Who Needs God • Part 1┃"Atheist 2.0"
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 09. 2024
- Once upon a time, Americans believed religion offered solutions. Today, many believe religion is the problem. In the twenty-first century, do we really need God?
Find Your Next Move:
1. Subscribe to the channel: bit.ly/2ItTeCK
2. Sign up for exclusive email content every month: bit.ly/32SQKoE
3. Get conversation starters based on this topic here: bit.ly/2AM06aW
Your Move with Andy Stanley
Who Needs God • Part 1┃"Atheist 2.0"
Someone who tells you what they think other people are, or what other people believe is not someone you should listen to.
One needs (fairly) to watch all six parts in this series to gain understanding of the truths being presented. Trust me, if you step off after part 1 you have missed it.
There are few preachers who talk as if they are not just talking to the converted. And fewer still who choose not to use religious jargon. Andy does a good job
@Alex Booyse, wow - thank you for the great comment. Did anything stand out for you in this episode? - the Your Move team
@@yourmoveandystanley the final outcome of atheism agrees with the Bible in Ecclesiastes 1:1 - Meaningless, meaningless. I find that there are large areas of crossover between western atheism and the Bible. Logic can carry you a long way, but not all the way. Being subject to our biology means that there is no freedom. The only true freedom comes when something from the outside brings freedom. If it’s merely a human construct then it’s merely lateral movement, which still isn’t freedom.
Thanks for following up with us, @Alex Booyse. - Anne from the Your Move team
I have to say this is probably the most fair theistic presentation of the consequences of losing one's belief in God. It still misses the mark through oversimplification too often, but Andy seemed to avoid the most egregious straw-man arguments, so kudos for that.
I thought his first point (at 13:15) was his worst, and I thought "here we go again," so I'm glad I stuck with it. In a naturalistic universe there is no mind *that is separate from the body,* but that doesn't mean there is no such thing as mind. If mind is what we call the brain's awareness of itself, or ability to reason, or more simply, self-awareness, then it's not accurate to say there can be no mind in a naturalistic universe; we would only say there is no mind separate from the brain.
He has less than 30 minutes to make his point. He is not going to discuss every tangent on every subject. Incidentally, just as "dinosaur" is the modern word for the biblical "dragon", "the mind" is merely the modern word for the biblical "Soul" (the brain is merely an organ of the Body, the seat of the Soul/Mind). We, each and every one of us, are created in the image of God: we are a Body AND a Soul AND a Spirit - the body made in the image of Jesus, the Soul made in the image of The Father, the spirit made in the image of the Holy Spirit. The Body does the will of the Soul by the power of the spirit, just as Jesus does the will of the Father by the power of the Holy Spirit. The "Soul" is a person's consciousness, conscience, thoughts, feelings, perception, and that which invents and makes judgement/determination, the seat of self-awareness which is the image of the Father (whereas Man must say, "I THINK, therefore, I am" the Father says, "I AM, therefore I Am"); it is the Soul/Mind which dictates to the Body, which then performs that which the Soul/Mind commands; the Body is equal with yet subject to, the Soul. Jesus is the Body of God (or as Scripture calls Him, "the fullness of the Godhead bodily"). The naturalistic universe has no mind of its own - it is Man who created the concept of a "Mother Nature", deifying her as Gaia, etc, attributing to it the ability to reason and to scientific action (the ability to conduct trial & error) resulting in the fairy tale of Evolution by Natural Selection. But the TRUTH is that the Universe has no mind, but it is GOD ALONE (Father/Son/Holy Spirit named Jesus) which "upholds all things by HIS Word" - not by some ficticious universal mind.
@@teganbigone2366 The problem is that he says if God doesn't exist then the mind wouldn't exist. He goes on to say he tried to live that way for a time. It's a massively weak argument although his second and third points I thought were good. We obviously have minds. If you damage the mind it can change and alter literally who you are. There is evidence that the mind is indeed entirely part of the body and not a seperate entity from the body.
I don’t think he’s implying that the mind doesn’t exist in a naturalistic world, he’s just stating the necessary conclusion we have to make regarding the mind in a naturalistic world: that it’s completely incompatible with any sort of identity, and that “self-awareness” is simply an illusion.
So yes, there’s a “mind” in a naturalistic world, but it has no more biological significance than a leg.
Furthermore, there’s no guarantee that the mind would provide us any more of an accurate conclusion on the fundamental truth of the universe than a leg- they share the same origin and abide by the same laws of physics.
I think the main purpose of Stanley’s message was to convey the necessary assumptions of Naturalism- which most ignore, but find unsettling- should one hold it.
Most interesting. Atheism is the answer to a question do you believe in God. For me the answer is no.
How about the people who grew up not believing?
I was a believer in "God" because like every child, I got that from my community. And once I stopped believing my community, that believe in their God disappeared also.
I didn't not embarrassed another belief.
Great question, @TECHNOBRAIN - our media engagement team is better suited to answer it. Will you reach out to them at info@yourmove.is? Thanks - the Your Move team
@@yourmoveandystanley No sir or Mom. You do t have an answer to my question. You're missing the point that not all people around the world believe in a God or are religious.
And if there is a God that exist, why is he not demonstrating his existence to everyone?
And which God are we even talking about.
Come on!
Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. - Carl Sagan
Unless you would expect to see evidence.
@@briannyob7799- the early church grew like an airborne disease, even though it was sandwiched between the Jewish Temple and the Roman Empire, both of whom were hostile to the early church. That clear evidence wouldn’t be there unless something extraordinary had happened that resulted in the explosive growth of the first century church against overwhelming odds.
Quick note: atheism and naturalism are different. Atheism is not a complex belief system it is the belief that God's probably don't exist. Naturalism is the belief that nothing beyond the natural obtains.
Agreeing with Glen, Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any supernatural power. Though God IS natural, Atheism is the lack of belief in any higher power, more specifically.
God dose live in u’s all
There are many holes in the statements made in this video, those of us who are staunch atheists live without justification, and do not need it to do what we think is right. Trying to turn everything into determinism, is a gross oversimplification of human psychology. As a staunch atheist, life is a series of choices with minute details, and while we cannot control or even understand results, it is not purely based upon "anything goes" or a lack of understanding of compassion towards others.
Real Atheists, are often humanistic, and if we can help, we will.
@Kyle Conklin - thanks for your thoughtful comment. Our media engagement team is better suited to respond; if you're interested, they're at info@yourmove.is. - the Your Move team
Who took part in the debate Andy references around 1:30? I would like to watch it.
It was Christopher Hitchens and either William Lane Craig or Frank Turek, I can’t remember which.
10:30 - Actually Atheism *is* just a lack of belief in gods. Nothing more. I suspect the video is confusing Atheism with Humanism, which is a set of philosophies that don't require gods or the supernatural. Also, not all religious require gods: the Shinto tradition which is dominant in Japan, for example, lacks a requirement to believe in gods (making its practitioners atheists), but has many supernatural beliefs nevertheless.
(Note: the phrase "a lack of belief" means just that. It doesn't mean an absolute 100% conviction that gods do not exist, it merely means the atheist isn't convinced by the arguments for various gods, so lives on the assumption that they don't exist until evidence can prove otherwise.)
13:25 - The interesting consequence of Mind-Body Dualism is that it greatly reduces the severity of actions like murder.
Think about this: under the non-Dualism model (which the video attributes to Atheism), if I take your brain and stick it in a blender, I've committed an incredibly heinous act -- by destroying your brain I've destroyed 'you'. But under Dualism (the apparent religious view in the video), I haven't done anything to 'you' -- all I've done is destroy the biology... not 'you'. 'You' are still existing. 'You' are still fine. Sure, your brain is now a liquidized mush, but that's just atoms and physics and stuff -- destroying it does nothing to 'you'. So, if 'you' are fine without your brain... what crime have I committed..? (Destruction of property, presumably?)
If Dualism were true, then when we drink alcohol, our mind wouldn't get properly drunk -- the alcohol is a physical substance that can only affect the physical biology. At most, we'd be conscious of a schizophrenic sense of reality because only the biology would be legless, and the 'you' part would be stone cold sober. Likewise hallucinogenic substances wouldn't (couldn't!!) be mind-altering if the mind isn't in the biology. If Dualism were true, brain damage would have limited or no ability to affect people's sense of themselves. Alzheimer's disease would not truly be 'stealing' who a person is, their 'self', (as so many carers of suffers describe it.)
So, under the religious Dualism model, sticking someone's brain in a blender is nothing more than destruction of property, and taking strong drugs cannot really damage someone's mind. Is that really how Christians see things, I wonder..?
16:00 - Even in a deterministic world, decisions taken by yourself are still decisions taken. The fact that (given a perfect model of the universe) we could predict what decision you will make in advance doesn't mean that you aren't the one taking it. Even under Determinism, you're still an active part of the world and your actions still affect the world, regardless of whether you're actions are predictable or not.
Of course the question is academic, because it isn't possible to have a perfect model of the universe. It creates a paradox, similar to time travel into the future. Knowing the future means that we could change the future, making the prediction invalid and requiring an updated prediction. It creates an infinite regress of predictions, meaning certainty about the future is unobtainable. So *nobody* knows what you'll really do for absolute certain, hence your actions are unpredictable even if driven by just physics.
One of the problems with the Christian view of Free Will is it clashes with the Christian god's omniscience. If God is all knowing, then humans cannot have Free Will. Think about this: if God asked you to play Rock-paper-scissors, does God know which gesture you'll pick before you play it..? If God *does* know, then you *don't* have Free Will: your actions were known to him before you took them. But if God *doesn't* know, then he *isn't* omniscient -- he didn't know what you were going to do, and therefore it would be possible to beat him.
So, is it possible to beat the Christian god at Rock-paper-scissors? The only answer compatible with Free Will is "yes".
17:10 - The Hawking quote is actually a set up to an explanation of why looking before you cross the road is sensible in a predetermined universe. From "Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays" (1993) : "I have noticed that even people who claim everything is predetermined and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road. [...] One cannot base one's conduct on the idea that everything is determined, because one does not know what has been determined. Instead, one has to adopt the effective theory that one has free will and that one is responsible for one's actions. This theory is not very good at predicting human behavior, but we adopt it because there is no chance of solving the equations arising from the fundamental laws."
17:45 : Human value is the one concept were Christianity (and the other Abrahamic faiths) *really* seem to have an odd, self-defeating, view.
Consider this: a painting in an art gallery is valued in two different ways. The art lover values the painting because she admires the craftsmanship that went into making it, and because its message causes her to think and reflect. The security guard, by contrast, values the painting because he has been told to do so; he is merely following orders.
Or this... At Christmas you get a Christmas card from your employer, which is nice, but you know that everyone in your company got a card so really it was just a formality. Then, when you get home, you find that your baby daughter has made you a Christmas card, which is much nicer (even though she can't draw for toffee!) The fact that your daughter chose to make a card specially for you is much more meaningful -- far better than the standard 'mailshot' card everyone automatically got at work.
Value is more powerful -- many times more powerful -- when someone decides for themselves to value. "I love you" is much more powerful than "God has instructed me to love you". The former means the person has voluntarily chosen to value you (like the art lover) -- the latter means the person is merely following orders (like the security guard.) The Christian view that value is impossible without God just degrades the whole idea. The best type of value wouldn't need to be merely the result of following orders.
19:05 - That's a contradiction. It is either predetermined, or we made it up... but it can't be both.
21:20 - It's worth pointing out that it didn't go from non-life to "the digital elegance of DNA" in one go. It took 3.5 billion years to get to the complexity that Collins is describing.
21:40 - Nope. Natural selection is responsible for the diversity of life. Replication is responsible for the unbroken chain of life.
21:45 - Anyone who thinks that Natural Selection has a personal agenda *REALLY* doesn't understand Natural Selection. :) The whole point of the idea is that complexity and apparent 'design' (note: apparent) can come about without any designer. The absence of a designer and an agenda was what made the idea such a breakthrough: given nothing more than a basic repeating cycle of duplication, mutation, and selection, it is possible for a system to create diverse complexity merely by itself without guidance or planning.
Evolution doesn't move towards anything. It can't. The end-goal (in so far as such an idea is even valid in Evolution!) is determined by the creatures it affects, not by any master plan. Each generation moves along a path, but the direction their species takes is ultimately determined by their own success in creating grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.
25:30 - And actually you *can* be shown Evolution. Some species, such as fruit flies, live for such a short time that it is possible to breed many generations in just a few weeks. Under experimental conditions it is possible to force Evolution to take effect on groups of fruit flies in very noticeable ways -- indeed I believe fruit fly experiments are a standard part of many university biology courses.
I believe Andy should stick to the new testimint... I've just watched another thing on David... really don't think that is the message of the 1st 4 testimonials
Who needs God, everyone needs God. God is a supreme being that encourages us to become ultimate beings. Ultimate is not supreme. The bible mentions sin, which no other faith or no faith addresses. God deals with it and talks about it extensively. Extensive spirituality is sinless, and mental spirituality. Sin separates us from God it also damages relationships and is very physically emotionally, mentally and spiritually unhealthy. Without faith in Christ you are not dealing with sin. Without dealing with sin, its almost dealing with long term cancer, no cure but terminal. Jesus is the cure and spirituality is the antidote.
..... You can afford everyone has their truth but not thier Justice? 🤔🤔🤔
Everyone has their own OPINION, but NO ONE has their own TRUTH - Truth is not an opinion, Truth is universal (that's what makes it True) so if something is True for you it MUST be True for me, if its True for me it MUST be True for you. There is only one Truth: "Jesus is the Way and THE TRUTH and the Life and the Light of the world."
Are you a preacher or a Darwin apologist? This is ridiculous.
REVELATION 20:2-3
This series in short: "As people become more educated they abandon Bronze Age superstitions. Now, stay stupid and give me money."
What a weird sermon.