Arguments for God are NOT important. Here's why (feat. Cosmic Skeptic)
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 11. 2022
- Arguments for the existence of God are a point of endless discussion among atheist and religious figures alike. Within religious communities themselves, though, it’s a different story. Although I discussed these arguments in my arguments for god’s existence tier list and many other videos, I don’t think people actually believe in God because of the kalam cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument, the ontological argument, etc.
Here I discuss the 3B model of religious identity, speak with Alex O’Connor of Cosmic Skeptic, and comment on the utility of debating Christian apologists like William Lane Craig.
Cosmic Skeptic:
/ cosmicskeptic
Religion for Breakfast video I mentioned: • Religious Practice Pre...
------------------------------------------SUPPORT------------------------------------------
Patreon: / geneticallymodifiedske...
PayPal: www.paypal.me/GMSkeptic
Equipment to help the channel: www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls...
------------------------------------------FOLLOW------------------------------------------
Twitter: / gm_skeptic
Facebook: / gmskeptic
------------------------Resources for atheists in need------------------------
Find a Secular Therapist: www.seculartherapy.org
Recovering from Religion helps connect those who are leaving or have left their religion with support, resources and community: www.recoveringfromreligion.or...
Resources for Ex-Mu’s: exmuslims.org/join-us/
This video contains 100% therapeutic grade skepticism.*
*This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA
Maybe my story is more boring than most, but I deconverted for mostly intellectual reasons. Before sending me off to a scary liberal public university, my parents wanted me to take Biola's apologetics course. I did, and actually found it fascinating. I met with very few challenges to my faith in college, but I did make a few atheist friends after moving away from my parents' house. None of them really challenged my faith, but I was obnoxious about challenging their atheism; and they kept countering with points that seemed 1) obviously true, and 2) not at all what my apologetics teachers said that they would say. These instances were few and far between enough that they didn't really add up to much, but I realized that atheists weren't as stupid and misguided as I had been led to believe. I started dabbling in some atheist youtube to figure out what they really think.
At the same time, in my own religious/devotional life, I began struggling with questions about the blatant racism and sexism in the Bible, as well as the question of divine hiddenness. It was frustrating because I had studied the Bible daily for nearly 20 years, and these questions had always bothered me. I usually dismissed them with pat answers or "God has no need to explain himself to us little mortals", but they kept coming back every couple of years. THIS time, I was gonna get to the bottom of it. Surely William Lane Craig or Frank Turek -- those intellectual giants -- had answered questions like this. (My parents were very strict, and didn't let us have or use the internet; since I was on my own now, it would be a simple thing to finally answer these questions that had plagued me for years).
Well, I was shocked to see my favorite apologists constantly dodging or misrepresenting the question. I searched for answers for about half a year, clinging desperately to my cumulative case of favorite apologetics arguments and the few events in my life that I thought were indisputable miracles. I knew there had to be a God, but why did he let his universe operate exactly like it would if there wasn't? Why were all of his miracles in the Bible so theatrical, but his miracles nowadays were barely distinguishable from the natural course of events?
Thanks to channels like this one slowly dismantling all of those apologetic arguments, and thanks to the Christian apologists doing absolutely nothing to answer my original question, I finally admitted to myself that I was no longer a believer.
Hi 42PercentHealrh. Sorry to say I don't think your story in the least boring! What I don't get though is how you coped with the cost of leaving your faith?
What original question?
Great story
"Why were all of his miracles in the bible so theatrical, but his miracles nowadays were barely distinguishable from the natural course of events?"
I've never even thought of that. It seems like this would be the perfect time for some firey wheels within wheels covered in eyes to descend from the sky. Maybe spawn one of them in a school before another spree shooting to show that those "thoughts and prayers" actually _do_ something. If god was okay with his miracles being recorded in the bible and spread around, surely he'd be okay with someone posting a video to youtube and having Captain Disillusion say it's the real deal...
1) There's a tendency in nature for things to move from order towards disorder, if God removed His hand from this
earth environment how long would it take for natural chaos to wipe out all life? Consider asteroids, gamma ray bursts,
solar flares, pandemics, war, ecological imbalance, etc. The fact that we're still here is a kind of proof in a theistic
God continually involved in our existence.
2) Jesus came in human form to lay down His life, but how could He prove He was who He claimed to be, and not just a man?
Those theatrical miracles like walking on water, transfiguration, ascension, feeding the thousands, raising the dead, and resurrection provided that necessary proof that was well documented for future generations in the NT. Back in OT times theatrical miracles did not go on constantly either, especially those broadly witnessed, but the Exodus events come to mind for those two generations freed from Egypt; parting of the Red Sea, led by pillar cloud, manna from heaven, water from rocks, God's audible voice.. All witnessed by millions. But what was the result? For the most part the people still rebelled and rejected God anyway - making them worse off on eventual judgement day than if God had remained hidden. So I would argue that people who want to believe will find enough proof anyway in observing creation itself, testimony of scripture, apologetics, and those that don't want, still won't, even with spectacular miracles and thus losing their ignorance defense making them, unfortunately, even worse off than before on That Day. I mean how can our advocate Jesus Christ say "Forgive them Father they don't know.." if they actually do know with less than 0 excuses left?
My mother is a Catholic and my father an atheist. My mother seemed overly concerned about what the neighbors thought, and was strict about who I spent time with and how I dressed, which seemed trivial to me in the face of God. My decadent father, who cared not a wit what other people thought of him, was on the other hand, made time to be kind and helpful to everyone, including strangers.
When I first heard the moral argument for God, I laughed. The idea that one needed God to be moral or ethical had been clearly dissuaded by the example of my parents.
Long live situational ethics!
First off the devil is not going to attack your dad as long as he stays a nonbeliever. See psalms 73 and 49. Secondly and most importantly the freedoms that you your dad and everybody else shares, came on the back of Christians who gave their lives for the western freedoms in all Western countries; i.e. they are based on Christian principles and without Christianity ,you would not have these Western freedoms that you so glibly take for granted!
Props to the Bible and you’ll lose any argument, but go ahead and try!
@@jjphank 😅😅😂😂🤣😂 You’re just too funny! You should go into stand up for sure!
Isn’t the moral argument about the objectivity of morality instead of needing God to be moral?
@@jmannysantiago I feel bad for generation Z because you guys have been told what to think and not how to think!
You cannot out psychologize the Bible for God not to throw you into hell for all eternity. In other words, you cannot come up with a good enough excuse here and now, so you will not be able to on judgment day. If you say you did not want to be born, God is going to say you should’ve been born again, that means become a Christian so that’s not gonna work. And there are no other excuses try to think of one. So now you know for the first time in your life, that the Bible is smarter than you and it is a steel trap, smarter than all of mankind! So at least investigate and look to see that these things are true!
Prophecy, the Bible is 27% prophecy, that’s future history written in advance. God‘s really sticking his neck out to get it cut off he’s wrong but he hasn’t been wrong about the thousands of prophecies that were fulfilled, so he’ll be right about the end of the world prophecies as well and you’ll have no excuse on judgment day for not looking for truth!
Caveat: you cannot look for God in times of chaos Says Isaiah 45:19 so you better start now! You’ll be too worried about your own survival physically at that point and you won’t even think eternally!
Statistic probability of 40 writers writing the Bible with zero margin of deviation, proves God wrote the Bible through the 40 writers!
God authored the Bible!
DNA does not auto encrypt, the code writer is outside of the code of the 3300000,000,000 lines of computer code in the human genome of our DNA! So who wrote the code to such sophistication?
1,000,000 seconds is 12 days, 1,000,000,000 seconds is 32 years! That’s the difference between 1 million and 1 billion!
One person’s DNA could fill the Grand Canyon up to 50 times full of books. John 21:25 “I suppose everything Jesus did, the world wouldn’t have enough room for the books telling of it.“ this verse would be fulfilled!
Psalm 139:16 “in my members you have written many books“!
Psalm 139 is about the human body!
I got more… But let’s start with that!
So Now you know the Bible is smarter than you, what are you gonna do? Ignore it? Don’t do that, I don’t wanna see you end up in hell along with everybody else that’s reading this!
@@user-dy9st9uh8h Yes it’s communism versus western societies that where heavily influenced by Christendom and look who’s won throughout history! communism loses every time!
But the commies today in universities, tell the snowflakes that communism just never was done right, but you can do it right. If you don’t learn from history, you are doomed to repeat its failures!
I remember having a conversation with someone who was trying to convert me and talking about the reasons why I didn't believe... and after speaking with them I realised the primary motivation behind her faith was that she had lost so many people who were all Christians and she had so much hope to see them again in heaven and that was the argument she was trying to impress onto me. But it fell completely flat because all the people close to me aren't Christian and the thought that all of them would burn in hell while i coasted along in heaven was just horrifying. She kept saying to me like "isn't it the most wonderful gift you could ask for to be with your loved ones forever" and I'm like... no.. because I wouldn't. And if I really believed that I would have to try and convert all of them which would likely just lead to estrangement from them in this life. But I stopped having that conversation there because I realised that her faith was her way of coping with her loss and I didn't want to feel like I was trying to take that away from her. The problem was just that it lead to a lot of other awful beliefs like a lot of homophobia and other issues.
@@mannam2063 well the person I was talking to was under the impression that hell was made of the body parts of the devil and that there was literally fire.
@@mannam2063 for me, I don't reject God. I just don't think he exists. If I die and there's something on the other end it'll be news to me. If God feels like revealing himself then I'll believe. I just don't see him or any evidence of him.
See, that is what most Christians get wrong. In heaven, you won't have any particular brother, sister or mother that you have on earth. Everyone will be a family and you won't care about that bond on earth for you will be renewed.
ATHEISM AIN'T GOT NOTHING NEW OR BETTER TO OFFER THAN THE VERY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS THEY'RE CRITICAL OF SO IT'S HYPOCRISY AT IT'S FINEST 😂. Hello this is for all you Atheists, unbelievers and skeptics. I'm going to address a few misconceptions and lies about God's Character and His Word. The Bible doesn't support chattel slavery or anything else Immoral. Ok so Atheists and unbelievers say God is either Immoral, incompetent or not responsible so let's see what The Scriptures actually say. God revealed himself and created a nation in a real, historical context. It was a world with a slave-based economy, with city states often at war with each other, with polygamous marriages to ensure the continuation of family lines. The laws of the Old Testament regulate this behaviour. Slaves are to be treated humanely (Exodus 21:11). They are given rights and not seen as mere possessions. Hebrew slaves were able to buy their own freedom. Human trafficking is condemned (Exodus 21:16). In contrast to the law code of Babylon, Old Testament Israel was a light to the nations. The Old Testament law and narratives do not stand alone. Jesus is now the best example of what we read. So the moral teaching of the Bible cannot be summarised by a quote taken out of context from the Old Testament to demonize God and His Word. Slavery was permitted in Old Testament law but it was regulated by God giving the Israelites instructions on how to fairly and humanely treat their slaves (it was like indentured servitude where someone could work for you if they owed debts or needed income not cruel like chattel slavery). God allowed the people of Israel to own slaves since they themselves has already experienced over 400 years of generations of Egyptian slavery and knew how inhumane it was to be beaten, overworked and taxed so God set them apart from other nations and cultures around them by giving them a fair way to treat their slaves since slavery had already existed in the world but it doesn't mean God condoned it just used it for His Will to bring Good And in the light of the whole scriptural teaching, we find the reasons for its ultimate abolition (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1-3; Philemon 15-16 and Galatians 3:28). The Word of God provided the moral standard against slavery in the Roman Empire and against the slave trade in the New World.
But what of genocide or holy war in the book of Joshua? Several things could be pointed out. The use of warfare in the ancient world did not always mean literal total destruction, even when events are described in such terms. Furthermore, the book of Joshua does not describe a genocide. It is not a race who are being wiped out, as in genocide, but a religious practice which was often appalling and degrading. Those who repent (like Rahab from Jericho or Ruth) are not destroyed but become part of Israel. It is not the racial group that is in view but their "detestable practices".
However, after all is said, we must still acknowledge that God brought judgment on the nations of Canaan. It is not our place as believers isn't to sugar-coat the Bible. For some skeptics, this is enough to make God a moral monster. But the fact is that Jesus continued to affirm that God is a Judge who will bring a future judgment on all peoples and all nations. God’s judgment will be just. The list of Old Testament stories rejected by critics often leads to a similar dismissal of the New Testament teaching of Jesus on the existence of hell.
After all, what was the Flood of Genesis or the conquest of Joshua if not a glimpse of future judgment? Hell does not demonstrate cruelty on God’s part, but it does demonstrate His Holiness and our moral accountability. Perhaps this is the real reason many people rail against the God of the Bible? It is not that they think He is a moral monster, but that they are afraid He is a moral Judge, and that has implications for our behaviour now. God is an Eternal Almighty Spirit Being and we as His creatures have Eternal souls and spirits so the punishment for our sins against Him must therefore also be Eternal but so must the reward for righteousness that's why He sent His Son Jesus to live a perfectly righteous and sinless Life (which none of us could ever possibly expect to do) suffer the humiliating and torturous death of crucifixion to shed His Own Blood willingly so that all who willingly accept His gift of salvation by grace through faith in Him will be saved and given Eternal life because that's what God wants is for us to willingly accept His gift of salvation and choose life. Exodus 21:20-21 literally speaks about capital punishment befalling anyone who mistreats their slaves so yes people are taking Scripture out of context to demonize God who literally promises that slaves who are mistreated under someone else's authority is to be avenged. When we hear the word “slavery” we think of innocent human beings, kept prisoner for life, having no rights under law and so reduced to animals. This is clearly immoral because it is unjust: the slave has done nothing to deserve the treatment.
The situation described as “slavery” in the Bible was nothing like this. It is more accurately described as one of indentured servitude. Many “slaves” were indentured servants, working for a term of years
Some other “slaves” were prisoners. There were no prisons. Prisoners had to work to live like everyone else. Some had life sentences. Some served a term and were released.
People didn't beat their good slaves but treated them well and protected their assets thus.
But no matter how rebellious a slave was, you couldn't just beat them to death. And if you knocked out their tooth or damaged their eye then you had to set them free. (Exodus 21:26). God wasn't using what other nations did because He wanted to set His Chosen People of Israel apart from the cruel, inhumane and unjust systems other cultures had so He gave them a fair way to treat their slaves and servants.
There is a lot of ignorance on this topic which is understandable given the age we live in but it's not the nefarious set up we think of when we think of modern slavery. The question Atheists must ask themselves is how come the Jews aren't being accused of slavery and human trafficking if they're guilty of it in The Bible and why would white slave owners rip out pages from The Old and New Testament Scriptures to justify their owning blacks as slaves if The Bible already justified slavery?
@@justingary5322 thank you for your efforts. However I am aware of all of that. I have read the Bible and done a lot of study and research behind it. I don't make my decisions based on ignorance as you imply.
I don't really want to sit and pick appart your argument and tell you exactly where it falls flat to me. We wont change eachothers minds. I'm sure you have good reasons for your beliefs but i also have good reasons for my lack of belief.
I remember my first religious experience. Ecstatic feelings of love, meaning, certainty about gods existence. I prayed again and again and got another shots during months until I realised I can control it through behaviour, my mood, exhaustion, isolation and so on and then I realised this is not about God or Jesus. It is about stimulation of my brain. Then I lost my faith.
What a shallow understanding of faith, you have. Happiness lies in the balance. Not the extremes or deficiency, as Aristotle said.
Religious 'experiences' are largely emotional / psychological. That's not necessarily a knock but deconstructing the experience as you apparently have can help you decide if you want to live in that way.
Good on you man
A stimulation of the brain? and no drugs? How can this not be about God or Jesus, if you professed in his name? Don't listen to these lies. The same lies the bible addresses many times.
@@FiENdeR85 In a crowd people feel a sense of community or love for eachother and they believe what the leader/Pastor says. Like when people faint when the pastor touches them. For me I would recommend you study on this but if you don't want that's completely fine.
I forget who said it, but, "you can't logic someone out of a position they didn't logic themselves into." Edit: I am disavowing this statement from this point forward due to it being factually wrong.
You can, it just depends on if the person you're talking to is stubborn. If they are, then I'd say it's impossible.
So I gotta faith em out?
Hey, simpletons, trust the literal millions of qualified scientists in hundreds of different fields all across the globe instead of a book! Do I need evidence? Nope! Just have faith!
Romans 10: 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
If you don't believe the Bible is historic you won't believe because you won't see the relevance of that information. You can't understand something you haven't created without the help of the one who made it.
Think of children they can't think for themselves until they are old enough. Even then when we are old we need someone to explain the universe, last time l checked there's still much we don't know (sciences).
In that sense we are still children in contrast to God who happens to be called God the Father, who knows everything.
@@ngqabuthomafu8559 skepticism 1:1 "any assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
Edit: I read the rest of your comment.
Children are dumb. Exactly why filling their heads with false promises, as the church does, is bad.
Just because science can't explain something does not mean that God exists.
@@dagothur3592 isn't a historical book evidence?
Drew, I mostly agree, but I feel a need to emphasize that some people are de-converted for purely logical reasons. I feel that I'm an example of that. I spent my life in a church/private school. I wanted to be in ministry. I studied apologetics. And believing my faith to be rational, I constantly sought out popular reasons for and against God. One of your videos was the first videos that sent me down a path of de-conversion. Then I found Alex O'Conner, Paulogia, and others.
Absolutely, Behavior and Belonging matter, and they're probably more important to most people. But some people are primarily motivated by belief and evidence. And grabbing the attention of that minority of people then affects their behavior in their communities so that hopefully more people are less encouraged toward superstitious thinking.
Drew, again I love the content and mostly agree. Thanks for what you do.
I think he addressed this when he mentioned doubt as one of the reasons for apologetic videos and arguments.
Good point! Thank you for sharing!
@@GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic I wonder how many people who never felt they belonged, continued to believe? Especially before the "spiritual but not in an organized religion" copout was at all acceptable.
@@littlebitofhope1489 I knew a lot of JEHOVAH's Witnesses who quit the religion but still believed it was the truth. I can't imagine that awful dichotomy. When I quit I had good reasons to stop believing it and never regretted that decision.
I was raised in Christian Science but pretty much blew that off as bullshit while still in high school. I followed my older sisters into Mormonism in my early twenties. I got bored with that and stopped showing up to church. I got hoodwinked into Amway (and its underlying prosperity gospel) in my early thirties. Left that quickly enough to avoid financial ruin! Had some life issues in my forties that needed more religion so I showed up at the local Baptist church. I still had issues and the church wasn’t much help. I stopped showing up at church. I finally went through some real therapy. I found non-toxic people to love and associate with and who loved me for who I was. I gained new interests and hobbies. I learned to love life as it can be. There was, however, one thing missing; good arguments for why I was never happier without a god, while being proselytized by Christians. It is through the efforts of atheists on CZcams that I learned that I’m not alone and that there is a community of non-believers out there that I can relate to. Thanks to both the content providers and the people who comment here, for being the community that the deconverted individual needs more than ever.
I’ve found that when trying to get someone to question their faith (rarely my goal, but every once in a while you’ll come across someone who wants you to challenge them) that the best question to ask is something along the lines of “don’t you think that making a point to gather as a community every week, listen to music you all like, discuss positive life lessons you’ve learned, commiserate about your problems, offer each other sympathy and help, and promise each other that at some point in the week when you’re alone you’re going to take a break from what you’re doing to think about them and what they’re going through and just take a moment to hope that everything works out for them and feel grateful for the good things in your own life would just inherently be a psychologically uplifting and emotionally fulfilling lifestyle even if you did it in the name of some other god or no god at all?” Comically, their response is usually an instinctive “no” but since it so self-evidently would be, it produces a level cognitive dissonance which I think is a thousand times more potent than the result of any logical debate would’ve been.
Bingo
And I a non christian would instantly answer - "ofcourse" - I mean thats why I would like to build a social club some day, the more inteligent you are the more lonly you are since fewer people can actually understand you. My religion doesnt involve any conversion, the only time you might realize Im a theist is if you suddenly realize that I mean it when I say things like "Laima has smiled upon you" or "Pērkons wills strike you down!" Im not just speaking in old timey language I am a man best destribed as a relic of a bygone age.
Brilliant!
If that is the case then why don't atheists achieve that kind of community cohesion? If you don't need common set of beliefs to form a community then why dont "book clubs" become substitutes for churches/mosques?
@@oma1899 I mean, in my opinion, purely because society is still so superstitious that there’s an inherent distrust of any non-religious gatherings. That’s why everything that gets even remotely popular ends up being accused of being a “cult” I think. Because religion is literally the only framework most people have been given to be able to understand community through.
It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy though. Some form of deism is assumed to be necessary for a functioning worldview because it’s seemingly been present in every worldview that’s been deemed “functional” throughout history because worldviews that don’t include the belief in some god have been systemically invalidated by that very assumption that deism is necessary. It’s circular.
It’s basically modern lightning. Before we understood electricity we just said Zeus tossed down bolts of magic. We see the results of a process we don’t understand yet and attribute it to the divine. We know that adhering to a religious lifestyle seems to more or less correlate with higher life satisfaction but we’re just assuming that’s because god beams down warm fuzzies as a reward for going to church. It might just be that religion is simply a really good excuse to live a healthy lifestyle for some people.
As a previous Christian, I think you hit the nail on the head! I grew up raised on a heavy belief in kindness before all else. My mom in particular, who I greatly respect, has always been the sort of person that Christians aspire to be, so I had an incredible role model when growing up. But as I grew up I noticed that the behaviors that were so idolized didn't really align with Christianity and preachings like "being above the world and not in it" or just the general incompatibility of recognizing someone was headed towards hell but treating them with kindness. I just felt like that rang hollow, and it was that disconnect that allowed me to see other arguments
@Bob Perry I don't entirely agree. It isn't needed, but maybe it's what works best for some of us.
There's certainly many problems in the world, but just as much as many are caused by non-believers, many are caused by believers and religious as well.
There are lots of benefits of religious thought, but also some beliefs that aren't good, it depends on the religion.
Religion isn't just flat out bad in my opinion, but just like anything else can be misused, and should be criticized when it does something "wrong" (or opposed to the speakers own sense of ethics)
Anyways, I'm an agnostic, and also an extremely ethical person. I take empathy very seriously, and care very deeply about others.
Mostly, I just want people to live good, happy, kind lives, and for people to not hurt one another, and otherwise to chase their dreams and help one another when they can.
Ironically enough, religion can be both one of the greatest helps and hinderances to that goal, depending on how it's used.
I don't think there really is one big solution to the worlds problems to be honest.
I think the solution is to do what you can with what you have, and let what else happens go how it will.
If you feel like your religion helps you cope with things, even if you aren't sure it's true, that's fine. Just don't be hard on people if that doesn't work for them. We're all a little different, as long as we treat each other right, that's a-ok by me. ^.^
@@lukelcs8934 if you’re agnostic about God, then are you also agnostic about the existence of “good” or the moral obligation to “not hurt others”?
@@paulburns6110 I do not believe in an objective, external definition of good, but that does not mean I do not believe in good.
To me, morality is a set of ideas or values you apply universally, to everyone, rather than being something the universe applies to us.
I am against hurting others, because seeing others hurt hurts me. I have empathy.
That is as much a feeling as it is a choice/conviction, and it's something most of us naturally have.
It's up to us how far we take it, or how we interpret it though, and personally I take it very seriously.
I want others to as well, or at least take it seriously enough that they don't hurt people too bad or often?
I'm not as obsessed with everyone sharing my ideals as many moral objectivists though.
My main bare minimum is to at least try to avoid maliciously hurting people if you can.
The finer details of what I expect from people is honestly a pretty complicated messy detailed subject, as morality always is.
But tldr: A higher power dictating down to you what you must or must not do, is not the only way to value morality. Personal conviction counts too.
@@lukelcs8934 thanks for your rather novel, peculiar & personally subjective feelings (and odd narrative) regarding morality and God’s role within it. However if I were to be agnostic about God, while proclaiming the existence of “good” (as you seem to faithfully assert), then please justifiably condemn me as a blithering fool. Hence as you’ve not satisfied your burdens of proof I shall logically reject your claims. Peace and God bless you.
@@paulburns6110 I never called you a fool, nor do I condemn you.
As long as you're not going around being a jerk to people, that's all I care about. If believing in God is good for you and your moral compass, that's fine with me.
I'm not really trying to spin a "narrative" either. Just giving my perspective based off my experience, and the way of thinking my brain cooks up.
That's all any of us can do really, unless we're lying to create a narrative.
Also, I think you're misunderstanding something. This isn't something I can "prove" because it's not a fact. It's an opinion. Opinions aren't something that are proven or unproven, they're things you agree or disagree with.
That is, if you're talking about my stance on morality.
You also might be talking about my stance on Gods existence, which is about facts, or my opinion on what we can know about certain factual ideas?
Not sure which one you're referring to, or if what I just said made much sense, but hope so, and feel free to clarify.
Anyways, hope you have a good day too, and if God is up there, I hope he blesses you. ^.^
An anecdote that supports some of your arguments. When the pandemic hit, I lost my sense of belonging and stopped many of the behaviors with the quarantine and services no longer being in person. This is what started me down the road of deconstruction my Christian faith.
This describes me exactly. I wonder how many more of us are quarantine deconstructions?
@@kenakofer it has apparently taken a huge hit on the Mormon church. In my area it went from nine congregations down to 5.
That's really interesting, thank you for sharing. I wish you luck in your deconstruction! ❤️
I was raised agnostic atheist so I am always very interested in hearing the perspective of people who were raised in a religion.
The closest I got to deconstruction was when my partner died, and I had to confront subconscious ideas I had about the world - nothing religious, more of a vague idea that the universe was benevolent and humans were at its centre (metaphorically speaking!)
I used to believe things like "if you're a good person, nothing really bad will happen", or "things happen for a reason", or "the universe won't send you more than you can handle".
Statements that are obviously ridiculous and illogical, but arose as defense mechanisms and sources of comfort and are extremely common amongst my family/peers.
Along with the grief, the death of my partner shook my worldview to the core and I really struggled to come to terms with the random, chaotic, uncaring nature of the universe, and the finite nature of our lives.
But as time went on, I realised that life being finite is what gives it meaning and purpose (at least to me.)
And it is very freeing to realise that nobody is watching us and manipulating things behind the scenes.. I also find the materialistic worldview gives me such a sense of awe and wonder, far greater than wooly spirituality ever did.
It also really drove home the importance of kindness, empathy, fighting injustice, and cooperating. After all, there is no God or kindly universe looking out for us! And if we all only get this one life, I strongly believe we have a responsibility to reduce suffering and inequality, and provide assistance when people are struggling.
It also led to veganism, once I realised that humans are not "special" compared to other animals.
I don't know where I am going with this other than to say that while it seems scary and distressing at first, atheist and materialist worldviews have actually enhanced my life, or at the very least helped me understand and come to terms with uncomfortable topics like mortality, or the uncaring nature of the universe.
Wishing you all the best on your journey! ❤️
I have heard that the same happened with the JWs. Not being forced into going doors to door and attend meeting and having their lives closely monitored led to many people waking up and leaving.
It exposed you as insincere. The lockdowns were wonderful for purifying the church so it can be more effective
This a very original idea for a video, and I completely agree with you. When I was an evangelical I didn't listen to apologists at all. It only became a hobby of mine after almost 10 years out of the faith. I know more about religion and theology now than I did when I was a Christian. I relied solely on my personal experience and the things I was taught when I was younger. So yes, I agree my faith and experiences came from the rituals I was taught in the first place.
This is the reason I like Drew so much. I like Rationality Rules and CosmicSkeptic, they have their place. I love a good philosophical discussion and an occasional apologist rant. But Drew and me lived similar lives. He seems to "get" christianity more than others, and hr knows how to talk about it with all the nuances it deserves.
Perhaps that's why you converted .
@@ramadadiver7810 OP says many things, what are you saying? I am unsure
@@SECONDQUEST
Sorry should of been more specific .
Perhaps the reason they converted is because they relied on their own personal experience .
Or perhaps because they didn't listen too apologists who give more reasons to be a Christian rather than personal experience ?
Not original, actually. Many others have pointed out that apologists' arguments seldom convert anybody, but they make the existing believers feel better about their belief.
My mom was raised Lutheran and she has actively admitted that she believes because it makes her feel better about the world and it makes her have a community. She never end to church alone, so she never went to church often. She bases her belief on personal experience and on the fact that she feels better about everything with faith
I converted for emotional reasons and I de converted for intellectual and emotional reasons
She is a very honest person it seems... unlike 90% of self declared christians you usually meet, especially in the comment sections.
@@Angelmou Well, honest to more or less the same degree as atheists... Just as most Christians don't want to admit that they believe because of personal experience first and foremost, but because they found it factually true, so do most atheists don't want to admit that they became atheists when they started to watch porn, and religions says it's a sin, so it makes them feel bad and they can't stand this internal inconsistency and come to conclusions - well I like it, but christians say is not good, so they must be wrong. Intellectual reasons usually come later as justification. It's as simple as that, most of the time.
P.s. this is just the illustration but I think idea is more or less clear.
I'm orthodox, I believe ONLY because of rational reasons.
Fact: atheism is an irrational and emotional position
@@Angelmou It is honest and also a much more liberating answer, humans are born into a world that imposes no clear purpose on us so we are perfectly free to consciously decide to believe things simply because they make us happier. I think more people should realize that we have the complete power to shape our own beliefs and actively use it for their own benefit instead of submitting to the authority of others.
@@hedgehog3180 i agree
But imo this video was just like:
Yeah let's make fun of christians by calling them stupid without saying word stupid while saying "yeah Jesus did not ressurect from the dead, end of the debate!"
that's what i hear all the time and that's what i heard here
Nothing like
"Go search on yourself, then you will see"
Just like christians do
Like bro
most common thing christians say is:
"Don't trust my word, go do YOUR OWN research"
What this video says?
Oh well you don't need any research because their arguments are personal and irrevelent therefore no need to read reasons about "why jesus did not ressurect" or anything like that
All you need to do
is to give more RELIABLE evidence that jesus did not rose from the dead
that's all you gotta do
You can't find any?
oh im so sorry sir, but christians have to seem to HAVE A LOT of these
Of course what i encouredge you is to search on your own
both arguments pro Jesus as well as con Jesus rising from the dead
Then compare these 2 and make what one can call a "rational" choice
No rational choice without comparing arguments from both sides...
Both christians AND atheists need to understand it
I am sure you get comments like this every day, but I wanted to say thank you! I deconverted about three years ago. and you and Alex were huge influences during that time and helped me normalize what was happening to me. Just wanted you to know!
.
You got off the track. You will get lost in the jungle.
@@jesussrique no no
@@pythondrink Yes yes.
@@jesussrique no no. But let's be a little productive. Prove God or Jesus exists.
This is a really important point. Experts in cult or extremist group deprogramming seem to agree that rational argumentation alone is essentially useless; it's developing a relationship of trust with an outsider(s) previous to such conversations that's much more likely to pull someone out, i.e. creating "belonging" situations external to the silo.
That makes sense for isolationist cults, but most apologists come from religions whose normal members have normal levels of interaction with people outside their group.
@@NovaSaber go read up on Steven Hassan. Very few compound cults exist. The methods the original poster here said are based on psychology of how a family member can help someone out who has fallen in with a cult. Even the most hardcore- like the moonies, Mormons and jehovahs witnesses do not cut off all contact with everyone outside. In fact, they are the ones doing the door to door proselytizing
@@NovaSaber Mainline Christianity may not encourage its members to be physically separate from the world but, very commonly, they are emotionally and personally removed from the world around them. Like yeah they interact with everyone else, but they don't be vulnerable open up and share an intimate personal connection with people outside of their Church
@@DJHastingsFeverPitch why are you talking like that’s strange? You don’t open up that way to people you know are hostile to you,r beliefs either
How do you have a rational discussion with Irrational people
I was still a Christian when I started watching debates, and, watching Christians like William Lane Craig left me questioning why the evidence for Christianity was so bad. Debates have helped numerous people realise their beliefs aren't true. It might not be immediate but it definitely leaves an impact.
For me, learning about the brain and how experiences like the holy spirit and interacting with God were explained naturally, was probably the biggest blow to my beliefs.
So not only are arguments for God not important, they are counterproductive.
Same, the realization that my mind could be having experiences that weren't authentically God, really had me questioning. Particularly so when is had those "in the wilderness" moments where I felt apart from God despite my faith. I saw how Christians would criticize Buddhists for "working themselves into a mind state", yet they failed to recognize that worship services and altar calls do the very same thing. Brains are interesting in what they can create.
Why does a scientific explanation remove the need for God? They aren’t mutually exclusive and wouldn’t it make the most sense that God would cause things to happen with a scientific explanation so that we can at least attempt to understand it?
@@elihintz5620 It more so put God in a question box, that I couldn't be absolutely certain I was interfacing with the Christian God, and not "working myself up" into a spiritual state. That lack of certainty moved what little faith I had into a more honest agnostic frame. Coincidentally, it was from Christians that I learned about the mind states and how people can enter them.
I think the question of "which God, and what system" came up too. The very fact that other religions with their iterations of deities existed, indicated to me that folks found something in them. Though even that left me in the same agnostic frame.
@@elihintz5620 what do you mean by "need for God"? Because, I don't see anybody claiming that science and the need for gods as I intend it are incompatible. In fact, the first can very well explain the second in principle, and in part this has been done already.
I've engaged in various debates about theology since starting an agnostic and atheist student group in college in the mid 90's. For me, I've never really expected to convince the person with whom I'm engaging in discussion. Instead, it's more motivated toward providing an inoculant against religion for any listening (or reading) who may not be aware of the criticisms of various arguments for god or the fallacies that are frequently used in their justifications. I agree that for most Christians, at least most of those that I've encountered, the foundation of their faith seems much more to be rooted in belonging than in the reasons for particular beliefs. But there are people, and more all the time, that are simply not engaged in the topic. And if they find themselves _only_ listening to believers providing reasons to believe, they could get pulled into a community they might avoid if they'd been provided with that inoculation in the counter arguments.
I was a Fundamentalist who deconverted to Agnosticism. Then I observed and studied science both natural and social, religions, and philosophy. I ended up knowing that humans didn't invent gods, they've discovered there's one. I believe the universe is fine tuned to give rise to beings who could do that. Through Observable evidence, you can see the universe saw it coming. We know there is a god/spiritual order, we don't know what or who. And that's where faith comes in
@@UN1VERS3SYou are struggling with logic. If you belief in something and wrap your life and behavior around those beliefs without any evidence for the truth of it, that is irrationality.
@@UN1VERS3S Provide that evidence then. This universe is more than 99.999% completely inhospitable even if you assume that EVERY planet has the potential for intelligent life, simply due to all the empty space and large celestial objects where there's no chance of life ever forming. Even on Earth, most of it is places that humans were not meant to survive in, like the oceans or deserts or arctic. How can anyone think we live in a universe fine tuned for our survival?
Thank you for doing that. I'm religious and really enjoy engaging in those sorts of debates/conversations not to convince eachother of our own views, but as 2 people pursuing ultimate truth wherever that may lead us. The humble pursuit of truth, especially among two intellectually honest people with widely different first principals, is among the highest levels of human interaction. I also agree that anyone who observes such discussions benefits from exposure to new arguments and a higher application of logic than you get in an echo chamber, whether that chamber is atheistic or theistic.
Only thing I can say is that, when I didn't believe, life was so boring, so flat. By believing, nothing was taken away, it was just elevated to some new heights. I wouldn't ever want to slide back into that mundane boredom.
This video really opened my eyes. For quite a while, I couldn't figure out why so many Christians I know seem disinterested in thinking about whether their belief is logical or not. This video made me remember that, although I'd had my doubts for many years, what ultimately made me leave the faith was not actually intellectual arguments (although they eventually solidified my position as an atheist). What made me leave Christianity was being bisexual (something I tried and failed to change, which was shamed by my church) and the covid pandemic making me stay home from church for over a year. Try as I did to maintain my faith, feeling like an outcast in my own religion and living for a while without constantly having my faith externally reinforced was enough that finally, I gave in to the fact that my religion didn't actually make any sense to me.
This was a really good one. I've reached that conclusion before that debating the existence of gods really only has meaning between theists and atheists because theists don't typically explore it unless challenged. I've yet to meet a theist who said "Well, I used to be an atheist, but then I heard the `Kalam Cosmological Argument` and *poof* I was a believer!"
I am dead. DEAD. You have killed me. 💯🤣
Bro there are a bunch of those types of videos flooding youtube, if you havent heard them it is probably because you don't look for them
@@Samuel-qc7kg yeah they're usually titled "from new age crystal-lover to christianity: I almost d*ed before being saved" or something to that effect
Of course Gary Habermas claims there are many instances of professional historians who were non-believers until they studied the historical evidence for the resurrection and then converted. I believe that claim is still not substantiated however.
@@crystalleyvonne818 If you believe those are all there are ypu still havent seen the bunch of videos talking about it
When I was an evangelical, I became an evangelical before I knew any arguments about God. I was just raised in that church, in that family, in Texas, and the arguments came later. But I did find the arguments important, because I was just naturally an intellectually curious person and I didn't want to believe things "just because." So I was interested in apologetics from a young age, and I attended religious conferences as young as age 11 or 12 that discussed apologetics, and I took copious notes on the Ontological arguments, the Moral argument, the Teleological argument, etc. And I felt they were compelling, because they were presented by people with PhDs. in Theology, and there were no atheists around to give the counterargument -- it was a lecture, not a debate. So I was content with that for a while, thinking that my faith was grounded in something intellectual and "real," for lack of a better term. But in high school, I went on a mission trip to Trinidad, and I tried some of these arguments on other people, some atheists and some from other religions, and they simply didn't work. Atheists had counterarguments I'd never heard before, and other religions just said "well I could make the same argument for my religion." That shook me. And as I got into college, I started to look into apologetics more, and really dig into the history and science and philosophy of my religious beliefs, and I came away feeling like all the reasons I had for believing weren't very good at all, and all I had left was faith. And I thought that wasn't enough, because if there are no other good reasons, you could just take anything on faith, which is what I thought other religions did. So I became an atheist. But my parents are still deeply religious, and my mother tried very hard to "re-convert" me from my atheism. She tried to make several of the arguments to me that I'd tried on other people, and of course I knew the rebuttals, and when we'd discussed how each and every argument had some type of flaw, she said, "Well you just have to have faith." And I said, No I don't. And that's really the difference between myself and my parents. I was a curious person, always eager to learn, who was religious first because I was told to be but second because I really thought the reasons were good. When I found out they weren't good, and I was old enough to decide for myself what I ought and ought not to believe, I decided I didn't believe. But they are not intellectually curious, they don't like to read or learn or think very hard, so they were never religious for any reasons that even purported to be based on logic. That's why I got out and they stay in. I think making videos about apologetics is important because there are people like me out there actually trying to find the truth, but I agree that most religious people just don't really care that much about the arguments and are religious for wholly separate reasons.
I'm glad you found your way out and into logic. I think people's innate fear of death and the unknown in general is a primary factor in prompting belief in a god claim. Those claims are very attractive, offering very attractive rewards and a serious downside for disbelief. The "answers" they provide are immediately reassuring, requiring no objective or intellectual analysis, let alone any logical or empirical evidence.
Not everyone, probably relatively few, are truth seekers.
@@_Omega_Weapon ,.I was a Christian when I started having some doubts, and looked for rational argumentation however the irony is that most apologetics videos open a whole can of worms of so many things that christianity needs to defend like the problem of evil, the divine hiddenness problem, the problem of hell, the problem of so many other religions, the problem of divine will on salvation and so many other, I truly think that it definitely will make you reconsider religion, I´ll say that arguments for "god" are not important but arguments against the existence are the ones that are challenging to the faith of the believer.
@@a.39886 Reconsider how or in what way? I was also a believer for a time.
@@_Omega_Weapon reconsider that a particular religion in the true one, I don´t believe that a "god" exist but when I talk with a believer a focus on why their particular version of god in their religion is most probably false, with the problem of evil, divine hiddenness, hell, salvation, etc, I say almost everyone has no care of a deism type of god they need the religion god and that's why you direct for arguments against Christianity not for the existence of "god".
As someone who was a born again Christian, I never belonged in a Christian community. One time I went to a church for 3 months and no one ever spoke to me. I felt closer to God in a forest than in a community or building. I don't know why I never fitted. I am now a Pagan and have been for years. My turning point is that if there was such an almighty powerful entity, Children should NOT be dying of Cancer. I worship Nature - at least I can prove it exists.
What? That makes zero sense. Because God is almighty children shouldn't die of cancer? That's very silly I highly doubt that you were a born again christian because the fundamental doctrine for being born again is that you be born of spirit so that when you do die that you dont die along with your earthen vessel. Death is certain because of sin. Whether you are a child with cancer or a old person with cancer.
This video surprisingly parallels my social psychology of cults class. We just went over peripheral and central processing, which explains how groups such as cults can convince people to join them rather quickly, using techniques such as fear, judgement day, the afterlife, and a sense of belonging to give the illusion that their decision needs to be immediate in order to instill panic and anxiety into potential members. Peripheral processing is the use of these techniques and loaded language, aka propaganda or buzz words, as to create a powerful emotion in a person. The longer a person dwells in a cult, the more their language is changed and the more dependent they become on the group. Isolation is casted as the leaders tell members that outsiders are dangerous or that trying to reason with them is impossible as they can't understand your logic, which we compared to a larger scale example which would be when government tell their people that no other country eats as well as they do, or lives as luxurious as they do.
Peripheral processing also has the intended effect known as "Doubling" where essentially a person is deprogrammed from themselves and reprogrammed into an obedient husk or a true believer, usually using thought cohesion or "Brainwashing", but this effect is very shallow and requires constant reinforcement, or else their members will begin to engage in critical thinking and revert back to their genuine selves. This is why when the pandemic hit, many religious people began to divert from religion, as they stopped regularly visiting church and gained moments of clarity, whuch in turn allowed them to exercise their actual selves. Similar events occur during moments of crisis' and acts of humility.
I'm not saying religions are cults, but what I am saying is that many religious people are simply religious because that's how they were brought up, usually forced to act a certain way by domineering parents who pressured their own religion onto their children, which created said "doubling" effect. Thus, when said children grow up, they're more likely to leave the church during events such as a pandemic or when they move away because they've distanced themselves from people who were forcing them to be religious. Ofcourse said events can also have the opposite effect, people who have been doubled have two possible options when faced with opposition, either they begin to critically think or delve deeper into their religion, doubling down, which can lead the way for these people to obtain more radical views, especially if pressured by others.
Religions like Christianity and Islam are cults. They're merely ones that have existed for a long time and are considered socially acceptable.
As a Christian, I had a difficult time with behavior and wasn’t really interested in belonging. I found the behavioral part to be tedious and unfruitful. I also had a tough time relating with most of the people in the churches I went to, so I never had a sense of belonging. All I really had was my belief. And in the beginning I expected my beliefs to have some demonstrable power. After years of study and pursuit, my beliefs weren’t being reinforced with anything real. This ate away at me and I found my faith less and less relevant in my life to the point I finally had to ask myself if I still believed and the answer came as a resounding no. The journey that took me to my atheism lasted 20 years.
Thanks for sharing your story. It's nice to encounter people who shared a similar path. My faith just went all Ouroboros toward the end. After asking myself whether all the ways that I had been living "by faith" were indistinguishable from doing those same things like "the world," I came to a bitter conclusion. No, no there was not.
Belief in the Father does not grant you some demonstrable power, it is simply that, a belief. Much like a set of moral codes that you impose upon yourself, but with the reference of a Supreme Creator to validate that way of life at the end of days. There is a 99.999% chance that your life will be mundane and even filled with some human suffering and worldliness. Heck, even the apostles, saints, and even the only begotten Son dies gruesome deaths at the hands of the World, and nobody was there to save them. But what did they do? They defended their faith, they did not abandon their belief in YHUH, even as some of them were being stoned to death or being crucified. My point is, no matter what happens, do not lose your faith no matter what smart declarations atheists say. Do not cast the pearl of great price just because someone else says it has no value.
@@foodeater1236 Your pardon - John 14:12. Do you see ANY useful, long term function, to it, today?
And if Torquemada, Paul III, Calvin and others had ever, been required to DEMONSTRATE such, before making policies, for other Christians - then would they have passed so easily? And enjoyed such lassitude as Romans 13:1, and similar verses, seem to imply?
It's easy for the privileged to say they should judge according to the 'fruit' of the policies or the ones making them - but when you cannot see it coming yet, or even READ much of the scripture expounded to you, by others, or circumscribed, by them - then how can you so easily assess those placed 'over' you? Over in a way similar to how a 'pastor' is defined by Timothy?
@@chrissonofpear1384 do you believe in Elohim?
@@foodeater1236 Singular or plural?
It was a search for truth that originally drove me away from christianity. I then spent the next decade looking for a religion that could be reconciled with reality and my own sense of morality. During this time I discovered more about myself while rooting out all the programming that I picked up from my surroundings. Ultimately, it was an emotional argument that finally drove me away from faith completely.
Truth seekers will usually find their way out imo. They just get uncomfortable with all the papering over of problems in the bible etc. Then they decide to go outside the "bubble" and look for more answers. But honestly, most people are not truth seekers. Those people don't want to challenge what they are told, they just want to belong and be comfortable.
Well you probably didn’t look into presup
For a religion, Buddhism has some pretty reasonable observations at its core. Many forms and cultural inflections of Buddhism have developed over the millennia, so you have the opportunity (and the inconvenience) of trying them on to see whether any are a good fit.
Don't be too put off if your first couple of examinations are disappointing. Unfortunately the most popular forms of Buddhism in the West also happen to be some of the more extravagant. Zen goes in the opposite direction, rigorously stripping away everything superfluous, indeed to the point of seeming cryptic, though that is also its particular beauty.
More recently, a secular Buddhist movement has begun to take form. This ought to be very interesting to follow. But it's still finding its way, and to my mind is still caught in a few doctrinal issues that don't comport well with science or methodological naturalism. Some secular Buddhists consider these essential, while others are willing to let them go, but here they are at any rate, in decreasing order of importance:
1) The law of karma. The point of contention here is whether karma is simply what we observe as physical causality or whether it has ineffable magical properties. Karma is important in the sense that other explanations rest on it, so I think that practicing Buddhists ought to establish for themselves as a basic exercise which sort of karma they're talking about.
2) Rebirth. Like karma, this idea was a given within the Vedic tradition from which Buddhism arose, and so the early teachings are peppered with occasional references to it. But because it's also distinguished from reincarnation, we may understand it metaphorically. I don't regard it as doctrinally important enough to worry about, but except as an oblique metaphor it certainly doesn't comport with science. And yet I've seen many secular Buddhists clinging to a literal idea of rebirth, never mind the problems of twins and so on.
3) Saddha, sometimes translated as confidence and other times as faith. Religious faith is extremely problematic, as you have discovered for yourself, and moreover it's often rationalized through a kind of equivocation fallacy. For example, having "faith" that the sun wil rise in the morning is fine, therefore so is Peter Pan telling you that you can fly, if you just have "faith." The uses of the the Pali term saddha tend toward the former meaning, but then why bring it up as a special thing at all? On the other hand it seems not to be doctrinally important at all. It seems more like how to cultivate an ability to persevere through rough patches in life, in other words pragmatic, rather than doctrinal. But it pushes buttons for me, and you're best to keep an eye on it. Nothing in Buddhism should need to be taken on faith. It's all empirical, available by direct observation. That qualifies it as scientific, at least potentially.
@@cosmictreason2242 @Dan Razzell
Plase note, this is not a rant, simply an elaboration on my original point. Please do not apply any tone to it, as it was written an neutrally as possible.
What part of a decade long active search for truth through religion makes you think I never encountered these concepts? Even before I left christianity, I spent years trying to find ways to bridge the gap, including listening to the arguments and rebuttals others put forth. To be honest, I searched hundreds of sources ranging across most, probably not all the nuances and denominations, theologies. So many that when I finally left faith behind I was giving away books for years to people who were still interested. I also spent time discussing religion with my friends, some of whom are still christians and still friends. We always enjoyed exploring the depths of a concept through discourse, and still do. Please don't assume that your particular brand is uniquely unknown to me and is the key to my enlightenment, by your standards.
@@gmgurp6666 Oh wow, just read your elaboration on your original point... I got a lot of that kind of reaction too. I've been looking into different religions for several decades now and none of them seem to pan out. After considering so many religions out there I think it's just human nature to believe in the spiritual. Otherwise you have to face the fact that humanity is alone on a ball of rock hurtling through space. There is no god looking out for us when mom and dad are gone and our turn to go is coming.
I deconverted in my early forties and have had the exact same reflection. I spoke to so many Christian friends about why they believe, and it always came back to personal experience, never logic or reason. My own faith was based on the fact that I felt most comfortable within the framework of christianity, until I no longer felt that way. I generally think that debating these types of issues is pointless, but one benefit I do see is to help along those who are already deconverting. For someone who is looking for a different perspective, these debates can surely be very beneficial. My own deconstruction consists mainly of listening to the thoughts and observations of others who have deconverted.
You listened to the wrong crowds and they brainwashed you.
I believe you're in a Fundamentalist religions, since those who benefited from a good religion, would practice tolerance and continue having their beliefs.
But faith isnt about logic or reason? Its about being hopeful against all logic. Faith isn’t rational, its blind and unprovable/disprovable.
So what? Of course it's about experience. I don't remember reading apostles writing philosophical tracts or logical statements about Jesus Christ. They testified their experience and the faith is simpli whether you believe those testimonies or not.
Regarding some logic and philosophical arguments, you can, at best, come to conclusions about some foundational reality but in no way would that reality have to be personal or God or anything that cares about humans.
I've honestly always found that arguing with others about their metaphysical beliefs just isn't worth it. 99% of the time neither of you will learn anything, convince the other of something, or have a pleasant time. It's honestly a really good way of ruining relationships.
Or a good way to filter out delusional people that are not open minded and cannot form healthy relationships anyway.
True - When the god topic comes up in a social setting, I usually get as far as saying, "I don't intend to offend anybody when I say that I don't believe in God ...", and people start straightening their coats and looking at their watches. Unfortunately, the mere breaching of this topic tends to bring evenings to an early end.
As a clinical psychologist I find this video to be very insightful. I don't think it's a coincidence that I deconverted when I was first studying things such as emotional priming and biases, since it led me to take a step back and analyse my own conversion (bonding and behavior, hello! I converted after 7 intense of bible camp and emotional worhsip as a young teen!) Understanding human psychology and our innate desire for social connection and community explains so much about why, throughout history, humans have been drawn to religion. Things like group rituals are really powerful and affect out brains in a way that makes us feel a part of something bigger than ourselves. It's actually something I recommend seeking out in a non-religious setting, since these experiences are beneficial in a individualistic society prone for loneliness (for example synchronized dances in groups or singing together - there's interesting research how quickly things like that create bonding experiences and improve the mood!)
I would also recommend looking into bonding/attachment and the way Christians describe God as the ultimate parental figure: all loving, caring, knowing, always there for you etc. Really interesting to consider our continued need to feel securely attached and what the christian God is supposed to offer! No wonder that people who convert to Christianity from other or no religious backgrounds tend to be going through a rough time and might be very much in need of community and feelings of attachment to someone who can't fail them.
Better Christianity than a death cult, or something along those lines, I suppose.
I wish more people who ran churches were less like Frollo and more like Mr. Rogers...
Thanks for your insight. I do agree about the ultimate parental figure, and ironically, become a parent myself made me take a second look at god 'the father'. Talk about a poor role model for being a parent.
I can see how the experience of parenthood would make one more aware of the idea of god as the father! I read somewhere once that it is interesting that many Christians, when praying or worshipping, raise their hands up toward the sky/God. The auther compared it to a small child who wants to be picked up and taken care of by a parent. Not really a scientific take but an interesting observation!
@@HOLDENPOPE I guess it totally depens on the individual church/group. As I said, I don't consider the bonding element of religions and traditions as something negative in and of itself. It's when it leads to uncritical group thinking, bigotry and an us vs them mentality when it starts to become dangerous. And individuals might have a hard time leaving the group because of the bonding experiences.
I hope to be a psychiatrist but I don’t think I could treat people who believe in a god. How do you approach those patients?
I'm a Christian and I love your videos. I can't stand apologetics and how it launders faith as reason or scientific/historical fact. Acting as though one can "prove" God is so hubristic, when now more than ever Christians need to learn how to act with humility and grace.
I wish I knew more Christians like you
Thanks for showing humility in your comment, for showing that you know how bad many Christians are making it for everyone else around them today. They might be real Christians, they might not be, but I feel like if they followed your example, they would spread more order and less chaos.
I was born a highly skeptical agnostic. Despite being surrounded by extended family that practiced one form of Christianity or another my parents (father was a Mormon until 18, mother some form of Protestant until 18) did not practice a faith nor did they forbid me from exploring. My earliest memories at around 6 years old were going to a Catholic mass with my Italian great grandmother and being a bit in awe while simultaneously very uncomfortable. A few years later I would often watch televangelists like the PTL Club for entertainment. Even at 8 years old I could see how ridiculous and fake these people were. I have read extensively on religion and philosophy and have spent time in Zen Buddhist retreats. My conclusion about humanity vis a vis religion is that it is a particular psychological profile that really needs to believe in a God. These are the "true believers". The rest of the "faithful" I consider to be fair weather believers who enjoy the social/financial/romantic/ benefits of church and for whom the deeper spiritual aspects are secondary or even non-existent. The other psychological type simply does not feel or need a "God". We find fulfillment in life via other avenues and develop an alternative rational for moral living.
It is a strange experience living as a skeptical agnostic in a country like the USA where Christianity is so pervasive. It has become even more insane recently with the role of Evangelical extremists in our present political problems. The reality is that I've had numerous debates with Christians attempting to convert me. It always ends the same; at an impasse. In the end, what's important is how we live our lives rather than the personal beliefs that motivate us. For this I don't spend energy attempting to argue someone out of their religious beliefs. I prefer to endeavor to build bridges wherever possible and to find common ground. Thanks for being one of the "good Christians".
thank you
I am an agnostic atheist. My wife is born again Christian. I am so overwhelmed and grateful that she is very much of the same mind as you. I am truly and wholly accepted and loved by her.
Know that there are other Christians out there like you. You are one of the good ones.
I engage in a lot of debate and discussion here on youtube and elsewhere with apologists, and I do it mainly because they annoy me with such bad arguments and with the blatant distortion of facts and truth, both historical and scientific. But that's about the extent of my emotion towards it, annoyance.
My wife on the other hand gets FIRED UP about apologists and all of the fundie and Evangelical circles that like to try to reason people to God. She is very aware that they do a major disservice to the normal, calm, loving, accepting, and genuine Christians out there.
Honestly one of the most enlightening videos I've seen. It explains to me why it feels as if the two groups aren't speaking on the same topics at all. It falls into the idea that one is speaking logic, while the other is speaking emotions. A: 1+1=2! B: But I don't like math...
Emotions are a big part of life. They define values more than logic does. Otherwise nobody would care about the distribution of the primes, which is a big focus of mathematics right now. Goldbach's conjecture has little practical value but A LOT of emotional value.
For me, it is emotions, but more than just "I don't like math"
A: Your life doesn't matter because the universe will die lol B: Please I just want to matter
@@awesium4077 I find that atp it is just better for us to make our own meaning and simply do the things that we enjoy and live with that (without hurting others enjoyment ofc)
I call those emotions tribal instincts.
I love those two cooperating. They're so different, and this seems an uneasy alliance, yet so satisfying to me, as I apparently long for both approaches. Their fusion would give us the ultimate skeptic.
I stayed in the church for 20 years beyond losing faith because it is where my family is. It has only been the last couple years that I've shared honestly with people. You really helped me understand that it wasn't just cowardice that kept me there.
Wow. I only spent a few years in the church after losing my faith. Helped that most of my friends in our home church moved away, and we eventually left because of some problems with leadership. So the "new" church I was going to when I well and truly realized I was no longer a believer wasn't a huge part of my life, but I still had friends there and was still deeply involved with the worship ministry. The Big R gave me a good reason to step back.
I've only "come out" as it were to my wife and my mother. I am still working on being honest with people about who I really am, and man, it really is a struggle.
Out of curiosity, how easy did you find it to tell those who are close to you, be it immediate family or close friends?
@@nasonguy you’re going the wrong direction you need to read the Bible because God does pay 40 orders. He’s left so much evidence that you and everybody else are without excuse!
MAPPSSD manuscript and archaeology evidence proves the Bible stories were not made up!
27% of the Bible prophecy God’s really sticking his neck out to get it cut off he’s wrong, but he hasn’t been wrong about the past prophecies so he won’t be wrong about the future ones either !
You cannot outsmart the Bible for God not to throw you in hell for all eternity; you cannot come up w one good excuse here & now so you won’t be able to On judgment day!
And there’s much much more science proves the Bible true ,the probability of 40 writers writing it with zero Margin of deviation DNA etc. etc.
@@nasonguy Man i wish you the best of luck. Your story touched me as it is very close to what my parents went through. One being catholic and the other protestant they were both excommunicated when they fell in love and married. With both sides of the family basically not want to have to do anything with them anymore. They had to move away and lost contact with almost everyone including friends. It took them years to find new friends or some community. But they did and are very happy now and raised me as non-religious. To this day there is family that i have never met.
With this i want to say that even if things go really wrong like it did for my parents. Even than there is light at the end of the tunnel. Its the people around you that matter and that they love you for who you are and not what faith position you have. Stick close to them and fuck the rest. They are not important to you and neither is their opinion. I am ever thankful for the struggle my parents went though so i didn't have too. Best of luck to you!
I have deconverted from evangelical fundamentalism, but I am still a Christian. Evangelical fundamentalism is only about 200 years old, while Christianity as a religion is 2,000 years old and is much bigger, richer, and more diverse than the narrow-minded version of Christianity that I grew up with.
@@aidanya1336 Thank you for the kind words. We are in a less than ideal place right now, especially with out stepping away aligning with the pandemic, haha. But I know we’ll pull through.
My faith was first shaken by the challenge of an atheist in college. I can't even remember what they said, but it gave me doubt. I didn't reject it right away, but became what I consider agnostic. Then eventually I started watching debates, and found atheist's arguments far more convincing. So, I don't think you will convince the one you are debating, but others in the crowd who question their faith could be convinced, and not just by your argument, but your willingness to question, and scrutinize.
This is a very strong point !! It is important to hear other ideas openly and reasonably expressed !!
@BlandSeahorse I went from being a theist, to an agnostic, which to me at the time meant I was unsure, to an atheist, which to me does not mean I can prove there is no god, because you can't prove a negative. It just looks to me that gods and religions are inventions of humans, and I don't see any compelling evidence for a god, so I don't believe.
@BlandSeahorse I feel like I always bring this up somewhere when people make these comparisons. Gnosticism is mainly focused on what you think you can know. Theism is focused on what you believe in. Both are similar but not quite the same. You can be an agnostic atheist. Which means I don't believe and I don't think it's possible to know given the current knowledge we have. You could also be a gnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist or even an gnostic theist in your beliefs. There's way more to these words than surface level and it won't be long til some one else says the same thing. But you can disbelieve and still say it's unknowable for now.
I was a Fundamentalist who deconverted to Agnosticism. Then I observed and studied science both natural and social, religions, and philosophy. I ended up knowing that humans didn't invent gods, they've discovered there's one. I believe the universe is fine tuned to give rise to beings who could do that. Through Observable evidence, you can see the universe saw it coming. We know there is a god/spiritual order, we don't know what or who. And that's where faith comes in
Been waiting for someone to talk about this. A personal experience trumps reasonable explanations. Understanding this improves conversations with believers. Good job
I see a few problems within this specific topic:
First of all, not everything in life has its basis in reason, that's fairly obvious, but a lot of people seem to think that everything SHOULD have its basis in reason or rationality. That's just as short-sighted as saying that all sensory input that reaches you through your eyes is solid and real, while sensory input that reaches you through your ears is delusional and can be dismissed. We just have different channels of perception, and that's a good thing to get a more complete and nuanced impression of our surroundings.
Likewise, we shouldn't assume that everything we perceive through our mind is solid and "correct", but we can dismiss anything that reaches us through other channels, like emotion, intuition, inspiration, because those things are just "subjective" and therefore not real. That's a common, but serious mistake.
So, arguing for your faith is a bit like explaining why you fell in love with a certain person, or why you're fascinated with, say, playing football or collecting stamps or whatever. Usually, the fascination comes first and THEN you can find rational arguments for what you specifically like about this person or hobby. I know, that last point you already adressed, but I find it important to stress that it's totally justified to be fascinated by something without having a rational basis first.
Let's say we actually found a solid scientific proof for the existence of God: Would that turn all people into believers? I bet not. If you're not directly concerned or especially fascinated by something, it has no impact on your life. So, in this sense I agree: Arguments for God are not important, and they don't change anything. They're just as irrelevant as a scientific proof of God's existence would be.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm a Christian, but absolutely not for the main reasons you argue here. Neither belonging nor behaviour are essential. When I became a Christian, I was a total outsider. I have belonged to different congregations over the course of time, I have been engaging in ritual behaviour regularly, irregularly and not at all. Nothing of that had a decisive impact on my faith. My basis has never been a special spiritual experience (though I've had some), nor the belonging to a specific group, nor a specific doctrine, nor a specific behaviour. None of that, never. My basis has always been a constant fascination. Of course that's also anecdotical and doesn't prove anything, but I'm also not trying to prove anything, so I'm fine with that.
It was sort of surprising that you directly talked about the legitimacy that Christains get from debate, but never directly mentioned the legitimacy that nontheists/atheists get from debate. It's not uncommon for someone raised in belief to find the idea of an atheist absurd and idiotic. I think your conversation with the cosmic skeptic almost said it directly that part of the reason to engage in debate for the atheist is to gain legitimacy in the eyes of theists, and to engage in the "primary warrant" of their (non)belief. This is valuable, because while as you say most people will likely not change their minds on argumentation, I believe it is extremely evident a significant portion will deconvert if they no longer have the perception of rationality on their side. Why else would the reactive, sophisticated arguments of apologetics to maintain belief... exist? In my view, providing the chance for theists to recognize the rationality of "the other" gives a bridge to cross instead of a cliff to dive off of when moving away from their faith, metaphorically speaking.
This is a really good point. I think sometimes there's a tendancy to think, "well my side is obviously the rational one, so debating only shares my legitimacy with the other side." When you notice and examine that, it doesn't work for every subject of debate.
An interest in apologetics and a willingness to use them, and therefore some exposure to counter-apologetics, helped me convert from Christianity. I was ready to leave for emotional reasons, but I was able to leave because I already had a decent grasp on how the world could make sense without any gods. I'd seen it explained, bit by bit, over various debates. I had the mental tools to see how belief could be harmful in theory, so when it harmed me in real life, I was eventually able to describe that to myself. Without atheists willing to engage apologists, that would have been an even harder process for me.
I think there's also the concern regarding the optics of the other direction. Apologists love to portray atheists as smug, condescending know-it-alls. If you refused to debate a religious person because "Religion is about matters of faith and community, not reason, and that won't change your mind, so there's no point in debating with you," no matter how true and nuanced that claim ultimately is, it would still play into their hands by allowing them to paint you as a "smug atheist who is afraid to defend their position."
I don't know that this is an easy question to answer. I think having ground rules and agreed definitions for a debate is a good step in the right direction. For instance, you could easily ask what would make the other person decide that their interlocutor has won the debate as a precondition for setting the debate up in the first place. For you, or for an intellectually honest theist, this is not terribly hard to answer, even if the burden you set might be too high for either of you to reach; but for someone who is like Craig or Kent Hovind or Frank Turek, where NOTHING will EVER change their minds (according to them), they won't be able to answer this question because it isn't possible for them to ever conceive of the other side coming out ahead. This puts them on the spot and makes them seem unreasonable if they won't define what they mean by God or state whether they can be persuaded in any way.
Agreed, and for those like my sheltered younger self, watching debates is the only time you actually see those fire-breathing monsters known as "atheists".
100% agree :)
well put, I agree 👍
In the rare case you don't hear/read this enough... Thank you for your video/work here. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.
I had been deconstructing for a while but your channel is what finally pushed me over the edge into deconversion. Thanks
I think the fact that arguments bring VERY few people into their faith is a pretty good indicator that they don't work except as a retention tool.
One who loves tacos: I doubt your Very few claim, however it would still be worth the effort from God's perspective even if one lost sheep returns, all of heaven rejoices in each case.
@@williamrice3052 If you have a verifiable example, please provide it.
@@williamrice3052
I have met MANY Christians over the course of my life.
I have never heard ANY of them say that they became Christian because of arguments like the Kalam or the teleological.
The vast majority were born to Christian parents, were raised to be Christian, and so still are Christians.
The rest were converts because of emotional reasons.
The only people I ever hear claim to have been converted by arguments are apologists and random people on the internet.
So I feel pretty confident in my opinion that very few people convert to or become Christian because of arguments.
If you have study that documents how people become Christian, share it and I'll take a look at it.
I've long thought this about Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis, The Ark Encounter, and all of that tomfoolery. Especially with how hard AiG has been going with their videos the last couple years. It all really seems like it's all geared toward making hardline fundamentalists feel validated and rational in their beliefs.
I don't think they want to admit that out loud, because they consistently put on this air of the scientific community being in shambles over some new discovery, or that any rational person will immediately convert upon seeing this new bit of evidence, and endlessly on it goes.
@@iluvtacos1231 Born in to a christian family here. Lived a few decades believing. I sought out apologetics at first to try to Win Souls for the Kingdom. My ex evangelical homies know what I mean... Then I got REALLY into apologetics primarily as a way to try to rationalize my belief and make it make sense.
Yep, I used to be a Catholic priest, and the last thing I’d want is to take someone’s faith away from them. I just spent five days at a hospital (and would have died had the EMT not taken me to the hospital), and a neighbor just told me this morning that she prayed for me while I was in the hospital. So I thanked her even though I don’t believe it had anything to do with my health getting stabilized in the hospital.
@Heather Petersen I just had enough of their games.
I'm sure the scandal of little boys getting buggerd didn't help.
We’ve been catholic free for 500 years, don’t act like you’re the first one to figure out that religion’s rotten. You have YET to encounter real Christianity. Rejecting the Bible because you were in a cult is simply a massive category error
Atheism is a belief, so I'm not an atheist, because that's something you have to believe.
George Carlin - Larry King Live interview..Aired June 8, 2001 - 21:00 ET.
My friend, you never were a true christian. Christ said you must be born again
I solidified my de-conversion in senior year at my Catholic high school - in our Philosophy of Religion class. I was presented all the "best" arguments for god, and when I couldn't accept any of them, it was the final straw that broke the camel's back. In the last weeks of that class, I decided I could not accept the historical truth of Jesus' Resurrection, and was therefore no longer a Christian. To your point though - this was after I had found behavior and (more importantly) belonging in secular spaces (mainly online communities, thank gods for the internet).
Long story short, I think you are spot on in this video. However, I wouldn't degrade the importance of having these rational debates too much. I think watching people like you, Alex O'Connor, Dawkins, Hitchens, etc, is extremely helpful and important to anyone who is ready to give up Belief because they have already given up Belonging/Behavior. Plus, finding a community of atheists engaging in these arguments may also provide some sense of belonging.
If arguments for god were important, they would be listed on the front page of every church website.
One good reason to address apologetics is the same reason Christians use: affirmation. I learned formal argument and critical thinking only after I came out of Christianity. I saw the lack of reason to believe what I did at a time when I was feeling removed from the other 2 B’s.
All of the doubts of my doubts, the fear of hell and being wrong, the isolation from the world I grew up in, were only tolerable because of the wellspring of arguments against god.
Counter-apologetics was a lifeline that convinced me I was justified in my disbelief when so many forces were acting to coerce that belief, obedience, identity back into me.
Apologetics & evidence proves the Bible to be true and I’ve never lost an argument- because with science and psychology manuscript evidence and archaeology proving the Bible stories were not made up, God has left evidence also in other categories as well! any topic you wanna pick, the Bible & I will win and you’ll lose!
Empirical evidence is on the Bible’s side!
So do you dare to be educated?
@@jjphank Sure! Show me a peer-reviewed study that the biblical flood happened. I'll wait.
@J Hankins
“I’ve never lost an argument”
A stranger in the CZcams comments section makes an unverifiable claim...for what purpose?
@@alt3space The truth is on the Bibles side and if you don’t go with the truth ,you’re gonna burn in hell for living and believing a lie or lies!
@@derinderruheliegt it’s verifiable with allllllllll the evidence God Has left! You see, A loving God has to leave plenty of evidence and he Yes. This generation is being brainwashed to fight against God to be socialist and communistic!
Just look at the election last week of generation Z voters and what they voted for!
I would say, as someone who came into the atheist video scene when I was leaving the faith, having people like you engage with Christian beliefs is very helpful to people who are interested in engaging in free thinking but have been indoctrinated.
I needed the intellectual and non emotional help to get through my cognitive dissonance on these topics, and getting access to as much info about religious and non religious points of view was just, very helpful to me as someone who hadn’t heard these arguments. I watched a lot of apologetics and I watched a lot of atheist content, and it helped me get out of some very toxic thinking and situations I hadn’t even seen were toxic until I was able to look at them without the Christian lens. So having atheists engage in a kind and genuine way with these beliefs, I think is very helpful to other people leaving the faith like I was.
I have been a Christian all my life. And you hit the nail exactly on the head. My spiritual Pedegree is extensive and I won’t go into detail about it here. but the issue of sexuality is really what separated me from my faith. I was told that homosexuality is against the Bible. So I threw myself into religious rights and sacraments to try to remove it. The struggle alienated me from my church because nobody else was apparently dealing with it on the level that I was. after a homosexual encounter, I realized that the Bible was wrong in what it said against it. It hit me right in my belief and belonging in the church. And because I no longer believe, and I no longer be long, I no longer have my faith.
I have been studying atheism versus creationism debates recently, and although they are informative, they don’t go to the core of my issue. I I look forward to learning more from you, sir.
I mean homosexuality is not wrong, sodomy is wrong, you can’t say having a certain feeling is sinful that would be kind of defeating the point, sin is constituted in action not in emotion.
As for why sodomy is wrong, it is wrong because it is disordered, the same way sex outside of marriage as disordered, or using birth control as disordered, in order to be good and rightly ordered a sex act must be both unitive and procreative, I’m not saying all of this to be offensive or anything I just think it is important that we clarify the church’s position because a lot of times faithful people put too much emphasis on sodomy being bad while ignoring all the other stuff that is bad that straight people do.
Also sexual morals is kind of secondary, the question is whether you believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, if you do then I don’t think you have a choice but to throw yourself at his feet and say “Lord I shall pick up my cross and follow you”, if you don’t then that is that.
@@allthenewsordeath5772 if a lustful thought in the heart is the same as adultery in the eyes of Jesus. A homosexual thought is the same as sodomy.
Your walking a thin line between thought and action. A bridge Jesus destroyed with his sermon on the mount.
Anger with a brother is the same as murder- even though there is ALOT of ground between anger and killing.
The Bible never separates the thought of homosexuality from the act. Especially in the New Testament.
What your describing is like saying that masturbating is okay as long as there are no lustful thoughts.
@@allthenewsordeath5772 How can you say homosexuality is not wrong but sodomy is? How about an@l sex with a woman?
Your views are verging on evil!
@@jofish5678
Christ quite obviously meant the sermon on the mount to be ideal, in in the ideal world of course we would not have lustful thoughts, or murderous thoughts, but it also follows that thinking about doing a thing is not the same as doing that thing.
Of course we can do much to influence the way we think, through the media we consume, through the friends we hang out with, etc.
Also as a matter of course masturbation is wrong because it is inherently selfish, it is perhaps the lowest form of sexual disorder, because at least sodomy, premarital sex etc involve another person.
To get back to the point though of course it is best to not have the thought, but it is second best to not act on it.
Of course I see the irony in my statement above, namely that I seem to be contradicting Jesus, but on the other hand if we were actually remotely capable of living in the way Jesus tells us to live in the sermon on the mount and not merely aspiring to live the way he tells us to live, we would not need Jesus.
As a wise man once said “the Christian way has never been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and never tried.”
When I got marrried, I was non-religious, my now wife was Catholic. One of the great turning points from being areligious to actively atheist began when I had a conversation with a Baptist preacher who strongly made the point that a marriage to a Catholic would not last. We have been happily married 45 years and while my wife no longer goes to church or actively practices, she will on occasion go to mass if one of her relatives goes. Back to the point, I became more educated in the bible and the many positions of apologists out of feeling a necessity to reject the many falsehoods, contrivances, ignorances and impossibilities contained within. While I am not in any fashion a biblical scholar, I do know enough to realize Christianity is based on a system of inculcating young children to believe in mythology and then being indoctrinated through fear and guilt to question the irrationality of belief.
I agree. As a general Theist/Deist, I think debating whether God exists or not; and especially the assumed character of God is completely unimportant. It's either you believe and/or willing to partake in certain ritualistic or social events; or you don't. Emile Durkheim's sociological explanation and definition of religion kind of explains what you are discussing.
I like engaging with theists because even though you might not see immediate results, the discussion can make a difference privately and over time. My own journey out of faith took 6 years and started with a point of fact that didn't sit right with me. Over time, not even actively seeking other sources of information and ways of thinking, I was eventually able to realize that I had no objective and external evidences to rely on and I could no longer believe something on the sole basis of wanting it to be true. I never expect someone to change their mind in the moment, but I do hope that something that I say might take hold and they'll change their mind themselves down the road.
Me too. I remembered the words of atheists who had engaged with me honestly for years after the fact, until one day, I started seeing where they were coming from.
I was a Christian from childhood until I was about 25. I never really felt like I had that personal experience everyone kept talking about. The experience they described even made me skeptical, it was either in their head or didn't really seem to be conclusively God from an objective view.
I began to feel depressed in my teens because I felt no direction in my life, God never told me what to do or how I fit into anything. I managed to find my place in the church through hard work whenever there was an opportunity, but I never felt that God was there.
Apologetics really deconverted me, the arguments really made sense. The Ham vs Nye debate really closed the deal for me. Ham performed terribly. A lot of people said it was a mistake to give him a platform but I disagree. It was black and white for me and a lot of others that Nye was right.
For this lifelong unbeliever (not counting the first 12 years of my life, when I had other things to do) yours is an uplifting comment. Bill Nye has been heavily criticized for this debate. You have confirmed that he has achieved what he aimed for - reaching people like you.
THANK YOU.
I have for the longest time felt that rather than actions or behaviors follows beliefs it's actually the opposite. We will consciously or even subconsciously change our beliefs to fit with our actions and behaviors, because why do anything differently when one can just rationalize their irrational behaviors. I think this also helped with my de-conversion, as I got older and asked more questions I also started to participate less, and less in the rituals of my religion. (raised Baptist) This did lead to some of those I knew from the church community to basically alienate me because I no longer participated, and why I felt increasingly uncomfortable to be around them. Before all that I was told I was an inquisitive child, always asking questions about stuff from the bible that made little to no sense or asking why god would do something so mean or cruel to people and animals...but it ultimately did little to cause a rift between me and other believers because I STILL did all the rituals and acting as Christian as I could be expected to or saying the things others wanted to hear. (when not questioning ideas) I felt apart of a community, a group that I thought truly cared, about me and each other, and too a degree that was or is true....but that same level of care or hospitality didn't seem to extend to those outside the faith, atleast mot without a lot of judgment and even among members of the church there was still gossip or talking behind each other's backs as if to condemn others for not living up to some ridiculous standards. (that the people gossiping couldn't do themselves, not 100%, no one could!) Even the concept of *"sin"* felt wrong or like a weight placed on my shoulders by those around me, not some metaphysical nonsense, with fear used to control what I did or sometimes said or even asked.
These behaviors that were reinforced in me over my life really did a number on my thinking. I think now, looking back I was so desperate to hold onto my religion not because I was afraid of hell or divine punishment from an angry sky god but because I didn't want to be rejected by fellow humans and was desperate to belong, to stay in a community I felt increasingly distant from because I feared being alone or having to find my own way in the world. What if I couldn't find anyone else who I could confide in? What does my future hold? These were things that plagued my thoughts during my loss of beliefs because I no longer wanted to be apart of the behaviors of my old church community.
Interesting perspective. I was raised Methodist, and we attended the same little Methodist church for most of my childhood. When I reached my teens, we switched churches to a larger one of a different denomination because the Methodist church didn't have a youth program. I felt lost and disconnected in the larger church, and at age 16 I left the faith. Now, thirty years later and especially during the pandemic, I found myself missing that little church of my childhood. I missed the community and the rituals, as you refered to them. I missed the singing, the organ, the fellowship time in the multipurpose room between Sunday school and service and socializing in the hall before going home. I missed the little sanctuary and the plain wooden pews. I have so many happy memories from that church that have nothing to do with the religious messages that were taught. And if we had stayed at the Methodist church, I might still be attending to this day. So you're right, the community and the ritual play a huge part in why a Christian might stay in the faith even if someone tries to reason them out of it.
I always love reading the comments in Drew's videos. One of these days thinking maybe this time there will be a lot of people attacking him. But there just never is. You have absolutely wonderful content Drew, and it is great that it is bringing so many people together!
Drew is de-proselytizing people and it's a suicide mission. You just fell victim to that.
Do u believe in god.
@@jesussrique By talking rationally and respectfully about all points of view? Must be a tough life you live to actually believe what you commented.
@@uthmanrashad775 No sir! Luckily data shows more and more people do not these days.
@@rexx42193 Not tough. It's insightful to see and understand all the ongoing.
NAILED IT!
This is what the conversation SHOULD be about. More please.
Even when I was a believer ( Muslim), I did recognize how poorly religion would fare if pitted against science or philosophy. Whenever I saw a debate between an atheist and a religious person, I would cringe because faith is neither reasonable nor empirical. The experience of religion is mostly a blend of social conditioning and emotional investment. And to answer your question, I do think shedding ritualistic behavior is a good first step to analyze the need for faith although belonging to a group that's targeted by a given religion can be a far more powerful catalyst.
I remember going to church and hearing all these "amazing" arguments that prove god exists. Then I'd immediately go onto the internet to destroy atheism with my untouchable arguments, only to be shocked when I learned that not only had they heard these arguments before, they had rebuttals for them. And they made sense. And then they had arguments I couldn't refute.
And eventially I stopped believing the nonsense altogether. I know I'm not the only one with a story like this.
Christians would be better off ignoring the "rational belief" angle altogether, its a fight they can't win
Hi Corey. I think not everyone is as intellectually honest as you.
Than why do Christians win debates using rationality?
Drew, I appreciate the obvious work and thought that goes into your presentations. The haphazard, first-draft, stream of consciousness videos typical of CZcams foment the "more heat than light" exchanges that ensue. You've earned your online credibility and serve viewers quite effectively. Thanks.
Bro! This is a super old video, I realize, but I genuinely wanted to share how much I appreciate your content. As a recovering former evangelical pastor, you and @theantibot have been so healing. Thank you in particular for your measured and grace-filled approach to these topics. They’ve helped me wrestle with my own questions without falling down a strictly emotional rabbit hole. But weirdly enough, it took my apostasy to find the kind of community I had sought to create all those years! So thank you!
My favorite definition of God: Something to name drop to get undeserved authority.
I greatly appreciate the two different but complimentary angles you and Alex bring to the table. As a subscriber to both of you I'm always happy to see a crossover episode.
I think that is the one thing that I miss about being a Christian, the sense of community/belonging.
What I suggest is to look for some hobby that involves multiple people, like card games, RPGs and things like that.
It is a good way to get a community.
It's not the first time I've seen people saying the same thing as you ~ I genuinely think that religion has some good social aspects that aren't currently replicated by any institution. I've been thinking about a way of creating a non religious institution with all the good aspects of religion, without the bad aspects. It would be focused on well being, charity, mental health, philosophy, all together with a good dosis of fun.
I was a little bit suspicious of exactly this when I realised that during debates, people can ramble about God, morality, existence and every attribute of all of it until suppertime, but it won't do a thing in the long run because people aren't going to do anything about it until they come to a solid, undeniable conclusion, which is about an unfalsifiable topic, which religious people can keep rationalising about and dismissively indoctrinating and preaching to more people anyway until the human species goes through three evolutions. They can defend God all they like, but I heard people mentally tend to feel like they have an obligation to defend others more than they do to themselves. What would really get things going is pointing the finger at THEM. Expose THEIR practices, THEIR errors, THEIR transgressions and THEIR manipulations. Focus on how the system operates, not the purported reasons it could have been built, which is irrelevant because that's in the past and this is now. Then, say why an actually good god wouldn't allow that as a cherry on top. I'm sure that would be a lot better at convincing lazy hoomanz everywhere to be productive than going back and forth about well-debunked arguments over religious concepts like God and morality and existence. Their systems and dogmas are actually toxic in a lot of cases, and all of their empirical benefits can be attained through other methods that do away with that toxicity.
The algorithm has led me to this video and I have to say, I’m glad it did!! Fantastic video!!
Dante’s Divine Comedy is what came to mind after watching your video. The poet virgil guides Dante through hell, purgatory but before going off to the final stop, virgil no longer guides Dante but its Beatrice who ultimately continues to guide Dante through heaven. Reason only gets us so far, its love (symbolism for Beatrice) that makes the ultimate step.
Kierkegaard also says that ultimately there needs to be a “leap of faith”
I am also reminded of Tom Hanks in the movie Inferno saying “I’m an academic my mind tells me I’m not meant to understand God, faith is a gift I have yet to receive”
Faith is a gift given by God and not something one forces onto others
As a christian myself, I agree with this, mostly because everyone makes decisions base on behavior and belogings before reason, and I am not saying that reason doesn't play an important part of that process, but I think that it is important to realize that reason is not the only thing that moves us to make decisions, and this happens to atheist as well as christians, I mean you yourself have a framed photo of Carl Sagan as background, I think that reflect exactly what you are saying, that we make decisions base on behavior and beloging more than reason. This is why I strongly agree with what you are saying, beacuse I can see that way of reasoning in theist, agnostic, polytheist, deist and atheist alike.
Good insight! We agree here
Whats a deist
I was a Fundamentalist who deconverted to Agnosticism. Then I observed and studied science both natural and social, religions, and philosophy. I ended up knowing that humans didn't invent gods, they've discovered there's one. I believe the universe is fine tuned to give rise to beings who could do that. Through Observable evidence, you can see the universe saw it coming. We know there is a god/spiritual order, we don't know what or who. And that's where faith comes in
@@UN1VERS3S So what exactly is your source and or argument for the fact that there is „observal evidence“ oder that we „know there is a spiritual order“? I really am interested, please tell me Mr. Hyper
@@Felix-if8bi and how do we know exactly how an atheist is right, that there is nothing beyond?
I really think these videos are useless, and i say that for any side.
No one knows the answer, there may not be a god, there may not be nothing, there may not be multiple gods, there might be something.
Sometimes, we search answers for things our brain can't comprehend, and can't be answered.
So, i think arguing is pretty useless.
Yes, i am christian, i may sound agnostic but im christian.
I'm so grateful there are people like you and Alex making these videos and sharing these messages. Keep up the good work, folks!
I freakin love this video. As you predicted, response videos shall be made! I have one scheduled to come out sometime this month that bolsters what you say in this video and adds a new perspective on the whole discussion. Epistemology abounds!
This is a really good way of putting it. Most "Christians" don't actually "believe" in god. Most of them don't even know what belief is.
Came to this conclusion after talking to my family, talking to religious friends, and talking to non-religious friends about their experiences arguing with religious people. In my experience, more atheists need to have an 'emotional' point of view, where in addition to whatever reasonable arguments you have you also try to give them the emotional support and rituals of religion without the superstition. It's slow but I've found it more effective than debate by itself.
Definitely partly agree, over a summer I was living alone, disconnected from my family and religious community living around people that weren’t Christians, that definitely shook my faith and made me start reconsidering. Because I was trained in apologetics(even attending Impact 360’s apologetics gap year)so much, at first I thought my doubts were stupid and that of course I should still believe, but that time of isolation from the faith was enough for me to start re-examining those arguments and realized they didn’t hold water. So personally I needed both to fully de-convert, without dismantling the arguments I would’ve just thought I was denying the truth in unrighteousness or just running away from God and lived either permanently guilty or become a Christian again. Your channel helped me a lot with that process and I couldn’t be more grateful
My journey from faith to skepticism was several steps, but none of those steps involved another person trying, however valiantly, to talk me out of faith, or to argue against faith, or whatever. I got there on my own. YMMV.
i wouldn't say my family was as hardcore as, say, mormons or JW, they are just casual orthodox christians, but the whole concept of organized religion just felt more and more limiting growing up. i remember trying to connect with god but not feeling it regardless of how much i suffered. then i realized that i could develop a moral compass & find community without the church and still turn out to be a decent human being. the final straw was seeing some "role models" who claimed to be christian just do horrible things and bring harm to the rest of my family and i was like: not on my watch. as of today, i just don't even care if god exists? like if he apparently did, it would be more of a disappointment to me rather than a relief.
Wow what an incredible video. I've been thinking along these lines for a while now, but I've never heard it expressed before. I've been a relatively religious Jew for my entire life. In the past few years, I've become an atheist, but found it weird how I've not become less Jewish. Not just in the sense that "Jewish" is kind of an ethnicity, but religiously speaking. I still do the holidays and praying as much as I've done before (if not more) - it's just no longer about God. The way you explain the separation of these things feels so validating, and it makes so much sense. While watching, though, I was wondering why I'm able to separate those and continue being Jewish while also being an atheist and other aren't. It would be great to just congratulate myself for just being so logical, but in reality, as you point out, I can probably chalk it up to the fact that my acceptance by my community and family is not contingent upon belief in God. You have a focus on faith-based beliefs in this video, so it makes sense that you mention that "attacking" the belonging and ritual of religion is the best way to defeat the beliefs, but I think it's worth discussing the effect that belonging and ritual in religion have as long as it isn't contingent upon conformity. I think it's a hugely positive thing that is lacking in non-religious communities, but idk. I'm sure you've probably talked about that in another video, but I wanted to share my perspective anyway
It makes no sense to pray if no one hears you. Are you unsure of m yourself
@@cosmictreason2242 weird that you just assume that I'm wrong instead of wondering why I do what I do. I am sure in my non-belief in God. My opinion is that most people pray because they believe that they're communicating with God when in reality, they're just achieving an altered mental state. I pray because I believe that... I will achieve an altered mental state. No middle man of delusion necessary. Ever sang with a crowd at a concert? Ever meditated? You don't need a belief in God for that
wow this is spot on to my experiences. also why i feel like saying i "dont believe in god" misses the mark. The belief is irrelevant, i chose to stop participating in something that was causing harm, and after that my reasons for belief kind of went away
I love this video. It really cements for me the ideas ive had since leaving the mormon church about how unimportant it is to debate with people on what the bible does or does not say.
Glad to see this is a video. It really captures my experience with Mormon family and even political cults. Cool to see Cosmic Skeptic 😊
I can only speak for myself, but I think another good reason to publicly debate believers is because, while you're almost guaranteed not to charge your interlocutors's mind, there's a very good chance there's someone in the audience who may be affected by the thoughts you have to present. I know for myself, when I was dealing with doubts in my own faith, it was almost a relief to hear others verbalize ideas that I couldn't quite wrap my head around completely. I had an inking that there was something wrong with the ideas I was learning in church, and hearing augments said out loud confirmed my suspicions. I'm not gonna say I wouldn't be a non believer today if I hadn't heard those arguments, but it certainly helped me think clearly about the subject and certainly catalyzed my conversion.
Excellent point. Perhaps there will be opportunities for those of us who don't need a church/clubhouse to form enjoyable communities !
Holy shit, this resonates with me. As a teenager and young adult, I fell deep into the rabbit hole of Mormon apologetics. In retrospect, I see how that did, in fact, happen as a response to questions and doubt as a faith maintenance coping mechanism. And it was life circumstances that disrupted the community and ritual aspects that helped kickstart my deconversion. What eventually "broke my shelf", so to speak, was my love of science, logic, and high-quality evidence. Growing up Mormon, I had to shelve or create convoluted non-answers to questions I had to maintain my belief in the face of the science education I received in public school and from my own curiosity-driven study. The apologetics made me feel better about continuing to believe, but it was never the primary reason for my belief. But those questions were always lurking beneath the surface and eventually just became to much. Always love your videos. Thanks for all you do!
Mormons are the equivalent of pagans tho
I also grew up Mormon. The straw that broke the camel's back for me was Gordon B Hinckley's 1998 interview with Larry King. I'd had questions for years about the Cain doctrine that blacks were the cursed descendants of Cain, brother of Abel. I found it strange that the LDS church only recognized blacks as being able to hold the priesthood AFTER the civil rights movement; pretty interesting timing for this "revelation", I thought - Interesting that God was playing follow-the-leader and only realized blacks were OK after society had already come to that conclusion.
Anyway, Larry King asked Hinckley about these things, but instead of answering the question, Hinckley deflected and said "Look, don't judge us by our past".
That was it. I was out. If the prophet of the church couldn't answer the questions I had, then nobody could... and if the prophet had no answers for those questions, then he obviously had no special relationship with God, and all prophet "revelations" were very likely just bullshit, motivated by profit and politics.
I spent a while looking at other religions... but they all had even worse inconsistencies. No surprise, they all turned out to be bullshit, too. Eventually I had to come to terms with the fact that all religion is bullshit and there likely is no God at all.
The end. Or rather... the beginning of a much better life without religion.
@@dracolique Yeah. Church history is super fucked. The fact that every step of the way, the church only changed or softened its bigotries after societal pressure or legal threats, and yet still held onto them less publicly in many cases for a long while after makes a pretty good case that there was never any devine insight or foresight and nobody should derive their morals from the church. I also find it hilarious they could be so easily deceived by the forgeries of Mark Hofmann (I happen to be related), when they claim to be lead by God.
Brendan, same here.
This really opened my eyes to how outside of the box for a Christian/Catholic I am.
None of my family is or ever has been religious
I converted at 36
I’ve never had a profound mystical experience
None of my friends except or understand my faith
crowds make me sweaty so mass is kinda not my favorite.
So for me I guess I’m all about faith and doing what I truly believe as good works. 🤔
I guess I’m not “most Christians”😂 I do love these Videos though.
I agree with your points in this video, though I will say I think debates still serve an important function. It's not so much about trying to convince your opponent they're wrong, but more about the audience and reaching them. People are less defensive when they can distance themself from a situation, so instead of feeling personally attacked like they might if they were the ones in the debate, they can be more open to seeing another side and thinking about the issues critically. This won't be true for everyone, but for some people it helps. For me, seeing Matt argue with a believer on The Atheist Experience about slavery in the bible was the piece that made everything start crumbling. When I started watching more debates and arguments later on, it helped me see things from the other side and got me thinking more critically. However, this probably wouldn't have happened if I didn't first get to observe someone else making an argument against god and the bible without feeling personally attacked. I think we also got to remember that christian beliefs can also be entirely wrapped up in a person's identity. This relates to the belonging piece. That's why christians get so defensive, hurt, and lash out when someone, especially atheists, call out their beliefs as BS. Their beliefs are a huge part of their identity and if you call that out, you call out who they think/feel they are at their core and without it, many of them don't know who they are or how to identify. This is why my theory is, the more someone's identity is wrapped into their religious beliefs, the harder it will be for them to leave it. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's a lot harder to do, and no amount of sound reasoning or good evidence is going to convince them.
16:40
I believe the model is very accurate.
When you look at how a vast amount of lgbtq people that are brought up in religion leave, it is apparent that when a person’s sense of community is broken down, their foundation in that belief can, too.
(Keyword can, not always does*)
I can also personally testify this being accurate, being a bisexual youth that was raised to be a member of the “Mormon Church”
You know, I think this is one of those things that I just instinctively felt, but as you consistently prove, time and time again, you give an almost logically poetic form to those subconscious thoughts that flit between the liminal folds of my mind. If I tried to express this before now, it would have only come across as a "Well, yeah, duh!" statement. You're an artisan wordsmith, dear Drew, and your measured cadence is incredibly relaxing. Unrelated, random note: I just realized that when I read Catcher in the Rye, Drew is exactly who I was picturing every time I read Holden Caufields name.
I don't think it's possible to create an 'Argument for God'. An argument requires evidentiary support and there just isn't any ATM.
Great work, Drew! You're right about the majority of Christians. I'm one of the other ones who came to faith and fundamentalism as a young adult BECAUSE of what the scriptures supposedly taught.
I also moved around a lot as an adult, so I was typically selecting churches to attend because of their doctrine, that I wanted to belong to.
That means once I learned that my REASONS to believe weren't actually true (my guilt and need of salvation, a wrathful return of Christ, existence of hell, etc), I could deconstruct quite easily.
Glad to chat about my story if anyone is interested. 😊
As a life long atheist caused by an incredibly low "agreeableness" scores, borderline an authority opposition disorder, it's always surprising to see how people have dealt with authority figures in Christianity and how that impacts arguments I encounters. Im very much so "nah dude you're lying, or exaggerating, proof please" while some around me went "yesss Holy spirit makes me feel this way". I eventually felt the same while in a concert for music I really enjoyed. The "Holy spirit" you feel is a biological feeling of safety, wonder, and belonging.
I have no real conclusion. 👍
That’s pretty interesting. Im also an atheist (ex catholic) and I score pretty high on agreeableness, but I don’t really consider myself as someone who likes authority at all (or really being part of a group all the time.) There was a study about the difference in values between atheists and theists that I read about (I don’t remember the name) and the results showed that religious and non religious people scored about the same in morals, but religious people valued being part of a group more, and non religious people valued individuality more. It makes a lot of sense when you think about it!
That’s basically why Christians like Justin Peters attack the manipulative way that music is used in many churches, especially the false NAR ones
@@tamago8042 I think I've seen something saying similar, our morals aren't the thing holding the group together, it's the need for belonging.
I'm happy to have 3 or 4 close friends and be alone a lot of the time. I don't think every human can do that and they use the church to fill that need.
@@SECONDQUEST Same. I like being alone a lot (more than some people I know at least). I enjoy being with people and being part of groups sometimes, but I need to have the time to withdraw and have some time alone too and do plenty of things outside of the group for myself (classic introvert stuff).
It sucks that people will hold on to things for the sole reason of sticking with a certain group, and unfortunately, it's hard to break ties with something you might have known your whole life. Especially since you can get that feeling of being in a group with most other things pretty easily, like a book club or something.
I feel like attacking beliefs and rituals is the best deconversion strategy. The only reason I felt free to question my faith was I was in an environment where I was removed from the rituals and able to think through the arguments. Sort of like a 1-2 punch.
I stopped praying at some point and didn't feel any need to come back to it. Not saying I haven't relapsed and done it after that in my darkest hours but the constant need just vanished. Would be a good test for a believer if anything changes with that (not praying) and especially if their lives are filled with superstitious crap it might be really effective. You peel off your beliefs layer by layer.
It makes far more sense to attack the ethics. The beliefs are less important. The ethics of religion are atrocious and can be easily shown to be deficient
This is so helpful, thank you Drew (and Alex).
This has helped me realize why I deconverted - because believing sensible things is more important to me than community and rituals.
It also helps me see why I didn't deconvert sooner - because community and rituals were important enough to me that I was willing to pretend to believe for a while to keep them.
Another victim.
I am fifteen years old at the time, and I would say i've been an atheist for some months, I had struggled with my faith since my early childhood, always asking questions like, why can't I witness miracles, why can't god reveal himself to ME? I had ignored my questioning for so long, thinking that my thoughts were simply temptations from the devil, but after looking into atheism, and seeing the actual evidence for it, unlike christianity, I am now proudly and rationally a non-believer.
Welcome to the side of light and truth ❤
You can now become a reddit mod.
This makes sense. I'm not an atheist, but I enjoy hearing your ideas and Comic Skeptic's, too. You both are very intelligent and very likable.
I'm a christian myself. I love this idea and the video is well made. My contribution to this discussion is that atheists and christians both are subject to this phenomena. The debates in which an atheist rejects arguments for God won't convert the christians, but they will validate the beliefs of the atheists which to many is far more important. The discussion is also a great for christians because without outside thinking it's easy to get lost in the doctrine. Great topic, have a nice day!
So then is it belief, belonging, and/or behavior that has you convinced? :)
By "this phenomena" I would have to assume you mean to say that arguments for Atheism are NOT important? In that, atheists are primarily atheistic because of their reinforced belief and behaviors? That sounds self defeating to be because being atheistic is in it of itself the practice of no belief. Atheists do not disbelieve in gods. They simple lack belief in them.
@@Akira-jd2zr
I think many atheists err in thinking that us believers only have one reason to believe, there are as many reasons for believing as there are reasons for not believing and usually people subscribe to more than one.
@@allthenewsordeath5772 Well, let's hear it then. What rational justification can you provide in support of the existence of any gods? Without rational justification then, by definition, such beliefs would be irrational...
@@Akira-jd2zr
How are you defining rational justification?
Because I don’t want to get into a game of leapfrog/move the goal post where in I present a reason or argument and you say it is irrational for whatever reason, so let’s just get definitions out of the way first, are you saying my argument must be comprehensible, are you saying my argument must be completely full proof in every respect, are you saying my argument must really be presented in a A and B therefore C format?
The biggest reason why debate is important that I did not hear addressed in this video is because there is a small subcategory of believers who ARE moved by intellectual arguments away from the faith. Or at least these arguments create cognitive dissonance that begins their process of leaving. I knew someone in high school who went to a neighboring private Christian academy- he was the favorite of all the teachers, led the school in prayer, super active in the church, and was going to go into the ministry after high school. He took a class in college on the psychology of cults, and after hearing enough arguments and points about how we need to look analytically at our beliefs, where they come from, do they stand up to scrutiny, etc, he began to doubt his upbringing, and after many months, became an atheist. Not all Christians/theists are like this- but enough of them are.
Debates and exposure to rational arguments matter for people like him.
Believing in an invisible, untouchable, untestable and magical being that loves you but has place that punish you with torture if don't like that being enough and do exactly what that being wants you to do. That's an irrational thing to believe.
Splendid ! I love to hear my thoughts out there without having to speak them !
I agree totally that belonging are source of 'beliefs' and not the opposite. Being raised in religion makes it almost impossible to think on your own because of this, and late comers will be welcomed warmly (= lots of "god loves you" and supportive interactions) to establish a sentiment of trust and belonging first, before getting in the depth of their logos, which comes later in the process ! Where most people believe in what makes them feel safe, the first source of this sentiment of safety lies within our alertness to everything that challenges it, braking trust being one of the worst possible offense !
Thank you
From another perspective debating arguments for God also affect not only the people that your argument goes against, you also affect the people who are on your side. For example, I was never interested about atheism or religion, I realised that I was atheist only after watching debates. Now I firmly am on this side of the fence.
This had been a very interesting video and has caused me to look into my past and deconversion. I was very emotionally attached to my beliefs because I was in a Christian bubble and was in a Christian school until I was 12. Being exposed to non christians came as a shock to me, in grade 8 I met an atheist who was quite vocal and mocked Christianity all the time, leading me to reconsider my reasons. He made surface jokes like about God being a white bearded man like santa who watches you, which was uncomfortable and made me change my interpretation of God to a more mysterious and imageless being. He also mocked the idea of hell being hot with fire saying heaven must be freezing. Again, I reinterpreted hell to be only separation from god and not literal fire to get around it. I still believed, I just tweaked my interpretations to be more reasonable sounding and believed the atheist had only argued at a surface level about things that aren’t core to Christianity. When I was 14, my parents divorced. We stopped going to church for about a year, and when we started again we went very irregularly. It also was a new church, we used to go to a small fundamentalist baptist church, but then we started going to a more progressive church focused more on spirituality and less on doctrine and theology. I didn’t feel used to leading with emotions and prayer, but through biblical or logical arguments to guide my walk with God. I started to panic that I was slowly detaching from my beliefs and tried to cling on to them through reason and making the “right decisions.” At 15 I meet a Catholic who held his belief for very shallow reasons and didn’t seem to have any understanding of theology. I tried to convince him of my beliefs and eventually ended up questioning my own when I started watching videos on Catholicism, trying to decipher which sect was closer to the Bible. Eventually I began to watch videos on atheists too. I began to question why I was hung up on a specific interpretation of the Bible when I didn’t even know if the Bible was true as a whole (as I had never even read the entire thing) this sent me on a spiral and it was emotionally very difficult even though I base most of my decisions on reasons than feelings. That doesn’t mean I don’t have feelings at all though, I generally just don’t trust them. I ran after problem after problem, and I was unable to adopt a liberal interpretation because it didn’t seem reasonable and it was seemingly twisting the Bible. In my view the Bible had to be inerrant for Christianity to be true. Since my mom was single and no longer a stay at home mom, she decided to pursue being nurse which she always wanted to do. She had to go to school, work and take care of us kids, so there was little room for anything but the bare minimum of care for my siblings growing up, let alone Christianity. My younger siblings did not establish the attachment or understanding of Christianity that I had up to the divorce. I was slowly becoming emotionally detached which scared me. When I encountered these serious doubts at age 17-18, it took about a year or 2 to slowly give up the Christian label. I can’t imagine how much harder and longer it would have taken me if I was still fully immersed during that time.
Very emotionally honest argument.
Thank you for your continued examinations, research and thorough debates of such subjects with logic, reason and rationality.
Emotion, ritual, and belonging are certainly the foundation of most peoples' religious beliefs. However, there are many religious people who WANT their beliefs to be based in reason and evidence, and for them, especially those who really understand epistemology and the scientific method, logical debates about religious beliefs can be effective at changing their minds. I've heard many Ex-Mormons say that what finally broke their shelf was reading apologetic answers to difficult issues/questions, and seeing just how illogical and fallacious their arguments were.
In other words, putting religious beliefs to the test of evidence and reason can really put a spotlight on how weak the logical basis for those beliefs actually is. And if a person is willing to see that clearly over the noise of emotional and social pressures, they can be convinced. But these are never easy to overcome.
For too few unfortunately, but it's worth plugging away at those few!
This is, as usual, so GOOD. The question still sits in my head about what more could be done to better engage with Christians on their experience. As you mentioned, you do this and can see it in the responses you get. I'm just looking for ways I can engage with my Christian friends who rely only on experience for their beliefs.
I haven't spoken in depth with many people concerning religion but, with those I have, and who are themselves religious, it seemed to me logic had very little, if anything to do with it. They wanted, needed to believe in something other than themselves. This need seemed to stem, as was mentioned, from the years of witnessing and being involved in the rituals.
Drilling down deeper one might find the difference between those who have a crutch they believe they need and those who hold on to the one they want.
This reminds me to Slavoj Zizek. In his book: The sublime Object of Ideology. He talks about this; "act like you believe and you will believe". And "you don't find evidence and then believe, you find evidence because you already believe".
Thanks, I checked out some of his quotes again and that took me to Hegel, ofcourse. I highly recommend the online encyclopedias entry on Hegel for this subject. He believed that Christianity could no longer expect faith in any doctrine not supported by reason.
"Neither theistic, nor deistic, Hegel's god can only be articulated in the philosophical terms of the concept of spirit or his own distinctive logical vocabulary. Nevertheless, Hegel everywhere insists that his is the Christian God"
I really enjoyed this video. In coming back to Christian belief for my own reasons, this focus on faith outside of unnecessary reason has been a big part of me coming back.
I consider myself lucky to learn early in life that religion is about belief not reason, that is why we have science, with philosophy somewhere in the middle reminding us to never stop questioning those reasons and beliefs.
Wow! I actually had an interesting discussion with my dad, who is a protestant Christian. I probed him for his idea of the basis of belief. It took a while, but I came to understand that he is afraid to question an "absolute truth" because requiring proof for an absolute truth could contradict that truth and lead him astray. It's an idea I've heard argued in his church growing up, but once I continued asking "why?" questions, he told me that he hadn't contemplated what is "worth" questioning and what is not for years. It made him visibly uncomfortable. But you make a lot of good points and the overlap with the enlightening discussion I had with my father is amusing.
Introduce him to “the ultimate proof of creation” (2009) and talk it over with him afterwards
If both sides took the attitude that engaging the opposition validates the other side then echo chambers would get even worse. Alienation between groups would get worse. Animosity between groups would get worse.
I always enjoy your presentations and so totally agree with so many of your positions and arguments - therein lies the issue - while arguments cannot prove the existence of God, they cannot disproves God's existence so it's an unwinnable debate - from either position.