Atheist Millennials Answer Evangelical's Questions On Sex, Free Will, & Spirituality
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 09. 2024
- This is the second half of an interview we did with Shawn McCraney (evangelical ex-Mormon) for his show, “Heart of the Matter." We talked about spirituality outside of religion, free will, the concept of “evil, and more!
SUPPORT US! (Every $ helps. Like a LOT!)
Patron (get bonus videos!): / zelphontheshelf
PayPal: paypal.me/zelphontheshelf
Venmo: @Samantha-Shelley-1
Buy us a book: www.amazon.com...
Watch the full interview, where we discuss our journey leaving Mormonism and more: • Interview With Zelph o...
FOLLOW US!
Twitter: @zelphontheshelf
Instagram: @zelphontheshelf_
If you think the messages we share are valuable, please consider supporting us financially!
Patreon (you can get bonus videos!)
www.patreon.com/zelphontheshelf
One-time PayPal donation: PayPal.me/zelphontheshelf
LOVE YOU ALL. 💕
So I guess you two Snufferite’s aren’t going to take Kwaku’s challenge?
As a Millennial, you did a pretty good job speaking on our behalf. Or at least on my behalf.
William Henley what’s quack coo coo challenge?
I felt myself getting a bit pissy with his "studies show that promiscuity is bad for women" thing... you guys handled that pretty well. I wanted to jump in there and I wouldn't have done as good of a job as ya'll did. Thanks.
It's true though. He didn't articulate it, because he wasn't prepared for that, but check out this video and it mentions some of the evolutionary and biological differences between men and women when it comes to sexual promiscuity:
czcams.com/video/xRyU2labqBk/video.html
I'm really curious and want to understand. How can you get "pissy" when given information that is true, or did you get "pissy" because you don't agree with the information given?
Not all studies show that "promiscuity" is bad for women and people should stop labeling women as promiscuous and sluts anyway. @@AJ-ht3kf
Promiscuity is definitely bad for women & society at large. Thats from a non-religious empirical perspective.
@@calonstanni Thank you for responding. I obviously misunderstood. I do agree with you. I think people should stop labeling women as promiscuous and sluts when they don't hold men to the same standard.
"I don't believe in a higher power but I do believe in a wider power." Well said :)
If you like semantics, yes.
It sounded like you were reading a book the whole time, you are both so well spoken, well researched, and intelligent. I always feel more uplifted after listening to you both
Emelia Louise Agreed, they’re so refreshing to listen to ❤️
I’m so grateful to have found your community here on youtube! I normally refrain from writing comments, but I just wanted to let both of you know that I admire your thoughtful content and approach to such complex topics. Thank you for all the time you put into these videos. They truly do make a difference.
Why is it that old men almost always have such a puritanical view of female sexuality? Samantha and Tanner, you dealt with that nonsense better than I ever could.
keep your nose out of my bedroom.. thanks.. appreciate it..
@@nonyabidnazz7487 I partially agree with you, but it can be argued that your bedroom DOES become society's business once taxpayers start paying your welfare. Additionally recent studies have shown that children raised by a single mothers are more likely to wind up in prison.
@@Nepthu What does that have to do with the current conversation lmao
The views back then were very much "A woman's value changes when she has sex"
It sticks.
I love how this guy is so polite and understanding. There's too many debates where one tries to outdo the other, and Christians who try ti convert atheists and judge them. This guy is awesome, and I love how this was a nice discussion instead of a debate or contest or whatever.
New shirt: I’m an algorithm who learned I can change my algorithm.
We basically AI, then?
I keep telling my kid this.. we are AI
This was fabulous. Samantha has a quality way of speaking that makes it sound like she isn't sure what she's talking about, but then it's always gems! And Tanner of course is brilliant too. Thanks for sharing!
Cath T
Different linguistic patterns maybe..to me she sounds normal🙂
Seems rather ironic that the evangelical is sitting and laughing along at the ridiculousness of Mormonism but at the same time thinking his religious views are impervious to absurdity.
It’s the classic, “LOL! Well of course THOSE religions and views that aren’t mine are false and ridiculous!”.
SAME. They are literally just as bad. Very ironic.
😂😂😂. You’re either convinced or you’re not. You don’t choose when or if. Again points towards the fact that free will is a total illusion. But as stated it’s a great concept to believe in. But again you’re either convinced or not. I’m not. I might find it useful to believe in it. Having issues with motivation atm. But I know my life will play out the same way no matter what. I’ll either find the motivation or I won’t. I hope I will 😂🍻🍻
I’m so grateful that I joined and left the Mormon Church, if only to have stumbled upon you two and your deep, rational thinking. Thanks for sharing your ideas and opening our minds! ✨
Another thought from me. I grew up evangelical, and I have the same disdain for it as tanner and Sam have toward Mormonism. It’s the same abusive and debilitating atmosphere just differing in aspects of doctrine. It seeks to form the mind into strict adherance to its beliefs. It creates guilt for every little thought or behavior.
David Stahl try being raised a Catholic!
same in my 1st Baptist home.. seriously.. I think it traumatized me.. my whole family.. both sides.. are from Ogden.. I wasn't raised in UT but.. all of my cousins were.. and.. many converted to Mormonism..
I find this topic fascinating and am delighted that I stumbled on to this channel today as I am struggling with the same ideas.. concepts and judgments..
I left the church.. and my abusive religious family.. decades ago.. its a lonely existence.. sometimes.. but.. its less stressful.. that's for sure.. 💜💜💜
I’ve always communicated the “algorithm” comment about free will as “given our genetic predisposition and experiences, we have a x% chance of choosing options a-z.” As in, “odds are, we will make a specific choice. We can choose to defy those odds, but over repeated “tests” we will make a similar choice more often than others”
But to integrate, that is the same as me “an algorithm recognizing I’m an algorithm deciding to co-create in that algorithm”
Well said, Tanner. 👌🏾
One of the biggest problem in Mormonism is just by considering the concept that church is not true, opens you up that you could lose everything that is near and dear to you family, friends.. The realization that Joseph Smith made this religion up and that I was lied to all my life, turned my word on it’s side, my wife threaten to leave me and take the kids. I used to enjoy participating in discussions in gospel doctrine and Priesthood. It came a point that dreaded attended these meeting because I knew it was one big lie and I had to bite my tongue to keep from saying something derogatory, No matter how I tried I could not put the Genie back in the bottle. But it became impossible, the mountain evidence that showed Joseph Smith to be a fraud became way to apparent. My whole world changed forever.
@@scotthullinger9955 your sentence is incomplete nonsense, you must be talking about yourself
I hope your wife wakes up from the nightmare with you and your family stays together, friend *hugs*
Germ Antibody My wife passed away last year, both my sons live with me, It has been a tough time for all of us. I still love the people in the church but not it’s general authority leaders. I my self am not out change anyone’s belief system, except for the. us against them world view that seems to be so common in all religions in general.
You guys did such an amazing and articulate job. I'm so proud of the both of you. You are the best possible ambassadors we could have hoped for, not just as young people, or exmormons, or millenials. But as human beings.
The passion and love that you have for life and new experiences and knowledge and truth is inspiring. Thank you.
This was amazing. I watched the whole thing on his channel too, and may have to rewatch, because it was packed with so much good discussion. So much exchange of information. I only started taking notes during the last 20 minutes or so.... But God damn! I never take notes, so y'all f'ckin on some shit
I love that he so politely allowed you to share your veiws even if he didn't share them. I wish more people would do this.
Tanner, its interesting hearing you talk about kind of an atheistic approach to pantheism. I would identify as a pantheist but I definitely approach it from a theistic perspective and dont remotely identify as an atheist myself. So I find it very fascinating hearing pantheism from your perspective.
I love you guys ❤
hell yes!!!!! You guys are almost at 10,000 subscribers. I'm so happy you guys could help so many other ppl that feel they can't leave the church
you guys helped me realized the book of mormkn iis just a story and isn't true
Honestly it’s so acknowledging to hear you guys say and explain so many thought patterns I have all the time. It makes me feel so validated and sane 🤣
I have known some promiscuous people and seen both sides as in someone who is pro-sex and is honest with their partners. But I have also seen it when promiscuity was clearly a symptom of something bad that had happened and was a displacement activity. In my experience, those who are doing promiscuity as a displacement activity (not just women) tend to be less hygienic (not using barrier methods/lack of regular testing) and that can be dangerous. I don't really give a crap if someone is promiscuous or not (consent being key!) but I have called people out for not using contraception due to the risks of STDs.
There's also a line between being sexually open and comfortable in sexuality, and being hypersexual.
If someone is putting themselves in dangerous situations and foregoing safety to have sex, you're looking at something closer to being hypersexual, most likely.
If you're looking at someone who has had many casual sexual partners, but participates in appropriate settings, under safe circumstances, and considers consequences, you're not looking at an unhealthy or damaging behaviour.
That said, being hypersexual =/= immoral. People try to tie self destructive behaviours to immortality. In this case, the evangelical dude was trying to justify his misogynistic views of women by claiming that promiscuity is dangerous. He used the fact that women may be getting hurt as a reason to see them as dirty, and that's a problem.
19:31 in to watching and I've decided ya'll should write a book
32:38 Which studies? Who's funding them? How many participants from how many backgrounds were included?
In non-religious countries, people aren't raised to be afraid of sex from a young age. Many kids discover sex and masturbation as something that feels good, as opposed to sinful.
31:15 what I really wanted Sam to discuss is how consent plays into murder and theft. "Studies show..." Is not a citation. No need to delve into why the studies might show this or that. Who knows if "the studies" even exist.
I commend the interviewer Shawn. He did a lovely job. He comes across as someone who wants to understand this younger generation's perspective, and wants his audience to as well. And he listened, even when he clearly didn't share their beliefs. Good on him. I think he built some bridges and showed the best parts of Christianity.
That said, his evangelical Christian concepts of female purity was an EEK! He seems like he genuinely wants the best for his girls and is learning more on the subject, but he is very indoctrinated with old concepts of femininity and those instincts are shaping his beliefs.
Samantha's response was just perfect 💋👌
She acknowledged the partial truth but added that context changes the narrative. It doesn't serve us well to oversimplify the issue.
Actually, oversimplification is my main issue with most religious (i.e. Christian) views. You can't solve a societal issue if you can't look at the intricacies. "Evil" is a societal issue. You can't solve evil by putting it in prison. That does nothing to prevent future "evil" acts by a different person . "Sexual purity" is a useful law in a more primitive worldview, but does not prevent abuse or rape or simple unhappy relationships. It does not solve anything, really, only avoids some issues, for some people. Concepts like consent and self-awareness and and understanding of risk (good sex education) are much more powerful forces for happiness, I think.
If you only teach your children to avoid sexuality altogether, how can could they be expected to learn to have a healthy sexual relationship? Even in a monogamous marriage paradigm, it doesn't make it easy.
But Shawn took in the new perspective well and I hope it opens his eyes a little to a new mindset.
I don't know the details of his religious belief but many Christian ideologies unfairly put most of the responsibility of sexuality on young women. For them, it's women's job to be pure, to be sexy, to not be TOO sexy, to choose a good partner, to bear children, to prevent rape. Women are more than sex!
When a father spends time being so concerned about the sexual futures of his daughters, to me, he sends the message that he feels that women are inherently sexual objects. I doubt he would have the same level of concern for his sons' sexual futures. This concern some men have for their daughter's sexual future seems to come from this paradoxical anxiety that women are for sex but they also know their daughters are actually more complicated people than that. So they worry.
I am an active member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I have to say, I really appreciated this conversation. People inside and outside of the church need to be able to have conversations like this. I learned a lot from this.
To many times I’ve heard members of the church talk about those who have left in such a negative light with little respect.
I honestly believe a lot of lds church members have lost sight that the church is meant to be spiritual and mind expanding. What it seems to have moved towards is a set of conforming rituals and standards that people are alienated and criticized for not following.
A criticism that stems from people not understanding their own doctrine.
God bless all three of you in your search for happiness and purpose.
tanner's laugh is a thing of beauty. i'm a wee bit happier than when i started watching.
You guys are great! I think you did a beautiful job, especially touching on the women and sex part. Im really tired of the argument that promiscuous women are broken. SOMETIMES that IS true, but sometimes that’s true of men also. But let’s not paint with such a broad brush. Live and let live. I do not believe that most people who make these statements are actually concerned about the welfare of women; they just find it icky and therefore wish women didn’t do it. I really don’t know many (if any) women personally who were virgins at marriage (including one of my oldest, Mormon friends... she’d had sex with at least three men). Their husbands didn’t care. 🤷🏼♀️ Neither did mine (but let’s be honest, if he had, I wouldn’t have married him).
Y’all need to write a book!!
So eloquently put. You both are so well spoken, I love the way you dismantled some of the assumptions in the language and culture
The many times he says "Mhmm", "I see", "Uh huh", speaks to me as a dismissive rather than an acknowledgement. I feel it disrespectful to your presenting of your beliefs and ideas.
This was great and I agree with so much of what you expressed. I was trying to explain some of these concepts to my mother yesterday and she strongly disagreed (she's very mormon and closed to other ideas) and it was so helpful to have my thoughts reiterated today 😊
Awesome video!!!! Very intelligent insight and perspectives. Thanks for posting!
Interesting viewpoints and perspectives. Great interview!
Wow, I loved this! Shawn helped me cognitively work through the BoM composition and other things, but I haven’t watched him in years due to my atheism and his born-againedness. You’re both very well spoken, great interview.
Wow, Samantha - right out of the gate, an incredibly perceptive and important point.
IMO, if you were to reply to Kwaku’s challenge, it would be most entertaining if it was in the form of a diss track. Debating him would just be like talking to a bigoted wall. Much love to y’all!
Terron Ayala omg yes. Kwacky is literally the most arrogant asshole I have ever seen - it’s stunning. I would love for them to debate them just to watch the slaughter.
Well done. Appreciate you.
I would love to see a more in-depth video from you guys about free will and your criticism of the concept as well as when you each started becoming curious and changing your thoughts on the subject from previous opinion
They do have a video on their channel about free will 😊
Promiscuity is damaging to women. If studies do show this I think it’s due to societal shaming. Women are shamed for being promiscuous where men aren’t usually held to these same standards.
SO much love for you both!!! Sam you inspire me cuz
LOVE YOU 💜💜💜💜💜💜💜
"Sex," Christians are always so hung up on sex, weird I think.
Yall are awesome. As a sidenote, you both are beautiful humans.
"Evil" yes, let's talk about some type of god, that gives you roughly 80 years to believe in "X." If you don't, this "loving god" sends you to a place of torment for eternity. That I think, is the essence of the word evil.
I am so stinkin happy that Tanner mentioned Poly! I am a Poly, buddist, communist exmo, and I have been so curious about how other exmos would react to polyamory! So thank you for that!
This was absolutely fascinating to listen to.
I love you guys! You both are so calm and have such great points. I love how you have an open conversation instead of just debating and trying to prove the other wrong.
Thing is about evil, there are a lot of bland, mundane things that when collated together can result in evil acts - particularly when distributed over mass movements. I like the idea that you could effectively 'manage out' evil in large organizations in principle.
I know I'm two years late to the comment section, but I wanted to throw in my two cents. Love this channel. Samantha and Tanner are great critical thinkers, skills most of us gain getting out of Mormonism, or even to leave it in the first place. For so many us that leave the Mormon church I think we do tend to be agnostic/atheist (in whatever way you like to define that) and not really do the whole "organized" or even "theologized" religion thing anymore.
I spent about 3 years as atheist-agnostic (could be a God, just don't really see any evidence that there is, therefore I don't have a belief in a higher power play a part in my ilfe). During this time I didn't really have any spirituality at all, something I've come to realize I miss in my life. I like the way Tanner always defines it, it doesn't have to be "joining a particular religion" or professing certain theological creeds, but just coming up with a way to grow your circle of love. Earlier this year I got the itch to kind of look at Christianity as a whole again, having laid it aside when I left the Mormon church.
I kind of came to terms with the fact that I still love Jesus and his message deeply. Whether he was really the Son of God or not, I liked following his teachings. I felt good and fulfilled living that way. So I kind of became a bible student, completely OK to enjoy it without having to accept it all as literal truth or the exact way that God/Higher power/shared connection has to be.
However, that little journey led me to belief in Christ (in the traditional sense, not just accepting him as a great teacher, archetype, or awakened individual). I'm perfectly willing to accept that I could just be having an emotional reaction to a powerful form of Art as we humans like to and equating that with objective truth. I'm perfectly willing to accept that humans create religion as a form of connection and shared group experience, or trying to characterize the spiritual experiences we have as humans.
But at the end of the day, it's that little call in my heart that Jesus was indeed a great teacher, archetype, awakened individual, AND the Son of God. That little call in my heart that tells me I'm having an emotional reaction to the most pure form of art there is, the truth that God so loved the world that he sent his Son that we might be saved. That little call in my heart that yes, humans do love the sociality that comes from religion, perhaps because we were meant to be one, and not so divided. Is my leaning towards Christianity in particular indicative of my Western upbringing and mindset - Totally! Does the necessarily mean that because of that, it must be false? By no means haha. You may just see me as a silly sap clinging to Christianity, but all I know is I love Jesus and want to follow his teachings and I can't deny that I believe he is the Christ. As much as it's possible I am right, it's completely possible I'm wrong. If that's the case, I feel that this grows my circle of love and provides a positive outlet for my spirituality all the same.
I love this channel and all of you. Thanks for letting me go on my little essay there.
Loved this. Love y’all. Thx for posting.
Yes! Normalize promiscuity! 😊
Thanks for this 🖤
My two favorite exmormon channels doing a collab what else can I ask for omg
Bell curve analogy is perfect, I wanted to be the best possible defender of the faith. It gets bad quickly, just end up back to emotional appeals ( testimony)
1st and I support your work
The only way you can quit mormonism and end up in a worse place than before is to become an evangelical afterward... how is that even a thing?
Hello, I have been subscribed for quite some time and I really enjoy your content. However, I think it would be a good idea to address the email you supposedly sent to BYU about Kwaku. Is this true, and if it is...why would you do that?
Pasting a comment I wrote earlier for ease of answering:
The motivation re: emailing BYU was being uncomfortable with Kwaku being funded by the church/school when he is unkind to people-my vulnerable friend, in that specific situation. There are kinder, less bullying Mormons than Kwaku who deserve those resources more. (Of course he totally whitewashed the circumstances surrounding him insulting said friend in his video.)
Tanner makin’ me smile like an idiot with every word coming out of your mouth, I love you! Can’t wait to be irl friends 😉💖
Why didn't you two get comfy chairs like the lumberjack host had?... even the chairs from the Relief Society room are better than those two things he made you awkwardly sit on. Lol
I loved listening to this
Hooooray!!!!!
30:52 she nailed it!
I guess I don't understand how a Christian can claim there is anything like free will. I might be wrong, but doesn't their book tell them god knows everything? So, what kind of free will could they possibly put forth?
Imagine this: freewill is always limited to the choices which you can imagine in your head before you do them. And thus, there is always a limited number of choices one can choose to act upon. In this sense, the infinite mind of God can know the entirety of one's freewill since it is finite, and the infinite mind of God can know which of these finite choices one will choose since freewill is finite. This is all to say, one can still have freewill even if an infinite God will know what choices one will make. The mind of God is so vast that it encapsulates even the freewill of humanity itself.
*dope*
Who IS the evangelical interviewer? It would have helped to introduce him and give a short intro into his own bias.
Shawn McCraney!
i'm 1:44 in and why do I love Sam so much
43:49 in to watching and I wanna see a video of what y'all would say to President Russell M. Nelson if given the chance... like a one hour convo or something
I enjoy watching your videos even though I do believe in a higher power.
LOL that Hitler part. It definitely needed to be brought up as *some* people like to think otherwise...
Hitler described himself as a good Catholic if I recall.
SomeSortOfDeliciousBiscuit I’m pretty sure the only reason it got brought up was because Kwaku had said he was atheist in an attempt to smear atheists.
Nailed it!!
The whole argument of "free will" isn't really about free will at all. There are two possibilities: 1. You are a spirit, which lies outside the laws of nature, which controls your body. 2. You are your body, including your brain's biochemical processes, which control your body. In both cases it is YOU controlling YOUR body.
So it's really not about "free will" at all. It's about whether or not humans are subject to the natural laws of the universe. And if not... your definition of "natural law" is wrong or too narrow. So really, it's not about being subject to "natural law" either. It's about whether or not your religious dogma has any validity.
Some day I gotta figure out what "spirituality in a secular context" is. Or even what spirituality means... Unless you mean how I felt by seeing Mt. Timpanogos after being away 4 years...
I think that definitely counts. :)
Check out the book “Are we smart enough to know how smart animals are?” That’s the actual title. Lol. The book talks about animals, how we view them and test them. Reading it, I felt “the spirit” for the first time in years.
I'm new to this channel, does anyone know if they are in a relationship or just friends? Sorry I'm just confused lmao
We are friends! :)
@@ZelphOntheShelf ah ok! Sorry I hope that wasn't too personal, thank you for replying! I love you guy's channel 💜
🙂🙂
@@oddyssey2591 Not at all! Thanks for hanging out with us!
This was a cool talk to listen to. I have a request which would be a TON of work, but I would love to watch or read essays from each of you that get more specific about where your views (discussed here) come from. With sources/citations and whatnot. In interview formats it's hard to get specifics across, but I think they're worth hearing about. Thank you both for being consistently interesting, funny, and humble. :)
Do you have any videos on secular spirituality?
czcams.com/video/Gdo69Nhv_WA/video.html
czcams.com/video/1-bPi1GSE60/video.html
czcams.com/video/pHXDN030U3U/video.html
thanks julia speer for subsribing to my channel.know the truth that set us free. grace changes everything by darryl kirky explains it all that I went through in mormonism and transition out of it to grace tho still attend and thats fine with me but I avoid the stuck up self rightous judgmental and gossiper lds mormons... cheers
Hey guys if I support y’all on Patreon. Is there a higher level of engagement?
We post bonus videos on there! :)
lol i was starting to think that this dude was pretty cool, then he starts going on about "wouldnt you call marxism evil?" xD How can someone have a pretty decent understanding of different philosophical concepts but still have this twisted american idea of marxism? ^^
Definitely unfortunate, haha
I think when you have a fundamentally spiritual world-view a theory that is completely based on material conditions is not going to look good. Add to that past socialist societies having all but banned religion and it makes sense. As a Marxist it did make me giggle but that's about it.
Hey I would love to know the story about how your families took you guys leaving the church I’m still in the church but terrified to leave because of several reasons. My wife’s family and my own have deep roots in the church and I’m terrified about what they will say and do to me leaving. I feel like if I hear some examples of what it’s like leaving the church on the inside that would be fantastic
I'm curious how JS could create or make up the Book of Mormon.. Wasn't he really uneducated? Like how was he able to make up a whole book
his education is underplayed. his parents were school teachers and his mother said his education was not at all neglected. he also had the assistance of school teacher oliver cowdery.
had he more schooling, he may not have made so many linguistic and historical errors.
Oh thank you! That Zelph on the shelf I have talked to him myself! 😄 lol would you be so kind to link a source I could read more about it please?
I am a Marxist and this boomer Gentleman just called me evil 😥
Hahaha I’m so sorry
@@ZelphOntheShelf I think I'll manage but I don't practice forgiveness so this fella will be on my grudge list for at least a few days 😂😂❤
Spectrum indeed
Evil: Point of view
I am a hard core atheist.
daheshism.webs.com
Aenon E. Moss What is this link before I click on it?
@@elgavilan7731 It is about Dr. Dahesh of Lebanon, the miracle-working Prophet. Many eye-witnesses to His miracles, including myself.
Aenon E. Moss what does this have to do with atheism?
@@elgavilan7731 Dr. Dahesh has something to say about Atheism, which I think is interesting. Maybe you'll think it is interesting too? Never know. daheshism.webs.com
37:13??? I know you guys are into psychology and are probably more well-read than me, but I've never heard anything to back that up. I'm pretty sure no one is literally incapable of feeling empathy and I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say "psychopaths". If you could elaborate I'd be grateful.
“When individuals with psychopathy imagine others in pain, researchers have found that brain areas necessary for feeling empathy and concern for others fail to become active and connected to other important regions involved in affective processing and compassionate decision-making.”
www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201310/the-neuroscience-empathy%3famp
Lots of good resources you can find through a simple google search. :)
The guy looks like the guy off of the movie the princess bride movie
Wait... two hours??? Where'd most of that go?
Full video is linked in the description box :)
9:49 Pantheism is a form of theism. You cannot be at once a pantheist and atheist. That's contradictory.
Kafei - it’s not a contradiction, it’s a paradox. If everything is god, nothing is god and vice versa.
Girl idk what world you live in but society has taught me to be more promiscuous. And by the way the whole neathandral polyamory thing sounds like a gangbang to see which man can get the girl pregnant. Lol I wouldn’t be proud of their behavior! Rape was very common for them as well. Girls were always pregnant and needed men that is why they allowed the man to be dominant
Rape was common throughout history, yes. But we’re talking about polyamorous societies. Highly recommend the book, “Sex at Dawn”!
(Neanderthals were a different species!)
And yes, society does teach women to be more promiscuous, while simultaneously devaluing them when they are. The overall message is: Your worth is in your body, and it’s all through the lens of what men want. Society doesn’t teach women how to have healthy, consensual sex that’s not about seeking validation. Hence, the shame surrounding women and sex.
Zelph On the Shelf like I said we must be living on a different planet lol. We live in a society that encourages not only women having sex but women having sex at young ages. I have always felt stupid that I was a virgin before marriage and didn’t dare tell my friends. Nobody is shaming women except for women themselves. A lot of Men couldn’t care less about what we do in fact they want us to be promiscuous and disconnected from our femininity.
Neanderthal (or cavemen) polyamory just sounds like a gangbang. They acted like animals and especially the males. Idk why you would ever try to be like them? Would u do polyamory without birth control? If not then you shouldn’t be practicing it. Even then women and men were not equal because women took the role of nurturing and men took the role of providing. Take apes for example and watch their behaviors. The baby is always with the mother and the father is hunting.
The call her daddy podcast is awesome
Please debate the smugness off of Kwaku's face.
hey I know these two!
I'm not a Mormon (although they tried to get me re-baptized), but I'm wondering.... If your spirit is the part of you that relates to God, how can an atheist talk about "spirituality"?
Cool. But Shawn isn’t a evangelical by any stretch of the imagination.
Three apostates chatting doesn't give a warm fuzzy feeling does it. When a person's explanation for something is so convoluted and brings you darkness rather than light, you can discern the source of their thoughts Don’t let the words of apostate members shake your faith. Apostates are not a trustworthy source. Just as Judas, they have turned away from truth and now fight against Christ and all that is Holy and good. “Studying the Church only through the eyes of its defectors is much like interviewing Judas to understand Jesus.” Neal A. Maxwell:
Things that contradict our deeply held beliefs tend to make us feel irritated because our brains are wired to protect them at all costs, regardless of how strong the evidence is that they're not true. Mormonism also tends to condition people to associate intellectualism with negativity, because evidence isn't on Mormonism's side.
At 16:00, Buddhism? Really? The end goal of Buddhism is to rid oneself of all desires. Yet, one must have a desire to rid oneself of all desires, which is a contradictory and illogical principle, so
Buddhism is not a valid truth claim.
I don’t agree that “the end goal of Buddhism is to rid oneself of all desires”. You’re right-the desire to do that would be a desire in and of itself!
As far as I’m aware, Buddhism doesn’t make any “truth claims”. (Though some Buddhists certainly do! Hence why I say I align with Buddhist principles, rather than calling myself a Buddhist.) The “goal” of Buddhism, if there is one, is non-attachment to ego. Which, for me, doesn’t mean not wanting anything, but recognizing that life only ever exists in the present moment and you can’t think “I won’t be ok until I get [thing that I want]” It is about recognizing that everything is temporary, and that fearfully clinging to things robs us of peace.
If you’re interested, check out the Secular Buddhism podcast by Noah Rasheta! It’s really good. ✌🏻
@@ZelphOntheShelf
The "ego," according to the Greek (εγω), is "self," so if one is searching for a "non-attachment to self," please explain to me what that means objectively. You mentioned what it means TO YOU, but, with respect, and I hope you understand my meaning, but I am not interested in what it means "to you," since this is a subjective interpretation, subject to qualifications and corrections; I simply want to know what it means objectively. For instance, if a Christian were to explain what faith means "to me," his subjective interpretation is open to correction based upon the objective standard of the word of God. Therefore, I want to understand the position objectively, if I have indeed misrepresented you, because the literal understanding of "non-attachment to self" is "out of your mind."
You said: *"check out the Secular Buddhism podcast"*
If he deals with claims of universal truths that can be weighed against an objective standard, it may be of interest.
Here’s an article that does a decent job explaining my understanding of the term “ego”.
mindfulnessmeditationinstitute.org/2019/01/01/what-is-the-ego-and-why-does-it-matter/
“Non-attachment to self” is also accurate. The mind-made self, that is. Meaning, the stories we tell ourselves about who we are, that constantly seek self-enhancement in various ways. (Like through possessions, notoriety, etc.)
“Secular Buddhism” is a podcast about applying Buddhist principles of mindfulness-principles that neuroscience is now showing the value of. (Like meditation, for example.) It doesn’t make any claims about things we can’t know, because it’s secular, as the name suggests!
Don't get me wrong, I'm following this conversation and agree with much of it but this sounds like a thought process of going down the road of normalizing child pedophilia. 😳
Jennifer Flower how???
There's me thinking that large religious institutions seem OK with paedophilia...
@@ZelphOntheShelf I have family in Slovenia. They were there when there was communism. They still love communism and wish it were that way again. I was talking to them the other day and they carry many of the same beliefs you speek of yet they took the conversation further to say sex is ok between a will child and adult and they see no problem with it. That its natural, just like humans are naturally sexual beings and are not designed to be in commited relationships. That kids enjoy sex too. The conversation is just what to my mind when hearing your views on this.
I wouldn't say this relates to anything mormon you have to say, just diving into the big world of open views of the nature of humans. There are starting to ne talks on this topic on ted talks and various other spaces and it seems human sexuality openness seems to be a slippery slope down this point of view.
@@somesortofdeliciousbiscuit3704 yeah, agree. Theres alot of abuse in those institutions being hidden for sure. But its not exclusively there. My childhood had much of this abuse and my family was not religious at all. In fact, I was raised with two moms. They portected my male abuser. I was not his only victim. His daughters as well and many others.
@@jenniferflower9265
In the interview they stress the importance of consent several times. And children are incapable of being informed enough to consent to such interactions. So this isn't applicable to Zelph On The Shelf.
Not all groups of thinking are the same as Mormonism, where all members have to purportedly possess the same set of beliefs. Some atheists are humanist, others believe in "biological destiny", some are flat-earthers. People in the communist group of thinking aren't all going to believe the same things.
I totally believe in GOD. we are here, we git here someway and that would be our creator . We are also under the control of the laws of physics. God = creator and controller of the universe. And of course the Truth is our God, because no matter what you choose to believe it is the absolute Truth that will decide our fate, whether we like it or not and whether or not it helps or harms us, God is not a respecter of persons and causes the sun to shine and the rain to fall on the god and bad alike.
At about 12:00, she says that she doesn't believe in a God in the same way that she doesn't believe in anything that she hasn't seen sufficient evidence for... A few thoughts... Number one, the objective existence of "A" does not depend upon your knowledge of "A" or evidences that you have seen of "A." The fact is, "A" exists independent of your feelings about it. Next, as I have stated before, according to Romans 1:18-32, you HAVE sufficient evidence in general revelation to know that at least "a" creator God must necessarily exist. This notion is often suppressed by flooding the mind with myths and fairy tales such as abiogenesis, evolution, panspermia, and the like. Finally, I'm impressed that she seems to be of the mindset that only science is capable of providing sufficient evidence for the existence of a thing - if this be true, then that would make her a logical positivist. Logical Positivism is the branch of rationalism that posits: "Only statements that can be empirically verified have any meaning" (“Language, Truth, & Logic,” 1936, A.J. Ayer). It is an irrational thought process though; because the statement itself cannot be empirically verified, it is self-defeating, therefore anyone who subscribes to the idea that evidence/proofs must be falsifiable actually subscribe to an unfalsifiable philosophy.
It is so sad when the atheist puts these kinds of restrictions upon God. They do not impose the burden of strict empiricism upon any other aspect of life, so it is very telling that they do so only to God. For instance, there is no way to use strict empiricism to demonstrate that George Washington was the first president of the United States, but does that mean that it didn't happen, or that there is no way to learn of it; there are in fact other perfectly valid methods of investigation other than science.
This is where the methods of Historical Inquiry fill in the gaps left by the scientific method in order to lead the investigator to the truth of the matter.
Historical Inquiry consists of three modes, one by sight, and two by hearing:
1) The historian’s own personal experience of the places or events of which he writes
2) The interrogation of living witnesses
3) The reading of memoirs
Ancient historians considered that only the history of the times within living memory could be adequately researched and recounted, therefore the most important method of historical inquiry is that of the historian’s own personal experience, closely followed by the reminiscences of living witnesses who could be questioned in person by the historian, and this is precisely what we have in the pages of the Bible.
We know that the Bible is true because it is a reliable collection of historical documents, breathed out by the Holy Spirit, and written down by eye witnesses and scholars who interviewed eye witnesses during the lifetime of other eye witnesses who could have easily disproved their claims should they have been false. They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies (whose fulfillments can be researched in history), and claimed that their writings are divine rather than human in origin. Those writings were proven true at that time by the performing of many signs and miracles in the presence of many witnesses which served as confirmation that what these men spoke came from God. These writings were then faithfully passed down through succeeding generations whose accuracy of transmission is well demonstrated in existing manuscripts through the science of textual criticism (2 Peter 1:16-21).
Simply stated, to claim "atheist" of yourself is to move into an intellectual-free zone.
Interesting information, thanks for sharing!
A couple of things...
It looks like there is a misunderstanding here, because some of your points that you claimed are their approach aren't, and others of your points you claimed aren't their approach are.
_____
Also, some things like evolution overall are very easily knowable. Some of the fine details are still being studied and worked out, though, sure.
_______
Lastly, the Bible is far less supported than you claim, in both its documentation (most, if not all, was oral tradition and was finally written so long after the events supposedly took place, any witness sources were long gone), and its literal historicity (more is fable based in loose historical timeframes than actual events). While there are some moments that could be accurate, so much is not, and others are uncertain.
_____
However, as far as belief, if you find personal value in aspects of it, which anyone can see at least some good nuggets in it, go for it! :)
@@TanishaMartin
You said: *"some of your points that you claimed are their approach aren't, and others of your points you claimed aren't their approach are."*
Could you be more specific?
You said: *"...finally written so long after the events supposedly took place, any witness sources were long gone"*
Demonstrably false. Setting aside for the moment the plethora of scriptures where the Biblical authors describe themselves as eyewitnesses, and, I would love to go into the authorship of the individual gospels if you desire, but each one would take up a but of real estate in this format; nevertheless, if you are curious, I would be glad to explain the authorship.
Richard Bauckham, in his book “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” observes, “In the period up to the writing of the Gospels, gospel traditions were connected with named and known eyewitnesses who formed an authoritative collegium in Jerusalem, people who had heard the teaching of Jesus from His lips and committed it to memory, people who had witnessed the events of His ministry, death, and resurrection and themselves had formulated the stories about these events that they told. These eyewitnesses did not merely set going a process of oral transmission that soon went its own way without reference to them. They remained throughout their lifetimes the sources and… the authoritative guarantors of the stories they continued to tell.”
"It is not as though nothing was ever heard of the gospel message until it was finally written by the authors some decades after Jesus’ death. Such a scenario would have left ample opportunity for error and forgetfulness to creep into the accounts which would have made room for many contradictory stories to develop over time. No, the evidence demonstrates (as seen in the writing of Papias) that the gospels were first taught as a personal testimony of the individual author in oral form which formed a specific and consistent oral tradition that was attributed to the author from the moment they were sent out as witnesses and began teaching until they were finally put down into written form by the men to whom the gospel traditions were attributed. The fact that decades passed before the gospels were put to paper as the message went out across the known world, and yet there are no contradictory 1st century gospel accounts demonstrates that a constant and consistent message was taught from place to place by the authors that ensured that the message remained authentic and unchanged."
You said: *"While there are some moments that could be accurate, so much is not, and others are uncertain."*
Again, it would be nice for you to be more specific at this point. What specific account are you asserting is not accurate?
This is really funny. They have no response to being exposed by Kwaku. Go and watch Kwaku’s video on them. These two joined the Snufferite movement, they can’t seem to make their mind up.
Shawn asked us about Kwaku in the first part of the interview. The full thing is linked in the description box.
And being willing to change your mind when you encounter new evidence that disproves your existing beliefs is a good thing. ✌🏻
@@ZelphOntheShelf The issue is there is no valid evidence to join the Snufferite movement. I highly doubt you will debate Kwaku but if you do try not to use dodgy sources like you have done multiple times in the past, as highlighted by Kwaku.
You’re correct, the Snufferite movement is nonsense! Bad call on our part for briefly flirting with it. ;)
Zelph On the Shelf “Flirting” with it? As if. You guys were fully fledged members of Denver Snuffer Jr’s movement
At about 11:25... NOT sufficient evidence for you to believe that there is a God? Sorry, but that will not be an excuse for you on your judgment day - see Romans 1:18-32.
If there is a God, He/She/It is just as likely to say, "Welcome home! You made the best decision with the information you had. Well done! And even more important, you were kind, loving, and empathetic to others! Wonderful!"
@@TanishaMartin
No matter what "good" anyone does here below, it can never count as bribery for those who reject God, for it has been said, "all our righteous deeds are as filthy rags..." Whatever is not of faith is sin, and God will punish all law breakers.
@@lawrencestanley8989 You can believe that. I don't. I was adding an alternative that is just as likely, if not moreso, but you don't have to consider it as possible at all.
@@TanishaMartin
We are not talking about subjective, individual beliefs, we are talking about universal truth. You may either accept it or reject it as it applies to how you live your life, but what you cannot do is say that it does not exist, or that it is not a universal truth. A Creator God is a logical necessity based on the contingent nature of the physical universe.
Because the physical universe is contingent, it is not eternal. (Eternity means stability and immutability of essence, the impossibility of origin, cessation, or change, in effect, eternity means no past, present, or future; it is an eternal “now,” but matter/energy is in its essence a compendium of forces and potentialities; it is relativity itself, totally caught up in creation, living, changing, and dying, ergo matter and energy are not eternal) Every physical (natural) entity is contingent and therefore has a cause, and because causal chains cannot be of infinite length, because that would be an effect without a cause, if you were able to follow the causal chain back to the very beginning where the very first physical entity was effected into being, it's cause HAD to be supernatural, since the “natural” was not yet in existence, something cannot come from nothing, something cannot “be” before it “is,” and nothing can create itself (not even God). The reality of the impossibility of infinite causal chains also refutes any notion of a “multiverse” that some have posited as an explanation of the eternality of the universe, and it also nullifies the question “where did God come from?” that some have posed when God is explained as the ultimate cause of the universe.
Others (like Stephen Hawking) have foolishly said that we cannot talk about the origins of the universe since time itself did not exist before the universe began to expand at the Big Bang, so we just cannot know. However, since time is the progression of sequential relationships between two or more contiguous events, if there was indeed a point when there was no such thing as time, but assuming the universe did exist in some previous form, be it as a singularity, a quantum vacuum, or whatever, then because there was no time, then there would be no progression from the universe’s previous condition from “A” where there was no time to, “B” where there is time. Hence, if there was a point when there was no time, then there never would be time unless some supernatural (outside of nature) force created it.
Contingent beings are insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings in the ultimate sense. Frederick Copelston once said, “If you add up chocolates, you get chocolates after all and not sheep. Therefore if you add up contingent entities, you are still left with contingent entities, and not an eternal one”: therefore there must exist a necessary, non-contingent, supernatural being whose non-existence is an impossibility, and from which the existence of all contingent, physical beings are derived (Hebrews 11:3).
So again, while atheism may be the subjective opinion of many who choose not to worship the creator God, no thinking person can ever assert that there is no God, for that would be like the individual who exhales breath in order to say that there is no such thing as air.
Good thing there isn’t sufficient evidence for a judgement day.