-letting) from sick patients, but thousands of years ago the Bible said, the life is in the blood. It wasn't until a couple hundred years ago, that oceanographers discovered mountains rising off the ocean floor, but the Bible thousands of years ago spoke of these mountains. The Bible says, "It is God who spreads out the stars." Astrophysicists now say the very fabric of space is spreading out taking the galaxies along for the ride. Up until about five hundred years ago, astronomers thought there was about 4,000-5,000 stars. But the Bible in Genesis compares the number of stars to the grains of sand along the seashore. Astronomers now say there are at least twice as many stars as sand on all the beaches of the world. Albert Einstein in his paper on relativity stated that matter, energy, space and time itself all had a beginning. But thousands of years earlier in Genesis chapter one the Bible says, "In the beginning (a reference to time having a beginning) God created the earth (matter) the heavens (space) and said let there be light (energy). I don't want to make this so long people won't read it, but you can go any Christian bookstore and find books on the hundreds and hundreds of fulfilled prophecies, in the Bible. There were 256 totally fulfilled prophecies concerning the birth, life, ministry, and death of Christ alone. So, God in HIS word has told of science thousands of years in advance of it being discovered by the great scientific minds of the world, He has spoken prophetic utterances that have come true, over and over again, in a literal, not metaphorical sense, again, to demonstrate His authority. He is God, we are His creation. This is His world, His universe. He is sovereign. Look, it's a great deal; surrender to His only means of forgiving our sins and reconciling ourselves to HIM, Christ dying on the cross, and reap eternal life, eternal peace, eternal health, and eternal joy. OR reject His offer of pardon and receive your just punishment. I choose Jesus Christ.
@@MB777-qr2xv
_"and then He proceeds to FULFILL over one thousand prophecies in the Bible to demonstrate that God's word can be trusted."_
Yeah? And can you demonstrate even *one* of them?
I'm not impressed by unsupported claims. And your Gish Gallop is a known apologist tactic of pretending you have more than you actually do. So, can you pick out *one* specific prophecy, please, and *make your case?* Just *one?* Why is *one* too much to ask?
Here, I'll even help you out. This is a list of criteria for a fulfilled prophecy. The prophecy must be:
1. Made clearly and demonstrably prior to the events predicted.
2. Intended to be a prediction.
3. A non-mundane claim.
4. Answerable only by a single, clear, verifiable occurrence.
5. Not open to interpretation.
6. Not something people actively attempted to fulfill.
You claim to have more than a thousand. Can you demonstrate even *one?*
_"He also adds over one hundred scientific facts in scripture in all fields of science that were written down, thousands of years BEFORE the great scientists of the world would discover them."_
That's actually pretty funny, because it's a favorite claim of Muslim apologists, too. Did you know that the Quran is _filled_ with scientific facts which could only have been told to Mohammad by Allah?
Of course, it's complete nonsense, just like your own claims about the Bible. It's just cherry-picking bits from your favorite magic book, while ignoring the other bits (like Jesus telling his followers that they didn't need to wash their hands before eating), then _imaginatively_ interpreting them in the light of what science has already discovered - *not,* note, _before_ science discovered this stuff.
It's not just the Bible and the Quran, of course. You can do this with pretty much _any_ big book of ancient superstition, if you just really, really _want_ to believe it. You simply take a big book and search through it for something - _anything_ - you can imaginatively interpret the way you want, that's all. That's why this is completely meaningless.
But go ahead and show me a prophecy, if you can.
Thank you Father.
Faith ..
Everything can be justified with Faith.
Faith is not the way,
I'm in my mid 70`s and have returned to the church. During my re-entry studies I learned how much I had based so many of my decisions on modernism which basically contains all you have talked about in this video.
And have you found even *one* piece of good evidence that their god is actually real, rather than just imaginary? I'm in my 70's, too. But all of their claims seem to be backed up by nothing but wishful-thinking.
So happy you are back!
@@Bill_Garthright evidence, what is evidence? There’s so many different kinds. types. methods of examining things to see whether they’re true or not, there’s no peer reviewed evidence or observed evidence, of course we wouldn’t expect there to be anyway, how could a immaterial being, be put into a test tube and tested? Or how can we observe God in the sky when he’s outside of space, through natural means (science) how can we prove the supernatural, in fact through the natural memes (science) how can we prove anything outside of the natural means? As apes on a floating rock in space how can we really know if anything is truly true, science progresses what we know today could later be falsified or our understanding changes, this is no god of the gaps reasoning, it’s no, “we don’t know how this is done therefore God” I couldn’t recommend more St. Thomas Aquinas, 5 proofs for the existence of God, the Catholic Church teaches that we can know that God exist through natural reason
@@Bill_Garthright evidence, what is evidence? There’s so many different kinds. types. methods of examining things to see whether they’re true or not, there’s no peer reviewed evidence or observed evidence, of course we wouldn’t expect there to be anyway, how could a immaterial being, be put into a test tube and tested? Or how can we observe God in the sky when he’s outside of space, through natural means (science) how can we prove the supernatural, in fact through the natural memes (science) how can we prove anything outside of the natural means? As apes on a floating rock in space how can we really know if anything is truly true, science progresses what we know today could later be falsified or our understanding changes, this is no god of the gaps reasoning, it’s no, “we don’t know how this is done therefore God” I couldn’t recommend more St. Thomas Aquinas, 5 proofs for the existence of God
@@Bill_Garthright I tried to reply to your comment. I don’t know if UA-cam is letting me though.
Father Casey, we'll understand if some scandal happened. The real scandal that draw people away is covering up. If you're bound to silence by obedience discuss it with your superiors, maybe it's not you but them who have to speak. But it's important for Church's credibility.
Please direct any questions to the Our Lady of Guadalupe Province. friars.us/article/2024/04/10/fr.-patrick-tuttle--ofm--removed-from-ministry
No
Jesus is where we want to be affirmed, not to governments.
A Protest speaking I gather!
what happened?
Atheists can be spiritual and have a sense of awe and wonder even more than religious people can. For example, I look at countless stars in the sky, and the fact that all that light from all that space traveled for years, centuries and millennia, only to end up in my eyeballs is mind-blowing. Most of that light will go unobserved.
Similarly, if sun sun was the size of a golf ball, than earth would be a grain of sand 15 feet away, and a nearest star would be 168 miles away. There is about 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe and each has 100 billion stars.
Now, to say that all this was created by God for us trough magic somehow cheapens it.
Thank you for this
This video is either dishonest or ignorant and I believe it's both. About the only you got right was when you said there is no evidence for god.
Fr. with respect. I find some of these arguments unconvincing.
I'm Catholic and a physicist. I have a lot of friends who are atheist, agnostic, and otherwise ambivalent. The only arguments that have ever resonated, and drawn them closer to an openness to faith, are the scientific ones. Our universe, Genesis, and Catholic theology all have profound synergy when looked at honestly and through a Catholic lens. This is not the case with many protestant denominations, or other faiths, but few people outside the Church have ever been presented with this perspective. Denying scientific evidence is what has caused this falling away from faith, and yes apathy and our own hypocrisy. There is no scientific need for God in most things we see (I argue that's by design. If the existence of God is a fact, free will cannot exist), but the more I study the universe the more I find Him. The more it looks like He is there. The more I see miracles for what they are, and the fakes for the shallow attention seeking they are. Being able to acknowledge the difference breeds trust and openness, we do that.
The Eucharist is a great example for people. I've had more than a few people blown away that we fully acknowledge the bread is still physically/chemically bread, it is also more. So are we. The universe is old, this isn't abilblical, etc. Reclaiming scientifically minded souls cannot begin with the proposition that rationalism is bad. It cannot begin without acknowledging that we are star stuff, we just can't forget that we are also more.
Thank you for your input, as a biologist I agree. But I also guess that the arguments that us two see as convincing are those we are the best and most credible at proposing. Father maybe has seen arguments from other perspective work, not because they're better, but because he's great at presenting those and people take him seriously when he does.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription I think that's the problem. Fr. Casey is making arguments even I find weak, in the hopes of will convince skeptics. It won't.
Awesome. God bless you Father Casey 🙏🙏🙏
I did not know that nihilism is actually what it's called that especially this year I was going through. I was straying away from my faith because this girl that I babysat in the past, recently lost her father at the same age (6) when I lost my mother figure.The trauma response was very overwhelming (I was crying a lot) and knowing that the little girl was heartbroken like I was. So then I thought "Are we here to suffer, especially when history repeats itself?". I lost it but never was in despair. I still think that the little girl for the rest of her life (like me) is going to live with this unexplainable grief that is different than adults losing their loved ones. I miss my momma but I know she is resting in peace, same as the little girl's father.
I dont think we have free will but that doesnt mean some decisions wouldn't be worse than others. You can get morals by considering what effect your actions have on others - all it takes is empathy. I'm a born again atheist and have never looked back.
Resident Atheist here. I've watched your videos for a LONG time and I just wanted to tell you that your 5 points were almost exact descriptions for me. So, well done.
That said, despite my love for your faith (and all faiths of people) I find the arguments of the 5 points you've listed much stronger than any of religion's.... with maybe an exception for Taoism, which does a great job of side stepping the argument.
But you did a great job at looking at the other side!
Could you elaborate on how the 5 points are "much stronger"? I'd be interested to understand your feel
I'm an atheist, but I'd say that none of those five points were "atheist ideas." Admittedly, atheism isn't a belief system. You can believe anything - literally _anything_ - and still be an atheist as long as you don't believe in a god or gods.
Well, OK, you said that those 5 points applied to _you,_ not to atheists in general. So that might be true. We atheists _are_ diverse, after all.
I prefer being a nihilist to a Christian.
Again glad to see that he is healthy, but sad at the same time that the other chanel Upon Friar Review is gone and that all the Videos are "deleted" / dissapered. Pity...
It turns out his sidekick had a thing for altar boys
What happened to Upon Friar Review?? 😢 Those videos used to cheer me up ❤
Unfortunately, Father Patrick has been accused of sexual misconduct and now isn’t allowed to do public ministry.
@@StMaximilianFanboy Although the details of what happened aren't known, the letter from the church refers to an "abuse survivor"... so it's more fitting to say "sexual abuse" rather than "misconduct", even if they also used that term.
@@anamewillcomelater Makes sense.
Out of curiosity, how would you think about people like myself who have never felt this intuitive feeling of something beyond this existence or sense of awe at nature/stars? These ideas always seem dismissive of those who don't share what appears to be described as a universal human experience.
Is there anything in this world that you find astonishing? It could be biology, the human mind, love, or even human creativity and engineering...?
You won’t get an answer. With religious people, it generally comes down to their feelings, particularly their intuition, emotional comfort, and need to feel cosmically special and significant. They are often indoctrinated over and over to feel that way, and to feel the need for such reassurances.
Another big part of Christian doctrine is that everyone must have the same feelings because god put them in everyone. When you say you don’t have the same intuition or emotional needs, they are not allowed to believe you. Their worldview can’t accommodate your actual thoughts that you are thinking. It’s very frustrating, in my experience.
I would say that everyone is unique, and we each believe what makes sense to us. I believe there is a God, and that He interacts with each person in a unique way that makes sense to them.
@@ChaChaDancin How could you tell the difference between that, or everyone making up their own imaginary friend based on their personal feelings? I honestly can’t see a difference.
@@weirdwilliam8500 evidence. Evidence and experience in one’s own life that convinces one of a greater power. And the abundantly documented evidence of witnesses to miracles throughout history. One can either analyze and accept all that evidence, or one can ignore the evidence. It’s up to each individual to make up their own mind in the matter. As for me, I see the evidence as overwhelming that there is a God. Have a good one.
At 7:50 Father Casey says - "the most divisive time in American history." I think it's often exaggerated how divisive things are in the USA right now. I mean, especially the most divisive? We literally had a civil war
I think that’s a valid point, but I don’t think even in the civil war time that all of these issues were felt on the ground level, nor were people interacted with each other. Politicians were fighting, but Northerners didn’t see Southerners every day; their lives were consumed with conflict. Most probably had no idea about the details of war. Today, everything is so accessible and in your face, making every social interaction an opportunity for a fight.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Thanks so much for taking the time to respond. Sorry if my comment sounded too critical. I agree with your point and just want to say thanks again for posting so many videos recently, especially doing so much outreach to non-Christians
The idea that consciousness is an illusion, is a massive contradiction. we can feel, see, hear, touch and be aware of our surroundings and that's what it means to be conscious. How can there be an illusion if the awareness of the illusion is an illusion?
He kind of strawmanned on that. I don't think any scientific materialist believes consciousness is an "illusion". just that it can be explained through neurology and biochemistry, rather than a magical invisible energy. that idea doesn't even contradict any religion. You could say that god gave us this amazing complex brain capable of conciousness through elaborate neural networks. If anything its more impressive and convincing than an unmeasurable aura that makes all our decisions.
If consciousness is not connected to the material realm, then how can we remove consciousness with the use of general anaesthesia, something purely made out of simple atoms?
We are enfleshed spirits or animated bodies. The two cannot be separated without doing harm to each. In other words, the body affects the soul and the soul affects the body.
@@BreakingInTheHabit
If that were the case the soul would serve no notable function. Additionally this view makes the concept of a soul permitting life after death problematic. This is because you’d need special pleading in order to resolve this and appeal to the arbitrary and ad hoc notion that physical acts against the body hurt the soul…until the point of death where suddenly this doesn’t apply.
@@BreakingInTheHabit "The two cannot be separated without doing harm to each." That would imply that the soul wouldn't be able to survive the death of the body.
My summation is - I can not & would not imagine any place without our Lord Jesus. Not possible for me. ✝️ 📿. Thank you Father Casey.
"can not" would imply a lack of imagination, "would not" would imply no desire to genuinely consider the alternative.
Or course if this helps you navigate the world in a way that makes you happy, more power to you. That's all any of us do, after all.
0:48 no, yes, yes 😬
Your videos are definitely getting better and better...this one is a classic of Wisdom over folly. Well done!
I have several lapsed Catholic friends. I took them to a latin mass and they said "if our Mass was like this, I never would have left." Why do we suppress this liturgy that clearly attracts young people??
2 or 3 ppl don't really prove much.
@@paulnejtek6588 go to any latin Mass and you'll see it packed with young people
Interestingly, it seems to me that among scientists it is physicists who are the most likely to see a reality beyond the merely physical, and in fact some even suggest that matter itself is an illusion.
Perhaps, but remember that doesn't lead to magical thinking.
@@nosuchthing8 So what?
@@nosuchthing8who is to say what is 'magical'? We don't know everything. It's likely there lots we have no idea about.
For example, up until their discovery, people had no idea about the existence or the effects of radio waves, however that didn't mean they weren't there.
@peterwallis4288 that's true about radio waves, sure. But also atoms, viruses, on and on. And of course black holes, neuron stars, or even how biology explains how to turn water/grapes into wine.
And the lagger cements the whole point. The ancients knew how to make wine, but invented a god as it's originator (Dionysus)
So how did man go about finding how things really work? Science of course.
@nosuchthing8 but my point is we most likely still have no idea about some aspects of the universe. Do you think we have discovered everything?
I am also not sure why we assume we could use science (which is a method to study the natural world), to explain the origin of the universe and time. It would make more sense that the origin of the universe would not be explained by the laws of nature that we know exist within the universe.
Lovely video.
I love how many times you used the word... faith. Ahead of world youth day last year, Fr Arturo Sosa, SJ (the Jesuit Superior General) said this: "Catholicism is not a doctrine. It's a faith. The only principle is to follow Jesus." Why so many of our "conservative" sisters and brothers just don't get this is beyond me. Thank you for "getting it", Father Casey. Peace, from Lima, Peru.
he did not debunk anything !!!
I don't think that was the point
I do have to say that that argument from aesthetic is really weak tea. However, it is one that has worked for Catholics since Catholicisms inception. Catholicism, noun: 1. take the money the followers give you to build expensive churches that bamboozle the followers with aesthetic. Be sure to take a piano and medicine with you on missionary trips too. Unfortunately for the Catholic Church, the Marvel Universe has beaten them at their bamboozling game. If he who blows peoples mind with the best bamboozling by aesthetics wins then it is not a competition: Hollywood wins.
The wicked rises from the sins and ignorance of the righteous.
1:31 As someone with ADHD I can tell you we do not have free will. When I'm not medicated I cannot chose to do tasks. It's impossible. When medicated I can chose to do tasks. It 100% is chemicals. If I don't have the right chemicals there are choice I cannot make.
Hello monk. Tell me one single solid proof of god's existence. It would be nice to get an answer without rambling and useless talk. The Bible is no proof of anything, so using it as an answer is pointless.
Someone missed the point. Or didn't watch the video.
They didn't really, since actual evidence of God or gods would halt the decline of theism. Here you are just rattling off your excuses.
I'd recommend VicedRhino's and TMM's replies to your video.
Also your entire analysis is bad and shallow. Just a series of slogan like statements without a modicum of thoughtfulness.
I assume you believe that the big bang created the universe. What created the big bang? If it was sometihng in a different universe/dimension, what created that cause?
"The Bible is no proof of anything, so using it as an answer is pointless." Solid point there. Using Christianity's Bible to try to argue that Christianity is true is similar to using a theorem in its own proof - circular logic and therefore not logical at all.
I've been raised as an Atheist, however with a certain respect towards any religion, and as such I have always lived my life tetering on the edge of either side.
I've been a full Atheist around my teens, only to become agnostic towards my 20s and currently on my way to possibly becoming Christian.
Although I probably will never be able to fully give myself to God, I will always feel a pull.
Hey, I was a strong Atheist now a Christian and I become one for logical reasons, if you wish I am always open to talk and give you my reasons
I'm an Agnostic Atheist as well, but even if I were to become theist, it absolutely would not be Christianity. I'm curious why Christianity of all things would sway you?
@@GRAHFMETAL ik you did not ask me but I will answer, the bible has predicted many things (for example they predicted both Islam and Mormonism). And many arguments for the existence of God and that Christ is lord. Though I think Hinduism, Judaism, Atheism and general theism could all also be true but I do not believe in them.
Before I converted I hated everyone and I hated life and did not feel remorse when I hurt people. As soon as I converted I started feeling real guilt and I also felt a level of love I never ever felt before. After researching further I am now an Orthdox Christian. Hope this helped or that you found this interesting! God bless you my friend
@@GRAHFMETAL Also keep in mind I suffer from Schizoid Personality Disorder which makes it unlikely for this to just be some emotional thing
@@TruePluto @TruePluto It was a useless answer, albeit harmless, until you said "God bless you friend" at the end, knowing that I'm an Atheist, so that just made your comment both sanctimonious and ignorant. I'm not interested in talking to you.
I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._*
And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 10 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that some god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument concluding there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating such a claim.
1. I personally have never observed a god.
2. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god.
3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument that also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality.
5. Of the many logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain either logical fallacies or false or unsubstantiated premises.
6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
9. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as falsifiable.
ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any god.
I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*
I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
those are some very good reasons. I would however point you to true scientific rational. The need to prove the null hypothosss. Meaning if you can't prove the hypothesis you need to then prove the null or else you cannot come to a real conclusion. Regarding the existence of God, the Hypothesis is that God exists, if you can't prove that God exists then you have to prove God doesn't exist. However that is also implausible (if not impossible) to prove. Therefore you are left in the same neutral position as you were before.
Going by that standard the most a person can be is Agnostic. Atheism itself is an untenable position due to lack of proof for the non-existence of God.
That's easy. It's doesn't matter how you like to define atheism from your comfort zone. Atheism is a belief. You have a burden of proof that you constantly run away from, theo.
There's so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start.
@Tzimiskes3506 Atheism is a POSITION, not a belief. But even if it were a belief, I wouldn't incur a burden of evidence. Only parties that assert a claim of truth incur such a burden. Do you agree?
@@Nick-ij5nt Start by stating _one_ thing wrong with my comment. And let's discuss it.
Hey Father Casey, this is a quick question regarding what constitutes full knowledge regarding Mortal sin?
For the last 18ish month. This is my definition
“ do something Grave, Know It’s grave at the moment you about to do it, and do it anyway”
Having these 3 not being met together makes something veinal.
I’m becoming conflicted because I believe this criteria makes a grave sin hard to commit.
You are a better person than me then. It’s pretty easy for me to know something is wrong, and still do it anyway.
@@ChaChaDancin
Remember.
U must know it’s grave and still do it.
If u knew it was sinful but not grave it’s still veinal.
God bless u, and keep getting up when u fall!
My issue is sometimes I put myself in a spot where” I know I can handle it despite putting myself in near occasion of sin”
I do handle it, but then I realized I probably shouldn’t do that so I confess it as such.
I learned from many online priest online that grave desires and Fantasies don’t need detail unless I do the act. My priest told me near occasion of sin isn’t sinful in itself and that near occasion of sin doesn’t need details. Which makes me glad that I avoided such embarrassing confession but it makes me feel like I walked easy.
That was 6 month ago and haven’t done it since. I know in forgiven but it bugs me, but I must trust God mercy
@@generalyousif3640 I’d certainly recommend confessing the thing you feel guilty about. It’s hard to think of something that would make me feel guilty (not just embarrassed) that isn’t sinful
Also, remember Jesus said that when you hate your neighbor, you have murdered him in your heart. Near occasion may not be a sin, but indulging thoughts of sinful behavior certainly can be. God bless!
@@kaizer4506
“ It’s hard for me to feel guilty about something that isn’t sinful”
Well, let me tell you about a scrupulous mind, it’s one where someone is feels guilt over a lot of stuff that are either slightly sinful or not sinful at all.
Regardless, my priest told me it’s fine, because I resisted and the near occasion of sin would have been sinful if I committed the actual sin
It was none of those things for me. It was the fact that there is no evidence that anything was ever brought into existence by essentially wishing it to be so. That's the essence and central theme of theism. All this other stuff about intelligent design vs. evolution, materialism, free will, etc., is all moot. I want evidence that the pebble I picked up in my backyard was wished or spoken into existence.
Hello I’m not Christian but I do like listening to you. I have tried to read the bible a few times start from the start and always end up stopping could you do a sires on Bible verse or maybe signpost
Maybe read a good bible guide ...perhaps some of Raymond Browne's work .
Bible in a year podcast is a good one. Takes you through the Bible at an easy pace, and provides explanation and guidance along the way.
Start in the New Testament, then do the Old.
For me, the path to being an atheist started before I was a teen. In sunday school, if I asked a question or doubted anything in the Bible, I was told to accept it and that the Bible was never wrong. In science class, the teacher admitted that we didn't know everything but one day my question might have an answer. It even appealed to me more that I might even be the one to find the answer. I still hear people tell me this about the Bible even today. The other part of this was proof. Jesus says if you have the faith of a mustard seed, you could command a tree to uproot itself and replant in the sea. But I have never seen anyone do anything even close to this. But even as I write this, a commercial just came on for a device that reads nerve impulses and moves limbs with atrophied muscles. If faith can't heal the sick or replace limbs and science can, which one is really true?
Very well said. If faith actually worked, you would see faith healers in hospitals, instead of the physicians who entirely rely on science and methodological naturalism.
@@weirdwilliam8500 I don't understand your point nor OP's. Science and religion are not competing. Science is the "how" of the material world, Religion is the "why" of material world and what is beyond matter. Many great scientists were profoundly religious.
Unfortunately they are competing. You have people who want to make decisions based on their interpretation of a 2000-year old book instead of on facts, and that can lead to very poor decisions that affect not only themselves but others.
@@georgesimon1760 Having a minority of people mistaking religion for science does not invalidate religion. As well as having a minority of people using science to define morality (think eugenics as an example) does not invalidate science.
@@satvrne in the US a minority of people can elect a president that wants to be a dictator. They're pretty close to accomplishing that. And with gerrymandering a minority can control Congress - one that will support the new dictator. The current Supreme Court has already been packed with religious right-wingers even through a minority of people. It's a problem. If Christians didn't fall head over heels for sociopathic narcissistic populists who have destroyed the distinction between truth and lies, people might have more respect for today's Christianity.
Gods are supposed to be perfect. One attribute of perfection is the total lack of need. They need nothing.
What does a god need with human worship? Or a human army that helps? Or belief? Or six days to create? Or a day of rest? Or clay to make man? Or a rib to make a woman? Or engaging in SA with an unconsenting woman to manifest himself? This god is needy, and his powers get weaker as time moves on.
I see no reason why I should believe in ANY gods, regardless of whether or not they are commercially available for purchase.
PS: Nice cosplay.
Interesting thumbnail image. Please cite where and when Bill Nye said, "People are just atoms!" and explain the context in which he said it. Otherwise you're just disingenuously (and knowingly) misrepresenting his beliefs at best and bearing false witness at worst.
i differ from you on several topics but one i noticed immediately is the take on scientific materialism regarding consciousness and “immaterial” human properties like conciousness
I think we can agree that our brain, thoughts, etc. stem from biological chemical processes or simply just from physical processes.
but the thoughts and conciousness which may seem so immaterial and transcendent to materialism to you, may just be an emergent property yet to be understood from these well understood chemical processes in our body and brain.
For example, we didn’t understand lightning and believed god had a role in it because it was just so random and complex looking at it as a human in the 1500s. but it was an emergent property from other simpler processes and we now have a good understanding of it
It looks to me like a big jump in logic or an oversight where you could understand conciousness better and a “God of the gaps” argument
Before returning to The Church i was a nihilist. It was truly an empty world to live in.
A nihilist? That must've been exhausting.
@@abyssimus yeah, like depressing.
I went through that also before returning to Catholicism, I was an atheist and had really nihilistic views. It sucked and I was miserable
@@christiansaravia7865 It sucks to not have free will, right. That's why I left communism, which is atheist religion.
So what convinced you that a god exists, then?
Shalom ! 😮 i'm from indonesia ' Thangk you Father for you homili ' salve ' GBU
I’ve been questioning the Bible for around two or so years now and my main questions are who wrote the gospels,evidence for the entire exodus story, slavery in the Bible, Yahweh being a part of a pantheon of other deities. Among so many other things but those are some of the main things.
The author Bart Ehrman is a biblical scholar who's work might answer some of your questions. And he does so from a secular, atheist point of view so you might find his conclusions less biased.
@@wrylyo his arguments against the Gospels and Yahweh being a part of a pantheon is the main reason I’m having this struggle. Like we have some idea of how the exodus might of happened with the Hyksos etc. As for the Gospels being written down by other people and the pantheon that would destroy Christianity making it just another religion like the Greek mythologies we learn about in school today. Mainly I’m looking for evidence to prove his theories wrong. Yes his stuff is just a theory but it still kinda scares me. As someone who’s been brought up in Christianity my entire life I don’t think I could mentally handle my entire thought process crumble around me.
It's good for a christian to have doubts because our faith is not based on beliving blindly .
In regards of the "pantheon gods" i dont get why this should be a problem, people act like this is some incredible discorvery when we know the pagan nature of the jewish people from the bible. For exemple during the exodus God had to be quite harsh to them because they worshipped other false gods, or during the rest of the bible we see often the jewish turn to exemple baal. Also God selected the jewish to became his chosen people and of course before that thay didin't had a relashionship with him and problably when he manifested for the first time they called him with the name of their most height diety.
In regards of the exodus it's almost impossible to track the history of nomadic people, for exemple we don't know much about the "sea people" from the callapse of the bronze age, the only way we have is to relay on written sources. Thanks to the old testament we can compare what is written with what we know about ancient egypt, there is a channel "inspiring phyloshophy" who made an incredible job by regrouping all those evidencies, i suggest you to give it a look(spoiler the exodus is almost certainly true).
In regards of slavery God was clear, every human is made in his image so you cannot possess another person, in the old testament slavery was recorded in the same way we recorded bad stuff like nazism, but recording something does not mean endorsing it. Also the mosaic laws were not perfect, god knew about the wickedness of the human heart so he had to made a compromise by allowing a little bit of evil (much less of the rest of the world at the time) as a sacrifice to make possible to the rest of the world to be saved in the future.
Sorry for my bad english, it's not my lenguage.
@@gmg9010 For me, those answers are in Natural Moral Law. Which is to say all men join together to fulfil a path back to God (religion). As these men are from all places, times, and knowledge levels, we see that in their works. We don't focus on their words but their objectives. In the bible story Tobit an earthly look seems a sentence of death to Tobit however Tobit does as God asks even when it seems death is certain; God rewards him (much like Job). The things that bother you are just the things common to those men on their path, it was their path not your path. Atheists like to say: "Well, why is that in the Bible?" and the answer is that is the path they walked on; we don't have to walk that path.
@@gmg9010 Hi. You have a lot of questions, and I couldn't hope to answer all of them in a single comment, since I'm also not an expert by any means, but just someone who is also searching to have a better understanding of the truth. This will be a long comment, but it must be so to share my perspective.
1. First of all, I certainly wouldn't recommend uncritically accepting everything Erhman says. He being an atheist certainly doesn't make him a "neutral" observer by any means, since atheism and secularism (as any serious religious scholar will admit) are not "neutral" perspectives in matters of religion, but *are already perspectives in themselves*, so it gives no privileged "unbiased" position to it's adherents. To believe there is such a thing would be to believe there is absolutely neutral history with no filter of interpretarion, wich there isn't. This doesn't mean that all is bias and there is no truth, but only that we must be aware of this fact, and that whatever truth there is is only graspable through a perspective. Also, Erhman is also an ex-christian who was raised in a fairly fundamentalist and literalist tradition, so it seems to me his work involves a certain "reckoning" with the perspective he grew up with, one that tends to be very restricted. Given how much of this area is prone to sensationalism, I tend to be very skeptical of any excessively "media-heavy" or "celebrity" scholar of this sort. Doesn't mean he's automatically wrong, just that we must maintain our critical thinking. There are a lot of less-than-solid ideas in biblical scholarship that are taken more seriously than they should in certain academic circles, but to elaborate on this would take a very long time.
So, I would recommend you also read some other biblical scholars wich I honestly agree a lot more with - and their religious affiliations don't make them any less trustworthy. What really matters are what arguments you have. After all, what if their perspective, including the religious one, is actually the truth? I will recommend some at the end of my comment.
2. Regarding specifically your question about Yahweh being a deity in a pantheon. It's not an uncontroversial position, but it is one accepted by many very orthodox christian theologians (I'll mention some in the end), and one wich I personally don't have a lot of difficulty with. To put it in a more-or-less summed up way: the bible is not just a uniform, homogenous book. It was assembled over a long time, in a long tradition of a people (and, then, the Church). We christians believe the bible to be inspired by the holy spirit, and so the word of God, but this revelation was, of course, happens in human history, related by human authors, involved in human affairs. And, frequently, the ultimate, inspired meaning of an older inspired text can only be grasped in light of further revelation or inspiration. (Such as we fully understanding the meaning of the Old Testament only in light of God's ultimate revelation in Christ).
So, we see the old testament the unfolding of Israel's relationship with God, their covenant. And so we see also the development of jewish monotheism. The old testament hebrews were a people like any other, but one with wich God entered a special covenant of fidelity. They wouldn't need to have, right away, full understanding of who God is in this sense. You see this understanding unfolding along God's self-revelation. So, initially Yahweh would have been a singular deity where others existed, but one wich was their God. But by the time you get, for example, by the latter chapters of the Book of Isaiah, and specially after the exile, you'll see biblical text unequivocally treating Yahweh as the only God that exists, the unconditioned absolute wich sustains all of creation. I could further elaborate, but this would make the comment even longer. In summary, I don't see any problem, from the point of view of christianity, in Israel gaining an growing understanding of God as the sole and absolute divinity in the unfolding of their relationship to Him, and this in turn revealing the deeper meaning of older traditions, such as God's role as the sovereign creator in Genesis. Genesis has no theomachia, no "struggle of the gods" against rivals to attain sovereignity and to impose order on chaotic matter, as the polytheist cosmogonies use to have (see, for example, the Babylonian Enuma Elish). In Genesis, God is already sovereign, creating through his word in successive stages. The same theme will be further expanded in other texts (see for example Isaiah 40:12-18). I would say recognizing the elements Genesis has borrowed from the mythologies of other peoples highlights it's uniqueness, since those elements are borrowed to then be subverted. This has implications for christianity's relation to philosophy, but I'll leave my rambling here.
3. So, I'll recommend some authors and books wich I believe could be useful to you in your investigation of this topic. You don't have to read all of them, or in any particular order, but it's meant more as a general orientation. I can maybe edit later when I have a look at my books, but I'll just list some I have at the top of my head.
First, in terms of church documents on the bible, I would recommend Pope Pius XII's *Divino Afflante Spiritu* and Pope Benedict XVI's *Verbum Domini* as starters for the Church's perspective on the bible. I don't know if you're Catholic, but I think they are worthwile reads even if you aren't.
From a general introductory bible studies point of view, Scott Hahn's and Curtis Mitch's *Ignatius Catholic Study Bible* series is a good one. It has a lot of short insights from a theological point of view, but also in historical matters (of course, from a catholic perspective, but as I said, it doesn't make them any more "biased" than anyone already is).
Regarding the old testament, specially from a historical point of view, a good general overview is the *New Jerome Biblical Commentary*, a work by several scholars treating each book individually.
On the gospels, something wich I couldn't touch on here for lenght reasons, I would recommend N.T. Wright (specially his massive *The Ressurection of The Son of God*, wich you can read in smaller chunks over time). Also Luke Timothy Johnson, and Richard Bauckham's *Jesus and The Eyewitnesses* (wich I'm not yet sure if I agree with all his conclusions, but an interesting perspective to consider).
I then would strongly recommend the works of Joseph Ratzinger aka Pope Benedict XVI, wich was a brilliant theologian and scholar in his own right. Specially his *Introduction to Christianity*, wich is more philosophical/theological but touches a lot on the bible and it's development, and his article "Monotheism and Tolerance" in the book *What Is Christianity?* (wich touches on the question of old testament monotheism I wrote about). His *Regensburg Address* and his lecture *The God of Faith and The God of The Philosophers* are also worthwile reads. His Jesus of Nazareth books, on the gospels, are reportedly also very good, but I haven't got around to reading them yet.
And lastly, on the relationship of christianity to what we call "mythologies", I would recommend G.K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man. Not by a scholar per se, but a very good book.
If you would like any more or different recommendations or have any more doubts, you can jusy tag me. Good luck on your journey, and God bless.
Great point on politics - when it is all you have, you must deny the truth that is right in front of you. Leads directly to nihilism. David Brooks wrote that it was at most the 6th most important- and he’s a political commentator.
Except I know people who "deny the truth that is right in front of them" who are clearly not nihilists.
1. The physical world is the only thing we have been able to demonstrate. It doesn't automatically means there is nothing beyond it, but why believe in something if you have no evidence for it?
Consciousness is not deterministic. The input of A will not always result in B. Choice and will still exist.
Adding a god doesn't change what humans are. You won't just get free will because of a god or lose it because of a god, unless that god decides your future. If fate exists then you have no free will.
2. I don't understand what you are trying to argue here. We have emotions and humans tend to make irrational decisions. What's your point?
3. Secular in this context basically means that it is independent of religion. It's not hostile to religion, just indifferent.
We have no evidence for heaven or hell, so there is no real reason to believe in them. One problem with the believe in heaven and hell is that it prevents from actually living the only life we can demonstrate you have. You are putting yourself in a box that someone else made for you in the hope of a better life or in fear of a worse life afterwards. Some people suffer, because they don't fit in the box.
4. People have different opinions. The facts are objective but opinions are subjective. Opinions have nothing to do with something being true or false.
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"- you
We don't know. We can't even say that it's even possible for there to be nothing. Adding a god doesn't help, because god is also a something. The question would then be "why is there god?". That question is either ignored or theists just claim that god just is or must be. We can just say that the universe just is. The difference is that the universe demonstrably exists.
5. The claim that people are more hopeless nowadays is simply not true. Actually if there is an eternal afterlife than your life on earth essentially doesn't matter.
1. Without God free will by absolutely cannot exist. The laws of energy and matter dictate matter must act and react in a certain away and if you could measure the millions of trillions of variables you could determine entire timeline of the universe beginning to end.
2. Not the strongest point agreed
3. Doesn’t mean antagonism but it certainly is increasingly so
4. Either matter is eternal or God is both require faith. Sorry facts are almost entirely based on observation and perception. Consider time dilation. How do we determine our sense of time is in fact the correct one?
5. Depression is up suicide is up Fatal over doses are up meaning people are doing harder stronger drugs. Or maybe this is one of those “facts” a that isn’t as objective as you think
@@drewidlifestyle7883
1. Adding a god doesn't change the laws of physics. Your claim can only be true if the universe is deterministic, but it can also be probabilistic. For example the uncertainty principle. Some outcomes are more likely than others but it can't be determined which one actually happens.
God would have created the laws of physics as they are observed, otherwise they are wrong and your claim is invalid. God creating the laws of physics makes no difference to the existence of free will.
2. Nothing to say here.
3. A lot of that perception is caused by non-Christian people getting the same rights as Christians. For example Satanism being allowed in schools, because Christianity is, or marriages between homosexuals, etc... Losing privileges feels like discrimination.
4. "Either matter is eternal or God is both require faith." -drew
Maybe, but at least matter demonstrably exists. Even if we say that eternity of something requires faith, the existence of matter doesn't, while the existence of god does. So what's the point of adding a god?
"How do we determine our sense of time is in fact the correct one?" -drew
All of them are correct in their frame of reference. That's what relativity is about. There is no absolute time.
5. For depression you also need to account that we are better at detecting it, so even milder forms of depressions are counted. One of reasons for depressions is being in a minority group. Non-religious people are more likely to be depressed in religious communities, while religious people are more likely to be depressed in non-religious communities. I'm not a psychologist so I'm not going too deep into it.
@@drewidlifestyle7883
_"Without God free will by absolutely cannot exist."_
I would say you've got that exactly backwards. _With_ God, free will absolutely cannot exist - at least, by the common idea of "God."
If there's an omniscient, omnipotent creator god, then free will cannot exist. After all, he would have created you knowing everything that you would do. Once you started to exist, you could do nothing else but what he saw you would do, because if you did, he'd be wrong. And an omniscient god can't _be_ wrong. So you have no choice but to do exactly what he programmed you to do.
Remember, since he's also omnipotent, supposedly, he could have created you any way he wanted. Or he could have created someone else, instead of you. So _you_ were deliberately planned. It wasn't just an accident. Your god wasn't forced by some _other_ god to create a random person. The result was _exactly_ what he wanted. Because, again, he knew exactly what he would get _and_ he had the ability to create whatever he wanted.
It's the combination of "omniscient" and "omnipotent" which makes free will impossible with a creator god. If any of that is true (I see no reason to think that it is), then none of us have any free will. We _have_ to do exactly what "God" created us to do. There has never been a point in our existence where we could do anything else. Because if we _did,_ then "God" would be wrong. And that contradicts the premises.
_"both require faith"_
Nope. "I don't know" does *not* require faith!
The fact that I don't believe you doesn't mean you _can't_ be right. It just means that I've never seen anything distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing up god beliefs, that's all.
I’m thinking of writing a book “How to convert Atheists to Religion - A beginners Guide” and wondered if you had any advice? Remember people, this is about winning hearts and minds! This is what I’ve got so far:
Chapter 1: How to mock science for the absurdity of claiming the universe a) has a beginning and/or b) has no beginning (is infinite), whilst proclaiming the obvious truth of an infinite God, with no sense of irony.
Chapter 2: How to mock the legitimacy of science, using selective pseudo-scientific ideas, whilst proving God through the scientific principles established in any given holy book of choice.
Chapter 3: How to mock science for having scientists with contradictory views, whilst explaining there is only one version of God (albeit it with thousands of different interpretations and contradictions).
Chapter 4: How to mock atheists for having no concept of good and evil because they have to decide for themselves, whilst theists fully understand good and evil, because it’s whatever their God tells them (otherwise known as the ‘suicide bomber justification’).
Chapter 5: How to mock atheists/scientists for not being certain about things, which is clearly a far inferior position to hold than the absolute certainty of truth that we hold as theists.
Chapter 6: How to mock atheists/scientists for believing in evolution, because everyone knows that the world is only 6500 years old and you can’t possibly grow a man from a fish.
Chapter 7: How to mock scientists for their concept of evidence, which seems to involve repeatedly and empirically testing claims to establish predictable outcomes, as opposed to the far superior documentary evidence of second hand witness accounts of first century peasants.
Chapter 8: How to mock atheists for denying the power of prayer, when God clearly prioritises the faith healing of middle class Americans over the less deserving starving African masses.
Chapter 9: How to mock atheists over their disrespect of our religious leaders, who are perfectly justified in covering up any form of corruption or criminal behaviour within their ranks, because they are Gods chosen ones and beyond reproach.
Chapter 10: How to mock atheists for believing that sometimes there is no 'justice' or 'fairness', because we all know that God is an accountant at heart who likes to make sure all the checks and balances tally, whilst ignoring the fact that the infinite punishment of hell for finite crimes on earth, such as loving the wrong person, is as out of proportion as killing someone and all their loved ones because they put something in the wrong recycling bin.
It’s only in draft form at the moment, but any more ideas on how we can convert these lost souls, or alternatively remove these godless creatures from the face of the earth, in the name of god’s love, would be much appreciated.
Seems like a lot of effort for a snide comment.
@@BreakingInTheHabit If you simply see my post as snide, then you’ve very much missed the point.
Yes, it’s satirised but it actually captures real comments made by theists (mainly Christians) of various denominations and illustrates both the propensity of religion to protect itself through misinformation and the extent of disunity amongst those all claiming to know the single version of the ‘truth’ of God.
However, I’m more than happy to debate these issues on your topics of choice. For time and space, I'll just stick to the first one.
Scientific materialism (and morality)
All humans have a sense of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ which are born from their genetics and modified by their environment, which drive their primal instincts to survive and thrive. However, these ‘moral values’ are subjective in nature and do not always align and are not based on an objective standard. These instincts lead to the formation of societies that organise themselves and cooperate for their mutual benefit and this includes reaching consensus on issues of moral ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ and they police themselves accordingly.
Theists arguing the case for objective morality are on shaky ground, as they can’t even agree on what is considered good and bad, let alone ultimate versions of these. One theist may consider homosexuality bad and another good (or at least not inherently bad). One theist may consider the holocaust man-made sin and another part of God’s bigger picture. In this sense theists exhibit exactly the same traits as described by evolution whereby right and wrong are subjective and can only be agreed upon by consensus. Religion is just an archaic method of attempting to create this consensus.
Hitler was ‘bad’ by any reasonable subjective measure and was eventually eradicated, but evolution doesn’t assume any sense of fairness or justice within its process, no matter how desirable that might be.
You seem to claim that you can only appreciate love, beauty, art, etc. if there is a God, but as humans we are all an integral part of the natural world and we are very much in harmony with all these things and when the ‘survive’ instinct is satisfied the ‘thrive’ component is very much active.
You consider yourself a chad, but will transform into a meme if you write that book; do what you want, indeed.
oh wait this is satire
I felt like nobody would put in that much effort for satire.
@@Dock284 When logic, reason and rational thought fail to break through, you have to resort to satire. If I can get 1 or 2 people to recognise the contradictions in their perspective on the world, then it's worth it.
It's interesting that no-one bats an eyelid at the effort required to create 500+ videos pushing theism, but a moderate length post satirising it, is considered a lot of effort.... Perhaps there's another contradiction there....
keep up the good work: encouraging more atheists
A nun that was my teacher told me years ago we don’t make the difference we want to make we make the difference we are meant to that always stuck with mec
1.
You attempt to debunk determinism by appealing to people who did things we consider bad and saying, under determinism, they aren’t actually bad. This is flawed for several reasons. One is that this is a fallacy, an appeal to consequence fallacy. Even if we assume this conclusion regarding determinism and accountability, this wouldn’t make it false just because you don’t like the consequences. Second is that this is a misunderstanding of determinism. Because determinism isn’t about having no choice, it’s about these choices being determined by prior effects. This includes environmental factors to genetic factors. For example you may choose to have oatmeal for breakfast due to a preference for the taste, your understanding of its nutritional benefit, cost effectiveness or it may be the only thing you have. These are all deterministic factors that impact your choose. So if you choose to eat oatmeal because it’s cheap and you’re on a budget, then this choice was determined by financial considerations. From this it’s easy to see how there’s a multitude of factors with how choices are made, some are internal to the individual. And since we don’t have conscious control over all of them, they are not free. Saying we have no free will in this context means that you couldn’t go back in time and, under the exact same conditions, make a different choice. So just say you were to scratch your head because it’s itchy and you were to be transported back in time a few seconds would you be able to choose not to scratch your head or would you act the same as the conditions are the same? Keep in mind you wouldn’t have knowledge of your time travel. If you say your actions would be the same then you have affirmed the principle of determinism.
Additionally the idea of free will is impossible to square with an all knowing god. Because if god knows what you are going to do with 100% accuracy, then you cannot do any different. However if god doesn’t know, then he’s not all knowing.
Since free will is the sum total of your argument against naturalism I’d say it’s far to say that this hasn’t been debunked. Especially when you consider that there are naturalists out there who affirm libertarian free will and this doesn’t relate to theism. There are those who affirm the supernatural, free will but not a god.
2. Rationalism, much like the previous idea, doesn’t necessarily relate to atheism. Additionally your suggestion to debunk rationalism is explicitly through emotional means…means that are specifically excluded from a rationalistic perspective.
3. Secularism is just when you don’t include a god in your worldview or explanations. You don’t debunk this one either, you don’t really even attempt to. You also say that the secularist must keep stopping themselves from slipping into despair. This is the classic technique of pretending to know something you don’t. This isn’t a trait of secularism. And it’s rather weird for you to characterise trying to improve this world as if that’s a bad thing because of your thoughts of the next life. This is one of the problems atheists have with theistic ideology. It’s not caring about this life (the only one you know you have) because everything will be better when you pass on. And even if we assume everyone wants eternity (which isn’t true btw) this wouldn’t make this true. I had a longing for superpowers when I was a kid, does this mean superheroes actually exist? No, this is wishful thinking.
4. So you want to say scientific materialism, rationalism and relativism are all atheist ideas? Despite you yourself saying the latter two are opposites? Can you not see the contradiction here? And once again, this isn’t an atheistic idea. In fact it runs pretty counter to your typical stereotype when it comes to atheistic epistemology. And appealing to god doesn’t get you objectivity, that’s entirely irrelevant. How do you determine objectivity? That’s actually rather simple. You get matching observations or results from something that is seperate to a subject. For example if you drop a pen and 10,000 people also drop a pen and all observe the same result of the pen falling, then you’ve just objectively demonstrated the effect of gravity on earth. Simple.
To call relativism an atheistic idea is really just a strawman. I, at first, thought you’d limit this to moral relativism of which you’d have better (albeit still bad) case.
5. Nihilism once again, isn’t an atheistic idea and is once again a strawman. And considering you don’t make a case for this either but rather spend the time preaching, I don’t think I really have to add more than that.
I’m sorry but this was really bad. Not only do most of these not even remotely relate to atheism, the attempts to debunk them are shallow and often not even present here. This doesn’t really show an understanding of those outside your circle. It shows a lack of empathy and understanding. I would go as far as to call two of these “atheist ideas” strawmen and, of the remaining three, the responses here are quite lacking and amount to appeals to unjustified intuition and wishful thinking. If you genuinely wanted to express your thoughts on these topics or prepare your followers to engage with them you really need to put more effort into understanding and accurately reflecting the groups you’re talking about.
This a really good reply! I congratulate you fine Person!
Thank you for saving me the headache of watching the entire video myself. I've been involved in the Christian vs Atheist debates for several years now and I'm honestly tired of trying to find even a single decent argument for Christianity that isn't due to them lacking epistemological rigor. It's wearing on me how many people believe in myths and miracles yet still think they have the more rational position. I keep trying to give them the benefit of the doubt and hear them out, but I'm disappointed every time. Yet it's the rational approach that had me convert to different religions and eventually deconvert, so I know it's not bias on my part. I could still be wrong, but Christians simply can't provide compelling evidence and most of them don't even know what evidence is. Starting today, I'm not wasting any more time with them.
I think there are two issues here. The first one is the scientific world view. It can't be denied it chopped off a significant portion of the Bibles authority in the 19th century. I agree with you that some theists are perfectly capable of combining a naturalist view and retaining their belief. Stephen J. Gould called that "Non-overlapping magisteria". Others are atheist, but hold certain ethical views like humanism (most notoriously, "the four horsemen"). Again others are strong believers of certain ideologies. None of these are essentially "nihilist".
Since atheism itself cannot be called an ideology in the strictest sense (since it is simply a lack of belief in a deity) it's hard to associate it with *ANY* philosophical school. However, one cannot deny the criticism of religion and the centralization of man in the universe in the continental philosophical schools of the late 19th century up to the mid 20th century. Personally, I have no problem if one shoves it into the "atheism" drawer. One can take Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Camus and Sartre ("nihilism")- or Hegel, Marx, Lenin, (optionally with Gentile and Mussolini) - but both these schools can be characterized and associated with fundamental religious criticism.
As I stated earlier as a comment - it is naive to say that "nihilism" was propagated. Quite the contrary, all authors tried to *resolve* nihilism for its bleak and hopeless outlook (which seems incompatible with the human spirit). However, I wouldn't call it outright "strawmanning" for the reasons I stated before.
When these 5 points are condensed into "modernism" and (for lack of a better word) "existentialism" we get IMHO a much better view of what a stereotype "atheist" is in the view of a theist: one that sees the world without an absolute ethical framework and tries to understand it through science alone.
Personally, I think two things: 1. It doesn't do any favors to the reality of the wide range of atheists and agnosts existing; 2. To those it does rightfully address, it does very little debunking and offers no viable alternatives. The "debunking" has no bearing to their methods or views. The alternatives offered are diametrically opposed to their views. Let me put it this way: a clairvoyant that gives a detective useful information has no added value if this information cannot be converted to solid evidence that can hold up in court.
But these are usually not vids that are meant to convert people, but to *retain* them. If you view that way, it makes much more sense.
1. All he said is that under determinism justice doesn't make any sense. Would you arrest a tree that fell on your car? No, then why arrest the thief that broke into it? It's true that there are a lot of deterministic factors guiding our choices, it's a non sequitur to conclude that all factors are just that. Free will has a lot to do with morality, the freedom to always be able to do the right thing regardless of circumstances. God, being outside of time, can see all time at once, however, He incorporates human free will into His knowledge of the future, i.e. He knows what you'll freely choose.
2. Science is not the only source of truth since it cannot explain everything by default. For example, love, beauty, trust etc.
3. Longing for fulfillment is certainly not wishful thinking, rather it's an innate desire all of us have. This world, no matter how hard we try, can never make us really, truly happy. Deep inside we have this burning flame for the love of God.
4. They definitely aren't religious ideas. There are different kinds of atheists believing in those world views. Yes, gravity objectively exist, but so does morality. How can you get that from God? Well, God is the ipsum esse, sheer existence, the foundation of reality. That's how!
5. Btw, these might not be atheistic ideas, they aren't Christian either.
PS: You noted that he gave little effort to debunk them. And your right, little effort is all you need!
@@davethesid8960
1. And even if this was true and not a complete misunderstanding of how determinism works, this wouldn’t debunk determinism. This would be an argument from consequence fallacy. This also ignores the fact that the justice system is literally a factor in determining crime. If someone doesn’t do something out of fear of being punished through the legal system then this factor is one of the things which determines this decision.
2. Science absolutely can explain things like love, beauty and trust. Trust is actually very easy, it’s a product of our evolution as a social species. Tribes which trusted each other had a higher likelihood of survival due to improved social cohesion and thus this would be a trait selected for. And if you’re asking for an explanation beyond that then I’m not even convinced such an ask would be coherent.
3. Much like the presenter of this video, you seem to like misrepresenting. Because I never said longing for fulfilment is wishful thinking. I was saying that trying to infer the truth of eternity from the desire for eternity is wishful thinking. It’s practically the definition.
4. Please demonstrate that morality objectively exists. You merely appeal to a god as if that gets you there but it doesn’t. That’s a complete non sequitur and not logically valid.
5. That’s not a relevant rebuttal. If I was to make a video about debunking Christian ideas and pointed out Muhammad didn’t split the moon you could rightly say, “this isn’t a Christian idea,” but would it be in any way relevant for me to respond to this by saying “they aren’t atheistic either,” that would be entirely irrelevant.
It’s not just that he gave little effort, it’s that he utterly failed to do so and in most of these there wasn’t even an attempt. He first point is literally a fallacy and nothing more, his second attempt appeals to modes of reasoning rejected by those he’s trying to convince are wrong, his third idea he claims to debunk he doesn’t even make a case for, the forth idea is a strawman and actually contradicts his previous statements, and he finished off strong with another case of not making any argument against the idea he is supposedly debunking. Much like the presenter, your arguments are very shallow and do not work or stand up to even mild scrutiny.
“Christendom has had a series of revolutions and in each one of them Christianity has died. Christianity has died many times and risen again; for it had a God who knew the way out of the grave.”― G.K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man
tbf many of these revolutions were christians revolting against other christians 🤣
You want a simple answer? Big surprise my boy! your in it.
Based MattPat
I truly feel sorry for these people who are lost in the world. They are missing out on so much that God has for them and yet they keep rejecting him. There is documented proof that supports Jesus Christ the apostles and much more. God bless you my brother. Associate pastor Timothy Michael Colby Chicago Illinois
What exactly am I , an agnostic atheist, "missing out on"?
@@Theo_Skeptomaiyou can’t be agnostic and atheist, they are completely different.
@@justadude4826 You can’t have a lack of belief and not be nihilistic, if you believe there is a point to your life you have faith in something, that might not be god but it’s a faith or belief in something.
@CoolLampShade WRONG. There is _but one_ claim that the position of atheism addresses. And that is the claim asserted by _certain_ theists that some particular god exists in reality.
Like all claims to truth, this claim breaks down on three dichotomous axes: *_truth_* of the claim (true, false); *_acknowledgement_* as to the truth of the claim (acknowledge, fail to acknowledge); and *_sufficiency of knowledge_* as to ascertain the truth of such claim (sufficient, insufficient).
It is the the position we take on these dichotomies that establishes our identity in regard to atheism and agnosticism.
The first dichotomous axis addresses the truth _position._ Like any claim to truth, the 'theistic' claim is either true or _not_ true (false). There is no other possible option as is dictated by the laws of logic (Identity, Non Contradiction, and Excluded Middle).
The second dichotomous axis addresses the acknowledgement _position._ The recipient evaluating the claim either acknowledges the claim as to be true (theism), or fails to acknowledge the claim to be true (atheism). Again, there is no other available option.
The third dichotomous axis addresses the _sufficiency of knowledge_ as to the claim _position._ Either the recipient evaluating the claim has sufficient knowledge or information as to ascertain the truth of such claim (gnostism), or does _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information concerning the claim (agnosticism).
The default 'acknowledgement' position on the claim that "a particular god(s) exists" is _atheism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the theistic claim for the first time. It would be impractical to acknowledge the truth of a claim _before_ hearing it for the first time.
The default position addressing 'sufficiency of knowledge or information' is _agnosticism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim. One can not claim to have sufficient knowledge or information concerning any given claim _until_ he or she hears the claim for the first time.
This presents four populations of recipients evaluating the claim that "a particular god(s) exists."
The 'gnostic theist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) to theism by acknowledging the truth of the claim. Often this population claims to acquire "sufficient knowledge" from revelation from (or personal relationship with) the deity mentioned in the claim.
The 'gnostic atheist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify remaining in the position of atheism (default) by _rejecting to acknowledge_ the claim. This population is sometimes referred to as 'strong atheists'. This population may or may not make the additional claim "god(s) don't exist." If so, like the theists in the original claim, those that make such a claim now encumber a burden of proof to substantiate such claim with evidence.
The 'agnostic theist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) by does so _anyways_ by acknowledging the truth of the claim _through_ 'faith'.
And last, the 'agnostic atheist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their initial position of atheism so they _continue to suspend acknowleging the truth of the claim until sufficent evidence is presented._
Of the four populations, only the 'gnostic theists' and the 'agnostic atheists' are *_justified_* in their final positions. The former is justified in changing their position to theism by 'revelation'. The latter is justified in suspending such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced, and therefore remain atheist.
This is how I can demonstrate that I am indeed an atheist - an _agnostic_ atheist.
@@justadude4826 Yeah, so you believe there is no point in anything? Unless your agnostic
Hay quick question, what is going on with upon fr review?
Unfortunately Father Patrick has been accused of sexual misconduct and doesn’t do public ministry anymore.
@@StMaximilianFanboy Fr??
@@dasFLOCKY unfortunately
@@StMaximilianFanboy just read the Statement.. Really depressing
@@dasFLOCKY Indeed, we must keep Father Casey in our prayers, he looked up to Father Patrick a lot.
Did the title ? I remember it not being Kind condescending :(
The 3 things that sell me on the existence of something more than what we see are 1: Every atom in our bodies is replaced over the course of 7 years. I am physically not the same person I was 7 years ago; but by all measure I can give, I AM the same person or FEEL to be the same person. Could be explained with some sort of biological "Progress Saving" in time, so maybe not the best argument. Number 2, the fact that quantum physics is suggesting that it is an observer causes quantum entanglement to cease. In other words, Some things don't exist or don't happen until we ourselves view them. Which brings me to the 3rd point: The universe is NOT deterministic. The future CANNOT be predicted with 100% certainty, and part of that may have to do with our own free will. I always feel like asking Alex O'Connor: So, you mean to tell me that World War II and the Holocaust were COMPLETELY unpreventable? They had to happen? I could also go into near death experiences and how the people experiencing them see and hear things that are corroborated.
"So, you mean to tell me that World War II and the Holocaust were COMPLETELY unpreventable?"
And how do you know that it wasn't unpreventable?
Most of his "debunk" is personal incredulity or appeal to emotion fallacy.
My favorite part is complaining relative truth. He doesn't like people having "their truth", but then appeals to an imaginary sky daddy as his own "truth". Oh the irony.
based on a mostly fictional book also
it just feels like you answer to every question ends up being that you feel as if there is something more. this isn't proof.
1. you basically just said determinism is stupid. or maybe out of comfort you refuse to believe in determinism, in which case don't expect to win an argument
3. you said deep down we want there to be eternity. again, if this is how you escape the fear of death, thats fine, just don't make an argument out of it
4. to an atheist, the word "good" or "bad" is just an opinion. murder is agreed upon by most people as bad, but even if it was agreed by everyone that murder was bad it doesn't objectivity it.
Determinism is more or less disproven. The bell inequalities we're the last hope for determinism and were more or less killed, thats what the physics nobel prize 2022 was given away for. Maybe we live in a deterministic world, but that is against the scientific Consensus at the Moment.
In the words of Tim Minchin, "throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be not magic". Using the argument that science hasn't figured something out yet isn't proof that a bearded magician in the sky must be the cause.
Great breakdown. I’m kinda new here but I love all I’ve seen so far
Father I don't think I've ever heard it said more clearly and simply than the way you so articulately described it. Thank you and god bless you 🙏🏻❤️
1) Determinism does not say that you are not responsible for your actions, it is simply the fact that all our choices are determined by a prior cause, *we do not "choose" from nothing*
2) Also, since no two brains are exactly alike 100% (except probably identical twins), no two human beings will make the same decisions 100% of the time, so even Hitler's choices in his life are most likely unique to him
3) Secularism does not say that this is the only world and/or that people should not have personal religious beliefs, Secularism is about not letting personal religious ideas make the decisions that will affect the lives of others, we do not hunt for witches, we do not discriminate against gays, and we do not persecute Jews because they do not worship the same God as Christians, *all religious are equal under Secularism*