Alister McGrath: Why I lost my faith in atheism // The Big Conversation
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 09. 2019
- For more debate videos, updates and exclusive content sign up at www.thebigconversation.show
For Alister McGrath & Bret Weinstein full show: • Alister McGrath & Bret...
For Part 2 audience Q&A: • Alister McGrath & Bret...
In this extract from Bret Weinstein and Alister McGrath's live London conversation, McGrath explains what led him away from atheism towards Christianity.
The Big Conversation is a unique video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the Christian and atheist community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human.
Listen to more sparkling conversations every week via the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchristianradio.com/...
The Big Conversation Season 1:
Jordan Peterson & Susan Blackmore • Jordan Peterson vs Sus...
Steven Pinker & Nick Spencer • Steven Pinker vs Nick ...
Derren Brown & Rev Richard Coles • Derren Brown & Rev Ric...
John Lennox & Michael Ruse • Michael Ruse vs John L...
Daniel Dennett & Keith Ward • Daniel Dennett vs Keit...
Peter Singer & Andy Bannister - • Andy Bannister vs Pete...
The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with the Templeton Religion Trust
Videos, updates, exclusive content www.thebigconversation.show/
For weekly debates between Christians and sceptics subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchristianradio.com/...
If your a Christian scrolling through the comments and come across this, please try and be hospitable. I understand that some comments can be hurtful or blasphemous but try not to conform to this world and the way they try and entice you into an argument. We need to be salt and "light." Thanks and God bless.
Amen!
You’re 😆
It was actually a joke because his comment was so good. I perhaps should reveal that in future. I was being facetious. I’m obvious not Jesus enough 👌
Brandon Root. yes that is what they do best. Try to entice arguments.
Trolltician. I think it's sad how in today's world people get offended when you want to help them with a misspelled word. That's how I learned.
"The New Atheist movement that intended to SHUT DOWN the discussion about religion, ended up inadvertently OPENING IT UP." That's a fascinating statement!
And by opening it up to topic of religion to discussion more and more people no longer hold any religious beliefs.
It isn’t true that atheists ever tried to shutdown discussion about religion. Most are more than happy to discuss religion so this claim by Alister is plainly false.
@@myopenmind527 Mate, please be more careful, before falsely accusing people... Right OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I can think of a popular Atheist slogan intended to "shut down the discussion about religion." It originated from "the New Atheist" Christopher Hitchens: "that which can be asserted without evidence, can be DISMISSED without evidence." (I don't normally write to those who choose to resort to name-calling, as you did in your other comment bellow... But since reading Alister McGrath's book 'The Dawkins Delusion' I've respected the man, and so I felt compelled to respond to your comment about him. Take care.)
LoveYourNeighbour Hitch was right when he said that. If you want to join the grown ups you’ll have to do more than make unsubstantiated claims.
If you want to stay at the children’s table you can believe whatever fairy tale that you like..
I’m guessing you’d like to thing you have evidence in which case I’m all ears.
@@myopenmind527 where is your evidence that Hitch was right when he said that? Until you give me some evidence I'm going to have to just dismiss it.
yndsu there’s is a species of pink unicorns in caves on Pluto.
A question and a statement.
1. How does Christianity provide a better frame work for science than no religion, or, say Buddhism? I'd argue that Buddhism is far better at providing the framework because according to the Dalai Lama, if science shows something in Buddhism to be wrong, then Buddhism must change, meanwhile, there are many sects of Christianity that say if science says something in Christianity is wrong, then the science is wrong. Granted, many other sects to change, however begrudgingly, to reflect this more scientifically literate time.
2. The Four Horsemen, and other new atheists were doing just the opposite of shutting down the discussion of religion. They were opening it up. For centuries, religion was an ineffable thing. You couldn't criticize it, couldn't debate it, if you did these things, it could, and often did, start a war. What the New Atheist Movement was about was taking religion of the pedestal of holiness, and making it something people could openly discuss and disagree with.
If buddhism has to change due to a discrepancy in it's ideology as a result of science then it should be ruled out as a belief of mythology and fiction
@Trolltician Never claimed science disproved Buddhism, you clearly misinterpreted what I was saying. My argument was hypothetical and I was stating that if science proofs a belief system wrong based on evedince, then it's no longer a reliable source. Similarly if a religion or a God claimed that the Earth was flat thousands of years ago and it's later discovered to be round by measuring the Earths curvature and by astronauts or satalites viewing it from space, then that ancient belief system can't be trusted and should be scrapped
It still comes down to the same discussion:
You believe in a god. I don't believe your assertion until you provide evidence that stands up to scrutiny. I've been asking theists for over 2 years now and not one has been able to provide a convincing Arguement that stands up to scrutiny.
So all your beliefs are based on evidence?🤔
@@aljay2955 Alan Jay Name me one other thing you believe in completely in the absence of evidence. Faith is the belief in something with no rational reason to do so.
Theists believe in a god. Atheists won't until there is sufficient evidence that stands up to scrutiny. If No body is going to prove it to us, we have no rational reason to believe.
@@aljay2955 So if I told you to jump off the Empire State Building and if you had enough faith you would fly, would you do it since your faith is all encompassing?
@@aljay2955 So you don't believe Everything on faith. You believe the evidence of science. Now other than belief in your god without evidence, is there anything else you believe without evidence.
@@emaanserghini1919 "So all your beliefs are based on evidence?"
Yes, because I'm a rational individual and I value truth above all else. I strive to believe as many true things as possible and as little false things. Faith is not a reliable pathway to truth. Faith is useless.
So he only maintained his atheism because he didn't understand science is always provisional. As soon as he realised science was provisional, he adopted faith in God. Isn't that really all he's saying?
Opening up the discussion on religion was the best thing for us. ;)
@@JC-du6sn prayers just make you feel useful while you do nothing.
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as the practice of suspending the acknowledgement of the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._*
And here is the evidence as to why I currently take such a position.
1. I personally have never observed a god.
2. I have have never encountered a first person account in which that person has observed a god.
3. I have found no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that can be verified for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
4. I have have never been presented a valid logical argument which employed rationally sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that gods exist.
6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was an necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
7. Dozens of proposed and generally accepted explanations for observable phenomena based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered vice versa.
8. I have never experienced the presence of gods through intercession of angels, answer to a petition, a presented truth by revelation, fulfillment of prophecy, the miraculous act of divinity, or any observation of a supernatural event.
9. Every phenomena that I have ever observed has emerged from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never seen any phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance or being) that was created instantly by the solitary volition of a single deity.
ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is no good reason for me to acknowledge the existence of gods.
I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Christian god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence is presented them. Skepticism (atheism) is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. It is natural, rational and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones.
I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
Have you ever researched the Kalam Cosmological Argument? A little critical thinking might reveal that the existence of God is the only thing that explains existence itself.
Have you ever considered the implications of the fact that all living things, no matter how different they are, have one remarkable thing in common: They all contain encoded information. Information only comes from intelligence, so far as we have ever observed. Therefore it is not unreasonable to conclude that DNA is a product of intelligence?
@@jtib5968 That's wrong. The Kalam is self refuting.
Premise 1 is false. Premise 2 is also false.
Even if we assumed that P1 and P2 were correct, they don't prove a god at all.
But it's cute that the cosmo-arg is still trotted out.
If you want to assert Premise 1, then you need to prove it first. If I say that all squeepins are orange, then it's not sufficient to say "ok, show me a non orange squeepin" -- instead you must absolutely demonstrate that no non-orange squeepins CAN exist.
That's how premise 1 fails.
Mike Cordner Good points. I am about to sleep but thought I, a devout Christian, would like to respond.
1 & 2: Just because we have never personally encountered something does not make it true or false. No human has personally encountered the Big Bang, the rapid expansion of the universe, or even a person living across the globe. I have never personally encountered you. The question is whether we have good reasons for whatever we posit.
The Christian definition or understanding of God is critical: the timeless, spaceless, non-physical entity, that is the source of and maintains the patterns of the universe that we call physical laws. This entity is sentient, and the objective ground of morality, consciousness, and the laws of logic among others. Ultimately, this entity is the ontological primitive for all of reality. This is what the Christian, classically, means by God. This entity is also necessarily singular.
For sound arguments, let me know what you think about the arguments from contingency, the cosmological argument, the argument from morality, the argument from consciousness, and the argument from the laws of logic.
The gospels and the Bible in general contain accounts of individuals with first person experiences. If God exists, then what the Bible records is child’s play for God to do. If God does not exists, then it is myth or worse. There are good reasons to conclude that God exists. The best explanation for an ontological primitive capable of, for example, creating a universe with laws that exist and, as far as we can tell, remain consistent is what the Christian means by God. Gravity, the strong nuclear force, etc. they never take a day off. There must be something maintaining that state of affairs. There is no free lunch.
You are right that many god-of-the-gap explanations have been offered and debunked. However the existence of God, as the Christian understands the creator, is plausible based almost on inferential reasoning alone. What else creates and maintains laws and patterns of activity except sentient agents? I have never seen a non-intelligent agent create a law. Appealing to a multiverse - which is virtually unprovable and for which there is no direct observational evidence - merely pushes the question back. What created the multiverse, it’s laws and its ability to church out universes. At some point, it is plausible, that there be an ontological primitive.
I have a few questions for you: how do you explain the existence of the universe, it’s laws, the fact that the laws are maintained, the immateriality of human consciousness (we have thoughts ‘about’ things but no atom or particle or molecule has an ‘about’ property), or the objectivity of moral values (example: rape is wrong no matter what we think)? What is your best explanation for these facts?
Science is an inferential discipline. We can’t test every particle under every circumstance to know for sure that it will do what we say it will. Ergo, we don’t have absolute evidence about anything. We believe our findings on earth hold true across the universe but we don’t know for sure. So just because we don’t personally encounter, for example, a particle in andromeda doing what we say it should do does not mean we cannot infer that it will.
I cannot prove that God exists. However I think there are very good reasons to conclude that God exists. I also will not act as if I have all the answers or even know a whole lot. I think about these questions a lot and am fascinated by the universe and the more we learn about it.
I look forward to your reply.
Mike Cordner being a Christian I do disagree with these but I appreciate your honesty and response to why you’re an atheist. I do wonder though.. with all of that a side have you once ever asked God? Have you ever once let your heart maybe believe for a second? It’s not Gods job to chase you or prove himself to the unbeliever who doesn’t want to hear.. If the gospels are true like they claim then God HAS made himself known to man not only through his word but through Jesus. He has given us an exact guideline of how we should live and how to have a relationship with him. Which is why when people do finally TRULY accept him their hearts change. Not the ones who just say the words but the ones who truly accept. If you say you are only an atheist bc evidence hasnt presented itself why not go to the source? For God says whoever TRULY seeks him will find him. You have to really be seeking with all your heart and soul though and he promises to answer you. Try it. It will change your life, God bless and peace be with you.
What I also find amazing is that the more I study physics and science the more I am convinced that the only rational explanation and perspective is that God exists. Rules, laws, patterns, matter, quantum realities, etc. don’t just come out of nowhere, for no reason, by nothing. There is nothing in human experience that teaches us that something happens for no reason. We can infer causes from their effects.
I think that is why the vast majority of the founders of the scientific revolution were Christians, and why people like George Ellis (cosmologist), George Lemaitre (crested the Big Bang hypotheses) and others believe in God.
The universe has all the hallmarks of intelligent creative power by a sentient entity. I would definitely love to hear a better explanation for what we observe that coheres with all the evidence and human experience.
There is an important distinction I would like to throw out for your consideration, it is simply this -- the question of who wins gold, and who gets to race in the Olympics are two separate questions. That is all.
I am an Indian Christian and i really really love British English accent, its really heavenly language, they should be proud of their Language.
May God bless and protect you in India. I've heard these are difficult times for Christians there.
Btw, I'm a half French half Canadian Christian and I really love the RP British accent too.
@@christophekeating21 i dont know why british hate their own langauge and faith and traditions.but i pray for all christians everywhere.
i am glad to know that you have french ancestory, God will bless you too abundantly.
Yes Christians in India are going through darkest times in our history, we are stuck in between a grand Hindu-Muslim conflict, still the lord is bringing many Hindus and muslims into believe in Christ...many are getting saved and ready for eternal life.
Christianity in India is going through the times just like the early 4th century Diocletan times in lives of Roman christians...still strong in faith...we need prayers that many many Hindus and Muslims and other know salvation in Jesus christ our lord.amen.
what accent is that exactly
their are innumerable different English ,british accents
Err... The hallmark of sciences is that keep refining our description of nature and enabling our progress exactly because we understand more than before, unlike dogmas.
Can any theist answer this question for me. Where did disease come from? Did god create it or was it abiogenesis naturalism?
@John Alegre I don't think any theist can answer it
@John Alegre haven't gotten an answer yet. I think that theists can't make sense of it
disease are caused by not living in accord to what the Creator intended for us. If you take a car that runs on gas and you put Coca Cola in the gastank,the car will get "sick". If you read Genesis,God created us to eat plants and seeds,not fries with steak and a big Coke. Simply put,the human body was made to live in a different world. The current world just isn't healthy for us. Bad diet,poluation,chemichals,radiations etc. God did NOT creat disease.
@@robertc5325 Well, the story is god created everything. There is no other creator right? If there is let me know so I can revise my argument. But if you believe that God is the only creator then god created disease. God created cancer...which causes horrible deaths...even amongst children. Pretty bad I must say
@@robertc5325
"disease are caused by..."
The truth is that I can make up any "reason" I want. I could say it's because people don't believe in me, or they farted at the wrong time of day.
"If you read Genesis" you'll realize that they (Genesis 1 and 2) don't agree, and you'll also see that they read like any other book of myths.
I also studied the history of science. And present science. And the bible. What did I find? That the Ark Flood story is actually two contradictory flood stories long ago shuffled together. To read them untangled into their originals simply google "Two flood stories in one." I also found out that Egyptologists and Palestinian archeologists are agreed: there was no Abraham, Isaac or Jacob, no Moses, no Joshua or any patriarch, no Ten Plagues, no Exodus, no wandering the Sinai, no conquest of Canaan and if David and Solomon did exist, they ruled villages, not kingdoms. Just google "The Exodus" and skip to "history" or YTube Israel Finkelstein.
Deacon Verter As for the flood story being two other cobbled together there is nothing about that assertion that cannot also be explained as the primary story devolving, over time, into two, or actually several. You are wrong about Egyptologists and Palestinian archeologists being agreed about anything, not just the exodus, but just about everything. They are academics and have multiple reasons for coming to diverse opinions and hypotheses.
@@CCCBeaumont Maybe. But the nays have it. According to the bible, some 1/4 million Israelites fled Egypt and spent 40 years in the Sinai. No way could a group that size, with all their poop, trash and the bones of their livestock, escape detection, not to mention 250,000 dead bodies as the bible says all the original exodites died in the Sinai but for a few. Yes, the Sinai is big but the bible says that for 38 of that 40 years i.e. 19/20 of their "wandering," they were camped at or near a place called Kadesh Barnea. We've found Kadesh and excavated all around there. Nothing. We also found Jericho. During the supposed Joshua's time Jericho was either uninhabited or sparsely inhabited but in either case had no walls. When did the Exodus take place? Christians and Jews can't say. Who was the Pharaoh? They can't say. It's myth!
@@CCCBeaumont I've no problem with the Flood stories devolving from a common one. But other pre-Israelite cultures had _their_ flood stories featuring an Ark. The biblical stories evolved from them. And we _do_ have proof of civilizations that survived right through the supposed flood high and dry.
@@maxdoubt5219 You're putting a lot of faith in archeology to reconstruct a past history, especially one so long ago. I prefer to place my faith in contemporaneous accounts. That being said I am not convinced that this applies to the origin or to the flood story in Genesis, which may be spiritually instructive but historically metaphorical. As a person who is actually educated in this field, holding a Thm and ThD, I just do not place as much faith in other flawed, though well-intentioned academics to reconstruct the ancient past with anything approaching the certitude you seem to invest in their accounts.
@@maxdoubt5219 Not to mention all the historical civilizations at the time that seem to blissfully unaware that they were flooded and destroyed.
A "love affair with atheism"? Um, how can you be in love with skepticism?
@Frances Snowflake you soon changed your tune 😂
It's a rhetorical device.
Whenever you see a believer talking about the reasons why he believes you realize that he believes because he wants it to be true. He needs a framework, he needs significance for his life, so he believes! But you never see a real reason why he would have to believe. So smart people, like priests and theologians, profit from these needs to make money selling them what they desperately want to buy.
yes true, priest are smart people - they study for more than 10 years to become priest and get payed the lowest for persons with college degrees and doctoral educations
@@jotunman627 many of the priests are also innocent people who want it to be true and get fooled by higher members of their Church. However, if you look at the Church Organization, then usually you will see people making a lot money or getting prestige and status.
@@GaudioWind Yes, the Pope (chairman) the highest member of the church earns for a year a 1 gold coin, 1 silver coin and 1 copper coin. These are not received by the Pope on life but are awarded after his death and all the coins earned during his papacy are placed inside the Popes coffin - so much for getting rich? coins to take with you when you die
@@jotunman627 The Pope and the highest members of the Catholic Church enjoy the greatest status among all the billions of Catholics over the world. They don’t need any money, they have everything they desire. The Church provide them whatever they need by using the money collected throughout the centuries when Popes have also been political chiefs. Would you say the Organization of the Vatican is not rich? There are many accounts of Popes who were highly crooked. That’s one of the reasons some believers ended up fighting them and founding new branches of Christianism like the Protestants. But they also turned into well paid services as time went on.
@@GaudioWind of the 266 Popes, around 10 are bad Popes, and 83 of them are saints, and for a human organization where 30% of the Chairman's where saints, that is remarkable, and no other human endeavor can match this - Yes the Vatican is rich in history, and with priceless treasures, why not? it has been around for 2000 years, it was around when Leonardo de Vinci painted the Sistine Chapel - The Catholic church has endured and will continue to endure and its doctrines have not changed for 2000 years no matter how bad the leadership is - It is the only church today that still holds the sanctity of life and the family - all other churches has succumbed to the pressure of this modern world except this church accepting abortion, divorce, etc. - The Catholic church speaks in all major languages, it has more than 200,000 parishes around the world, and the largest charitable organization in the world with 140,000 schools, orphanages, clinics and 5,000 hospitals. Caritas with its affiliates gives 3 billion dollars annually to charity around the world -
Atheists for the most part are atheists for good logical reasons, faith doesn't come into it. But Alister McGrath says he was an atheist by faith! That says all you need to know about Mr McGrath.
Then you are not a curious enough person. Just saying.
@@CCCBeaumont
How does that address my point sir?
john hammond Personally, I would want to know more about what this obviously bright, thoughtful and articulate man has to say about being an “atheist by faith,” and your response that such a statement says all you need to know about him strikes me as I indicated. Of course, from the Christian perspective, a thoughtful and informed person cannot maintain atheism without some degree of faith and that may be all he was saying, but the more I listened the clearer he was and he doesn’t seem to be saying what many atheists who are responding here are hearing when only giving him a cursory nod.
@@johnhammond6423 Darn youtube, I cannot find where to respond in context to your latest contribution. I am sorry if I mischaracterized your acquaintance with McGrath. Sounds like you know more about him than I do. However, as a thinking Christian (doctoral philosopher and theologian) I take exception to your characterizations of both Craig and Lennox as holy specious and fallacious, from my perspective, as well as your assertion that what they are presenting does not constitute evidence for God. When of course, by any standard definition, it does. I take your point if, in your opinion, such evidence does not constitute "proof." That's what judges and juries are for.
@@CCCBeaumont
Nice talking to you my friend.
_'I take exception to your characterizations of both Craig and Lennox'_
Sorry but they do not in my opinion give any evidence for God's existence? W.L. Craig seems to hang his hat on the 'Kalam Cosmological Argument' which has been debunked so many times.
For me its simple, in all my long life on this planet I have found no evidence for anything supernatural?
Of course I could be wrong, but I just can't believe in God without good testable logical scientific evidence for God. [If God seems to be invisible by any means known to man and is undetectable by his five senses then its reasonable to assume he does not exist]
_'I take your point if, in your opinion, such evidence does not constitute "proof." That's what judges and juries are for'_
The so called 'judges and juries' seem to me to be the theists with their PhDs in Theology vs the Scientists with their PhDs in their branch of science. I go by the scientists myself. That's my choice and why I am an atheist.
With respect,
John.
First mistake...science doesn’t entail atheism. Science is a method that gives the best current possible explanation for something. Science can be one reason in which you reach atheism but it’s not what atheism is solely based on. Otherwise we wouldn’t have atheists that believe in flat earth, aliens, big foot, etc.... additionally plenty of Christians use science to justify god. So using science as a basis, when you can reach two completely different results, is not the best foundation. Atheism should be based on lack of evidence through various methods, not just science. Just like a religious beliefs
That's exactly what I used to think before regarding Christianity but atheism is not science.
If atheism is science,then Newton
, Albert Einstein are not scientists.
'Why I lost my faith in atheism' this statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Neither does atheism.
@@dcmastermindfirst9418 to you. To me atheism makes sense.
@therick363 It makes no sense.
We have DNA... that alone refutes the concept of no design or no higher power. DNA is literally instructions for life! It's written information and the equivalent of digital information.
Please explain to me how that simply made itself via natural processes and no intelligence whatsoever.
Atheism makes no sense.
What's bad about the bible:
1. The unspeakable immorality.
2. Putting the threat and fright of a hell in people's minds, especially kids.
3. The justification throughout history of committing unspeakable cruelty because a god said so....because the religion condones it.
4. The condemnation of people who just want to live their lives, like gay people.
5. The drumming into people's minds that they are wicked and unworthy...just like a bully.
6. Thought crime in the NT...which no doubt has the capability of screwing with people's minds and creating incredible guilt.
7. The condemnation of hell for petty things and for things that come naturally...such as sexual attraction toward someone
Religion poisons the mind.
your thoughts are so scary..... you may murder someone and not feel a thing
@@jeffgeorge9075 oh no. I don't believe in that stuff, the bible. I just point out the bad things in it. I am actually against the murder in the bible....completely
Lawrence Eason I agree
Lawrence Eason but I still will fallow him
Because you don’t know what those words mean?
How scary that a "professor of science" espouses such nonsense: science entails atheism? Smh/sigh
Yeah, Hitch. Gods are beyond science. But science has killed the bible as accurate history.
@@maxdoubt5219 not realy. In fact archaeology supports the bible.
There is so much history in the Bible.
The four Gospels and the Acts of the apostles are history events and real people.
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David Salomon, Elijah, etc were historical people.
The Bíble is historical and reliable.
Of course there is also simbolic elements there, but don't make confusion.
"Science entails atheism" that's false but he was speacking about his opinion when he was Younger, not now.
Science points powerfully to God.
@@maxdoubt5219 It absolutely hasn’t. Scientists doesn’t deal with history, Historians do and most historians agree that the Bible is often accurate as a historical source.
@@michaelterrell5061 Haha. "The Bible is often accurate." That's like calling a clock "often accurate." Of course the bible has history in it. The captivity in Babylon and several Judahite kings have been confirmed. But the Flood, Exodus, Wanderings and Conquest stories have been turned out as myth as well as most of the characters in them. It's not historically _reliable._
How silly that atheists actually believe that everything came from nothing.
Atheism doesn't require faith.
@Jesus is God oh yeah, it is just "so obvious" to everyone that your favorite ancient mythology character is real, and that your imaginary friend who listens to prayers and with whom you claim to have a personal relationship exists. How dare we Atheists insist on reason and "wilfully reject reality"?
@Jesus is God Then why are you an atheist towards the other 99.9999% of Gods? What's your excuse?
@@TheLegendOfRandy Not believing in any given god or God doesn't make one an atheist.
A Christian doesn't believe in Allah, but he's still a theist.
Same is true in reverse for a Moslem -- he doesn't believe Jesus is God BUT he's still a theist.
@Frances Snowflake I disagree, you piece of dog shit.
Whoever sent Jesus (IF anyone) did NOT also send Mohamed the lying throat-cutter.
@Frances Snowflake Are you a homosexual?
New atheism does not want to "shut down the conversation about religion". Quite the opposite. We want to shine a light upon it.
Religion requires faith. Science requires evidence. Now how can you lack faith in the lack of faith? Sounds like a fallacy to me, but I'm sure you can prove me wrong with faith, or would you use evidence.
1. Fallacies are about logic, so neither faith nor evidence. Logic is about proof in a mathematical, not scientific sense. The axioms (fundamental assumptions) of logic are taken as a starting point, and everything goes from there.
2. Science, like all human enterprise, is based off of fundamental assumptions as well, for example, that the constants in physics, such as the speed of light, actually don't change. So you actually need to have faith in those fundamental assumptions in order to do science at all. Science is not the lack of faith, rather it starts with faith. That's why Isaac Newton, the father of modern physics, wrote in his masterwork, the Principia Mathematica, that he hoped his book would strengthen faith in the Creator.
@@christophekeating21 You left out the key. Sciences assumptions are based on evidence that support those assumptions. On the other hand faith requires no such evidence. In fact faith is asking you to believe for lack of evidence. And since science at the present is the best standard we have to judge reality, it seems that the faithful are applying a double standard. One in which evidence is required, and another where faith is required. This is illogical by any standard.
@@comeasyouare4545 Faith is based on evidence, though not proof; it just isn't convincing evidence to those who aren't convinced by it. So faith in the general assumptions of science is evidence-based. In the case of Alister McGrath the "faith in science" that he's lost is faith in the ability of science to eventually explain everything, and that is because he doesn't find the evidence for that convincing. The whole thing is logical, whether you agree or disagree.
@@christophekeating21 When you are asked to have the faith of a child. Isn't this an admission that you are to accept without evidence? But to accept just because you are told so? No faith is acceptance without evidence. If you had evidence, you wouldn't need faith. Now would you? It would just say look at the evidence. Right?
@@comeasyouare4545
The evidence children have is the experience they've had with their parents, and the fact they are their parents, which is a form of evidence for trusting their parents. When that trust is broken and they are mistreated, that faith is lost very quickly. Do you say children have to "just believe" that their parents exist? No, of course not!
Rather it's after you come to believe that God exists and that He's worthy of trust that you can keep on trusting/having faith in Him. How are you supposed to have faith in someone you don't believe exists or who you don't think is trustworthy? You can't. You need to believe God exists and believe He is trustworthy BEFORE you can trust (have faith in) Him. (Hebrews 11:6)
I'm willing to bet that most of what you know or think you know you accept because someone told you, whether your parents, your teachers, a textbook, television documentary, etc. Does that mean you believe it without evidence? Of course not, the faith you have in those sources is what is based on evidence.
Science works this way too. How quickly do you think science would advance if every scientist had to repeat every experiment before using the results to design their own experiments? "Someone telling them" the results of previous experiments IS the evidence.
Faith never replaces evidence, rather evidence (usually evidence of trustworthiness) leads to faith.
That's why the greek word (pistis) translated faith is synonymous with trust. So is faith in English. I was watching an episode of Suits a while back and the head of the law firm tells one of the other characters in a rather dire situation "we have our two best lawyers on the case, you need to have faith." Religion was not involved. Trust in the capacity of those lawyers based on previous experience (a form of evidence) is what was meant.
That is the same form texts about faith in the Bible take:
look at previous examples of God working, that's a reason to trust now. Again it may not be evidence you accept, but it's a form of evidence.
Faith in atheism???? Says it all really :/
@Trolltician Atheism, as defined by most atheists, just means a lack of belief in a god(s). This definition is merely describing a psychological state of mind, which cannot be true or false by definition. It's only when an atheist claims there is no god that invokes faith.
@Frances Snowflake a burden of proof is only required in the presence of a claim. A psychological state is statement about the mind, not a claim about external reality.
Anger is a psychological state. It wouldn't make sense to say: "you have the burden of proof to show anger is true". It is only describing a state of mind, nothing more.
@Frances Snowflakethat's because theists claim that god exists along with their belief. They do not have the burden of proof for the belief alone.
Conversely, a lack of belief is not a claim at all. "My lack of belief is true" is a nonsensical statement.
@Trolltician What ever theist wants to claim it is a default position. You dont choose to be an atheist. If someone claims there is God they must demonstrate this. If your not convinced of their evidence you will by default fall under agnostic atheism. Unless you claim there are no Gods you will have to demonstrate that. Argue termonology all you want. Doesnt change the fact No observable evidence has been brought forward for any God.
@Trolltician Your fetish for fruit cups means nothing either, Let me guess you believe God is the foundation for metaphysics?
soooo tldw science sometimes fails. the thing is science corrects itself. religion however fails in every aspect, other than give people a false hope.
@Trolltician that all you got? "athetard"? lmao
Here's a link to how I lost faith in not collecting stamps. In short, I now collect stamps and shame on you for not wanting to collect stamps; it takes too much effort to not collect them, why would anyone not collect stamps?
(If you find this absurd, you should also find that video absurd...)
@Trolltician with a name like that, you should have known that it was more of a joke than a strong argument. Using ridicule is relevant when something is that stupid. Why spend more time on these arguments? They're useless. Moving on! Bye bye.
@Trolltician Yet if your best friend still believed in Santa Claus, You would rip the piss out of him.
@Trolltician I do all you arguing is there are no absolutes i agree, concepts like the laws of logic need to demonstrated to be inconsistant at some point before you can assert, they need a foundation.
@Trolltician What ever the current consencus is what i take as the model that works. When it changes and becomes a new theory im on board.
@Trolltician No Atheist don't believe in any Gods or subscribe to any religions, So could call me anti-theist i wouldnt argue. But i also don't believe concepts are anything more than abstract things, same way i don't believe words have meanings other than there discriptive use etc. Abstract/metaphysichal whatever you want to argue as i said to you earlier.
Science is a moving target 😉
Ofcause it is. Facts are changing by the minute, so it have to.
Life is a moving target. Demanding you are never the same for long. Science on the other hand is always improving. That’s a good thing.
Science is only moving if the truth is shown to be somewhere else... which should make you wonder why religion is refusing to move...
Yes science is self correcting. But you know what changes current scientific models? More science. Please demonstrate what the Bible has contributed to our scientific knowledge in the last 1000 years...or maybe ask the church why they persecuted Galileo...
When science doesn't move we call that religion.
It was until I sought God and accepted Jesus Christ that a continuous amount of coincidences started happening in my life. Every time I think about Jesus, I get a warm sensation in my heart.
I get that same sensation whenever I think about magic leprechauns. And you know? A lot of weird things have been happening lately... :)
@@Bill_Garthright I'm happy for you man :)
glad you found peace. feel free to tell me about it.
Unbelievable : But i've lost my faith in faith, so now my faith has been prowling the world for new hosts and found a new host = the guest.
@Frances Snowflake : ???????
I didn't watch the video, but my first thought when I saw this was, if you lost 'FAITH' in atheism, you probably weren't an atheist to begin with.
Good point, anybody who even uses that phrase doesn't even know what atheism is.
Its also admitting that his faith is not based on any kind of evidence.
And atheists who use that phrase don't know that the definition of faith is simply having confidence in something, in fact that's what confidence means. con (with) + fide (faith).
This is what happens when atheists never open a philosophy book and get all their definitions from new atheists propagandizers. Which are universally considered in philosophy across the board as ignorant.
@@barcafanshd8378 You think that most atheists weren't once believers? We understand the definition and it doesn't matter if you what to call it faith or confidence in something, it's still not evidence based. I know this cus every time I ask for actual evidence, I get nothing but logical fallacies. And most theists know it. "It takes more faith to be an atheist" "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" "It takes more faith to believe in evolution over creation" The way theists use the word faith is that its not evidence based, that its nothing but blinding believing so sit your ignorant bitch ass down. Unless of course you want to do what no other theist has been able to do and produce creditable, testable evidence... Ow wait you don't have any do you?
@@barcafanshd8378
By "philosophy book" I assume you mean apologetics book!
As an atheist who has studied analytic philosophy for over a decade I can tell you that I have never once heard faith defined in this manner in a philosophy text; it comes straight from apologetics circles.
There is no new atheism, and atheism is not waining.
@Language and Programming Channel There is a new atheism? Then define the difference between atheism and 'new' atheism.
@Language and Programming Channel New Atheism is a term coined in 2006 by the journalist Gary Wolf to describe the positions promoted by some atheists of the twenty-first century. This modern-day atheism is advanced by a group of thinkers and writers who advocate the view that superstition, religion and irrationalism should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever their influence arises in government, education, and politics. According to Richard Ostling, Bertrand Russell, in his 1927 essay Why I Am Not a Christian, put forward similar positions as those espoused by the New Atheists, suggesting that *THERE ARE NO SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ATHEISM AND NEW ATHEISM.*
Here is a good characteristic of the god of the bible:
Job 9:22 It is all one; therefore I say,
‘He destroys both the blameless and the wicked.’
23 When disaster brings sudden death,
he mocks at the calamity of the innocent.
What a joy!
@God made the big bang athiests love denying it Yo
Translation "I couldn't deal with not knowing certain things, so I decided god of the gaps was the best choice"
Actually, atheistic explanations for the origins of the universe are full of WAY MORE "gaps" than we find in the theistic worldview. For instance, if I ask an atheist how the universe began, he or she might say "the big bang". If I ask where the molecule that exploded came from, most atheist will say, "we don't know yet". Ok, where did the space come from that the molecule exploded into? Atheist: "we don't know yet". Christian: ok how do you get something from nothing? Atheist: "we don't know yet".... Etc., etc.
When we as Christians actually tell you that The eternal, self-existent God was the one who created all things, that's not a gap. That's the actual answer! The only ones with "gaps" in their explanation are the atheist.
"The God of the gaps" is nothing more than an atheist misnomer.
Stop being deceived. Give your life to Jesus while you still can.
@@UriyahYasharal not only was that a gross misrepresentation of the big bang, but to suggest that "I don't know" is somehow an unacceptable answer and we should instead plug in "god" (which doesn't actually answer anything) is simply silly. I prefer truth, I'm interested in believing as many true things and as few false things as possible, and therefore I will not believe a thing until there is good reason. There is no good reason to believe in a god that has ever been presented to me, and you're argument is a prime example. And btw the big bang is not an atheistic position, it's a scientific one
@@josephtramelli5250 Stating that I grossly misrepresented the big bang without demonstrating such, is nothing more than an empty accusation. You have to provide evidence of your claim, otherwise you have no ground to tell a Christian to provide evidence of their claims.
No one is "plugging in" God. It's scientific to say that we live in a cause and effect universe. It is also scientific to say that the first "cause" could not itself have been caused. This means the first cause had to precede the natural universe. This can be no one else but God, as only God precedes time, space and matter. This is sound scientific philosophy.
The atheist perspective is unscientific, because it tries to convince us that a materialistic cause effected the universe into existence before materialism actually existed. This is unscientific fantasy.
If you say I have it wrong, PLEASE demonstrate how so (scientifically), otherwise I'll know you're just hiding behind smoke, mirrors and empty accusations.
@@UriyahYasharal the big bang is not proposed as the definite creation of everything (in science). But rather the beginning of expansion. Material didn't expand into space, space and material were both part of the singularity and both expanded. So yes you're flat wrong. We do not know that everything has a cause, we do not know that the universe (or cosmos if you prefer) began to exist. We have zero good evidence of anything supernatural existing and thus proposing it as a cause is unfounded. Again, I don't know is often the most reasonable answer to a question. Not having an evidence backed explanation does not mean you can shoe horn in any explanation you want. God is not an evidebce backed explanation, period. You don't even know what atheism is, you confuse atheism and science earlier and now you confuse atheism and naturalism. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in gods. There are many atheists who believe in supernatural things.
@@josephtramelli5250 "the Big Bang is not proposed as the definite creation of everything"
😑 This is simply untrue and unscientific. You're not allowed to change the definition of theories to suit your perspective in a debate.
I'm willing to bet you're not a physicist, but I'll quote for you the beginning of a physics article from Universetoday . Com. This represents how the actual scientific community defines the big bang:
"How was our Universe CREATED? How did it come to be the seemingly infinite place we know of today? And what will become of it, ages from now? These are the questions that have been puzzling philosophers and scholars since the beginning the time, and led to some pretty wild and interesting theories. Today, the CONSENSUS AMONG SCIENTISTS, ASTRONOMERS AND COSMOLOGISTS is that the Universe as we know it was CREATED IN A MASSIVE EXPLOSION that not only created the MAJORITY OF MATTER, but the physical laws that govern our ever-expanding cosmos. This is known as THE BIG BANG THEORY".
Know the actual scientific theory first before you begin to tell someone that they're flat out wrong and is grossly misrepresenting something.
I stand by everything I wrote in my previous comments. When you're willing to accept the fallacious non-theist explanation of the origins of the universe, then please provide me more accurate responses which I'll be happy to entertain.
At the very least, you've conceded that the non-theist explanations for the origins of the universe, are replete with the statement "I don't know" or "we don't know yet". This substantiates my claim that your worldview is full of far more gaps, albeit, you'll try to justify these gaps. We as Christians are given answers to these questions. We're not exclusivists though. You're welcome to join team Christ as well. 😁
If I believe in life after death I'm irrational and stupid, but if I believe that we came from nothing and that at the end of our life there is nothing I'm a rational person. What a depressing life I have to look forward to, because no matter what achievements i might accomplish it's all for nothing....but believers are the irrational ones........
What a self centered view of life, oh life only matters if you get to have a sky orgy with jesus after death? Seriously it doesnt make any sense. As an atheist I value my life and all life, I dont need a magical sky daddy to make this lifetime worthwhile, and I'd argue that life has more value as an atheist.
@@daniel1fullerton Well there are plenty of people that believed that to like Hitler and stalin and look what they did, you insult believers by suggesting a sky orgy? Makes no sense. My argument is where is the purpose for life if it just means nothingness in the end, I'm well aware that their are good people without belief in god, but in the atheistic view of life there is nothing to be expected in the end, and on top of that there is no true meaning to life, and with atheism there is no intrinsic value to life and all things are permitted. No wonder we have so many murder-suicide and mass shootings....
@Frances Snowflake you dont even know what god means, so who cares what I call it
@@nyckalusmatlock3825 you really are not working with the right data lol there is plenty of reason to enjoy life without god or afterlife, just because life ends doesnt mean life cant be enjoyed.... that's some indoctrinated thought processes if I've ever seen em. To non sequitur hitler and stalin as like flagship atheists is very dishonest. Both hitler and stalin pursued directives completely isolated from atheism, because atheism doesnt actually mean anything......
@@nyckalusmatlock3825 most murder-suicides/mass shootings are the product of religion or some such prejudice race, sex etc lol wtf seriously. That claim is so baseless, your hillbilly preacher must have given you that talking point lmao
He gave up critical thinking
New atheism didn't try to shut the conversation down, they opened it up... This guy is either grossly misinformed or intentionally disingenuous, typical apologetic crap
As he points out, the movement provides a platform that would probably not be there without the opposition. The fact that religion is opposed highlights it as something to be discussed.
@@anguspure Atheism is NOT the opposition, it is the default position to the unproven claim that a god or gods exist. Science does not deal with religion. Religion is bringing science into its realm of excuses because theism CANNOT prove it is in fact true. Gods are theists' unproven answer to what we have no explanation for. Theists can never present any god as proof for every single claim they make about their unproven god doing because they've never observed their unproven god or gods actually existing.
Theists claim a god exists is their first claim - when they claim their unproven gods can do things, when their unproven gods have not been proven to be real, that is more unproven claims piled unto their belief.
It is a fact that gods are not real, because theism is making a claim that their gods exist based on faith - not proof. How do we know about such things as gods if they've never been observed to be real, nor doing the things theists claim gods can supposedly do? Where can a god be repeatedly observed to demonstrate and prove that it is actually real?
Black Death I think you win the prize for posting a reply wholly based on unsupported opinions, ironically while attempting to indict theists of that very fault.
@Frances Snowflake theism ultimately rests on faith and not Faith as in trust but faith has in believing without evidence
@@CCCBeaumont only his last paragraph was off
So, he just abandonned reason. I don't think he was atheist
I was atheist too and abandoned atheism because atheism is anti reason
@@HIMYMTR aha, i want that you answer this, what is atheism? And how did you arrive to the conclution that atheism was the conclution before converting?
Professor Francis Collins did the same.
@@dcmastermindfirst9418 ???? I don't know him, you are saying that Francis collins was an atheist and then suddenly he converted to religion?
@@HIMYMTR how is atheism anti reason?
Wow, this guy has it COMPLETELY backwards.
@Trolltician Nice argument.
Let's see you debate him
Genesis 1:6-8
"6 And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7 So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. 8 God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day."
BS.
That's why I am agnostic about the idea of a metaphysical Creator. We just can't know. And based on evidence and lack thereof we can be pretty sure Christianity ain't it. Nor any of the other so-called revelations to mankind. They all fail at the critical points in which they claim to stand.
Hmmm... Seems you didn't do much research on the subject.
@@atheismisamentaldisorder1839 Hmm... Seems like you haven't.
Therefore you're an Atheist...
Don't know, Agnostic, don't believe, Atheist.
Inner Vigilance no it seems you haven’t
Inner Vigilance yo obviously don’t no any of the world religion you obviously have study Christianity in depth without bias
You lost your faith in a lack of faith in a god?... Sounds more like you were fooled by the easy answers of a 'bigger' picture.
@Frances Snowflake You're still being a moron I see.
@Frances Snowflake
Get your two fucking brain cells in gear, maybe then you don't shit in the kitchen.
@Trolltician troll go bk to your hole lol.
@Trolltician No I meant hole, as in the hole in the ground that your troll ass crawled out of. You wouldn't know logic if it was tattooed on your face.
@Frances Snowflake LoL That's a really short hole to be in.
What a terrible reason to believe in God.
Almost any reason is a good reason, as long as it gets you there, for once you've arrived you discover ultimate truth, peace, and purpose. Empirically some reasons are better than others, but pragmatically "any port in a storm" is better than no port at all.
@@CCCBeaumont But because of the reason he gave, he can't know he's found ultimate truth.
@@Whatsisface4 I have no way of knowing any man's condition but my own. Do you?
@@Whatsisface4 Could be. My default position is to assume someone is truthful, so perhaps his epistemology is more sufficient than someone else's but, as I said, I cannot possibly know someone's personal condition before God.
PROBLEM OF FREE WILL:
According to the story, this god gave us free will. Free will is imperfect. You cannot get 100% obedience or perfect compliance to anything with free will. Impossible. You will always get varied results, always get people who won't do what you want them to do. But this god requires perfect compliance, for EVERYONE to believe in him without exceptions. Impossible, and this god created imperfect free will in mankind yet will send those who don't comply to burn in hell. God is responsible for the varied and different results. God is responsible for those exceptions. This is another reason the bible doesn't make any sense.
Misusing the word "faith" like that is deeply dishonest.
Hard to take him seriously given there is no such thing as "faith in Atheism". Atheism is simply the position of not believing in the existence of Gods (aka not being convinced). What a ridiculous statement. This man is not interested in whether or not what he believes is true, as someone else said below, his reasoning is grounded in emotion not logic. As Dawkins so eloquently put it: “We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
You are fooling yourself, atheism is by definition a system of faith because it assumes a statement to be true without being able prove it. Believer have no problem to admit that. Atheists, in particular the aggressive ones, merely claim not have no faith, but a claim does not become true just because you speak that claim out. Nothing what ever came out of the mouth of Dawkins with respect to religion is eloquent. He is full of hate and mocks people who don't agree with him. Even if his opponents were liars, it would make them look more sympathetic than him.
@@marapaprr4930 Please explain to me what statement atheism assumes to be true that they cant prove since It is not an assertive position? sure there are those who actively believe there IS no God, but I do not believe they fall under the category of atheism. Ironically it is actually thiests who hold an assertive position and claim to KNOW the truth but are unable to prove it? As to Dawkins character, not for me to speak on to be honest. How he behaves has no relevance to whether or not what he states holds value. I agree, at times I find his mockery of religious people, and less intelligent people in general to be distasteful. Everything else you said is just incorrect though. Atheism is the position of not being convinced of a God, not that there is no God. Religious people claim to know and almost always fall prey to many fallacies when trying to justify their belief. I think out of the two of us, it is you who are fooling yourself and clearly do not understand what the atheist position truly is.
@Kevin Parks As for this reply. quite simple really, very different situation. You can demonstrate to me how Euclidean geometry works, its reliability and accuracy quite easily. Then you show how it posits a perfect triangle can exist and I have no problem agreeing with you that it is rational to believe a perfect triangle exists. As for religions, most have been demonstrably false, prayer has been shown to not work and faith is not a reliable pathway to truth. You can justify any belief on faith. If you are going to use a silly example such as your triangles and even suggest it is at all similar to whether or not a God exists you are not being intellectually honest. Again, atheists simply hold the position that they are not convinced a God exists. There is a reason you start with the absence of belief, because there are infinitely more things to disprove than to prove. If we started with belief, you would then have to disprove 2999 other religions as opposed to just proving 1.
@Language and Programming Channel Productive.
@Kevin Parks Now we are moving into a philosophical realm in which I agree, arguments will become circular. I never asserted anything mattered, or that there was any inherent value in anything, in fact I agree with you. I personally don't believe there is any purpose or inherent value in anything. I simply stated a definition that you took up issue with apparently. As for the genetic fallacy you are pointing, that is completely irrelevant to the point I was making, but that isn't important. Far as anything else, I am not aware of anything I have said that hasn't been consistent with my original point. Just look at the reply the first guy made, and how he completely straw manned my position and claimed I hold some sort of assertive stance on the existence of God. He seemed completely unable to grasp what I very clearly meant. I also do not know what you mean by consistently living inconsistently (which I assume was a dig), because I feel I have been more consistent than any of you who have replied . My personal view is that nothing can be fully known, but that does not mean you can or cannot be rational in your approach to determining whether it is reasonable to believe something to be true or not.
I don't have enough evidence to be a Christian
@Language and Programming Channel we have the experience of its reliability in observation and in personal experience
@@lawrenceeason8007 But when a Christian asserts personal experience atheist dismiss it??
@@nyckalusmatlock3825 well, there are 2 things:
1. Personal experience isn't evidence for someone else. Can anyone demonstrate any component of that personal experience as real?
2. What about Muslim personal experience? Buddhist? Hindu? Seeing Elvis? Alien abductions? Ghosts? Seeing Bigfoot?
I believed for 50 years. If you asked me about personal experience I would have told you god is real.
@Language and Programming Channel and you dont have enough brain cells to express a coherent argument? Gtfoh you buffoon.
@@nyckalusmatlock3825 If a former Christian asserted a lack of personal experience despite being devout for decades, would you dismiss it?
Justin you are a great guy and definitely one of my favorite Christians but this thumbnail is ridiculous.. if this is a quote, ok, you are always free to put a [sic] in there, but "losing faith in atheism" is a nonsensical term.
According to the bible the antichrist will come on the scene and lead everyone who doesnt truly follow Jesus, into worshipping Him. Every faith including Christianity, points us towards a God man. Jesus showed love but the people follow after self indulgent people. Gods that appeal to men are natural thinking persons, but Jesus does not appeal to men but He is God, because He rose from death and taught true spirituality. He is historical and the only man verified by angels, who appeared to people to proclaim Jesus and His message.
This video should be called "I got scared of reality, and needed my imaginary friend back".
That's fascinating! The same principle can be applied to you. "I felt so sure about reality that I thought there was nothing more".
@@oscarvel9189 Actually was more like "i thought i had good evidence and reason, to believe there was a God" turns out i was wrong.
@Jesus is God Really what have you ever seen be created? Give me just 1 example, just 1.
@Jesus is God I have plenty of good reasons for not being conviced a God exsist.
@Jesus is God your cult is part of the reason the world is constantly so fucked up. Your god is a bloodthirsty murderous sadist. Where does that leave your moral standing? Pretty low.
It’s all about Jesus. Once you have knowledge of him, whether you believe or not, your life will never be the same again.
One Step Away
It’s all about Mohammed. Once you have knowledge of him, whether you believe or not, your life will never be the same again.
Nine thumbs up for such a pathetically vacuous comment... *facepalm*
Oners82 Mohammed the false prophet is dead and buried in Mecca. Go pay him a visit. Peace be upon him. Jesus lives in glory and power until the age of grace comes to an end.
Shalom
@@onestepaway3232
Jesus the false prophet is dead and buried in Palestine. Go pay him a visit. Peace be upon him. Mohammed lives in glory and power until the age of grace comes to an end.
I'm guessing you're too stupid to see the point I'm trying to make by parodying your assertions...
@@Oners82 lol He's not catching onto his own idiotic fallacies.
Actually both Jesus and Mohammed are false prophets. Start worshipping Bananahama today and get 19% off!
GOD COMMANDED BABIES AND CHILDREN TO BE MURDERED:
1. The flood. Genesis 6-8
2. 1 Samuel 15:2-3
2 "Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt.3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction[a] all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”
3. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
4. The annihilation of Egypt's firstborn sons
5. The slaughter of the canaanites:
Joshua 6:21 Then they devoted all in the city to destruction, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys, with the edge of the sword.
Numbers 21:3 And the Lord heeded the voice of Israel and gave over the Canaanites, and they devoted them and their cities to destruction. So the name of the place was called Hormah.
6. Mass slaughter:
Deuteronomy 20:16-17
16 But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, 17 but you shall devote them to complete destruction,[a] the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lordyour God has commanded
7. Murdered 42 boys for making fun of Eliseas bald head:
2 Kings 2:23-24
23 He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” 24 And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.
Argument from Ignorance fallacy. Science is not easy and they don't yet have all the answers, so in the meantime, I'll believe what Christianity says even though they make claims backed by nothing. He knows better. SMH.
The reasoning behind this comment is the root to all of the worlds problems
@@daniel1fullerton
The dogma of faith is the root.....not clear thinking. Go learn something.
@Trolltician
Exactly what he's doing. You're just too much of a dumbass to connect the dots.
@@biggregg5 wait which side are you on lol
@@daniel1fullerton
Non-believer. Did I misunderstand you?
No credible scientist says science “proves everything” and that it’s “absolute secure knowledge”. It’s the religious that says that about god, not scientist about science. Looking for absolutely secure knowledge contradicts the foundation of science that science has no absolute proof or 100% truth. All knowledge is contingent. Also thinking science “just changes” is also a misunderstanding of science. Science improves, it doesn’t simply change.
Exactly. Doubt and uncertainty his how science progresses but we never have access to certainty of knowledge.
I respectfully disagree. The problem with many scientists today is that they overreach and dogmatically state there is no God. This is dishonest and not the proper scientific answer. Now when an atheist tells me they don't believe in God because they don't find sufficient scientific evidence I can respect that. To assert dogmatically that God does not exist when our human understanding is limited and when science is still in its infancy is folly. The beauty of science is that it updates its beliefs and is open to correction. Too often scientists forget this. A healthy agnosticism it's probably the best way to go if one is a scientist
@Al The vast majority of scientists usually avoid the question of god. Like a biologist not wanting to speak about geology, scientists often don’t want to make claims outside of their expertise. When I hear biologists, cosmologists or physicist speak they will also constantly give caveats about their knowledge.
Unlike many gnostic theists. It’s odd how there any many many gnostic theists that’s say they know god exists but they don’t get anywhere near the scrutiny that gnostic atheists get. There is a double standard. You may also be confusing reasoned argument based on valid evidence with dogmatic belief. Conviction and dogmatism can be confused but they are not the same.
In terms of dogmatism of unfounded gnostic beliefs the scales of atheists vs theist are not equal. There are far far more theists that dogmatically claim knowledge that can not be verified. At least give some examples of dogmatic scientist because I can give many dogmatic theists. Let’s see how they match up. I’ll start with Kent Hovind, Ken Ham or anyone from the West Baptist Church...
Al most atheists are agnostic atheists who don’t make claims about knowing that gods don’t exist.
ManicPandaz why does science exclude God, God is apart of science just as any part of science, it is theory to make sense of are reality and isn’t that a scientist job to use the scientific method to find truths wether it be God or nothing
If he's saying he lost his faith in atheism, makes me think he was never an atheist. There is no faith needed to be an atheist.....you just don't believe people's claims that any gods exist.
Mabye, he gets a stroke, if i tell him that, as an atheist i don`t belive in bigfoot either.
biggregg5. you never heard the term "I lost faith in you" faith is another word for belief
@Mats Jönsson No one really care what you believe your sir are irrelevant.
Get thee behind us Satan seed
@Language and Programming Channel
No you don't. The only thing required to be an atheist is the lack of belief that gods exist.
@@chaitea3912
They aren't synonymous. Belief is what one believes and it can either be justified or not justified. Faith is belief without evidence.....therefore faith by definition is not a justified belief. Your example is irrelevant. Faith can mean trust, and as you know, words can have multiple definition. That's clearly not what he's referring to. The example you used would be the trust version.
Watch the full discussion and drink every time he mentions Dawkins. You may regret it depending on ur poison 🍺 🥃 ☠️:)
On the other hand, it would be hard to get through the whole thing _without_ drinking. :)
This isn't an existential argument; it's an emotional appeal. If his fear of uncertainty is a reason a god exists, then my fear of monsters, as a child, is a reason my magical blanket monster shield worked.
They don't call atheists willingly ignorant for nothing.
@Danny DeLorean Nope, you just hangout with that have the same worldview as yourself.
@Danny DeLorean Willingly means on purpose.
I think you are ignorant of the fact you believe everything came from nothing can’t see the stupidity of your own reasoning
@Danny DeLorean Willingly ignorant means dumb on purpose. Not sure why that's hard to understand.
I dont have enough faith to NOT believe in santa claus! Lmao! Ridiculous.
I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
Believing in Santa Claus is just as ridiculous as believing everything came from nothing even more so. Don’t throw stones when you live in a glass house
@@Titan_640 beliefs add NO value to any conversation, I dont hold beliefs in anything. I'll tell you EXACTLY where everything came from. You ready?
I DONT KNOW, and neither do you!!! You dont even know what god means! God answers nothing! Say it with me now if you are an honest person "I dont know where everything came from." You probably cant because your dogma makes you dishonest!
@@Titan_640 I think what daniel fuller means to say, in a less accusive tone, is: a lack of knowledge, is just that; a lack of knowledge. It would be a mistake to say "I dont know what caused X, therefore Y did it"
For example: when someone sees a UFO (unidentified flying object) and says "I dont know what that is so it must be aliens" they are contradicting themselves by simultaneously admitting they dont know what the object is, yet they are also claiming to know that it's aliens, because they lack the imagination to come up with a better explanation.
We are simply saying "we do not know what it is" and leaving it at that until we have a better understanding of whatever it is that we lack knowledge in.
Daniel Fuller so you don’t believe you don’t have any belief or do you know that too be true from the evidence you have if so why can’t the same apply for God
The Author of the 10 commandments is giving "atheists" all kind of problems.
"Why I lost my faith in atheism"
Quick Google Search: A atheist is a person that does not have FAITH in god or god's
Me: Why is humanity so stupid.
Faith in God is a member of a set of faiths. The belief there is no God belongs to this set too. Atheism is indeed a faith.
@@McRingil idiot it is not, athiesm is a lack of belief in any god or gods.
@@heyyo6050 it is a belief that God doesn`t exist
@@McRingil well those who think that god does not exist are idiot too because there is also no evidence for that either, so I would say I don't know which makes me an agnostic.
@@heyyo6050 Yeah it`s somewhat more reasonable. But there are sound proofs of monotheism, it`s a position very much approachable by deduction. The first philosophers 5 centuries BC were monotheists: Parmenides, Xenophanes, Anaximander, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. They all knew reality must have a single, immaterial cause.
You can't prove there is no God, you will just have to take it on faith.
You're shifting the burden of proof. I have no obligation to disprove _your_ claim. Faith is not necessary to reject a baseless supernatural claim not supported by a single shred of evidence.
I flew to the Moon last night and had tea with Space Hitler. Do you need faith to reject that claim?
@@TheLegendOfRandy What is your atheist cosmology?
I have a theistic cosmology consistent with current science and I'd like to compare it with yours.
@@20july1944 I already replied to you about that.
So I guess now you can pick and choose from the bible what you like and what you don't like is ignored.... so the earth is NOT 6000 years old, and god didn't create the earth in six days, gays are ok now so let's not say shit about it, don't stone a woman for infidelity, don't believe in the Noa's story, adopt a British accent and say the most stupid shit and people will take it on faith you are right, but all the other scientific advances are ok.... a buffet type of religion, just serve what you like.
@GGR TheMostGodless Nowhere does the Bible say the earth is 6,000 years old. Nowhere does the Bible say the earth was created in 6 days. That cannot be cherry-picked from the Bible since it is not there. I get where you were saying but you should never misrepresent the other side of an argument.
@@a.t.6322 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Genesis 1:31 ESV
How does this passage not support a six day creation?
Also the 6,000 years is based on the lineage written in genesis, which starts with Adam being created on the 6th day
@Trolltician Where in the bible does it say you must understand Hebrew to correctly interpret it's passages? If god's words can't be understood across different languages then it's of no use anyway, considering Hebrew is a dead language.
If you claim that: "there was evening and there was morning, the __6 day" is to be taken metaphorically then why not also take passages on salvation metaphorically? Or the resurrection? or all of the passages about god? Should god be taken metaphorically? It does not logically follow that one metaphorical passage means another should also be taken metaphorically. You must read it in context to see what is meant to be taken literally or metaphorically.
But let me guess your method of determining metaphorical passages: "all passages that contradict what is well established in science is the be taken metaphorically because if taken literally, it would mean the bible is wrong, and the bible cannot be wrong"
Seriously though, can you give me one instance, that you wouldn't take literally the saying: "there was evening and morning, the ___ day"?
@@a.t.6322
Not misinterpreting... it is ONE of many easily wrongly proven statements of creationists who believe in the literal bible as truth... of course then you got plenty of OTHER misinterpretations of bible themes, all of them wrong but that gives rise to some bible people saying Those bible people are wrong and my bible people are right, what god really meant is this and not that, even though the mind of god is UUknowable... etc etc... science does indeed have issues and some contradiction like the relativity v. quantum issues which are being resolved, but nothing compared to bible thinking .
I am curious though, my friend, WHY do you and others stick to some of these things even in the face of completely contrary EVIDENCE... I did this for a very short time since accepting the evidence meant to reconstruct and reshape all my early WELL-INTENTIONED parents' training, but finally I did START a years-long acceptance program on my own as evidence was internalised and other "facts" which did not conform and were not sustainable were discarded. It was both, painful and shocking and beautiful to live.
My main moral ideas of trying to treat others as you would like to be treated stayed the same, do not kill, do not steal... those were with humanity way way before christianity came about.... those are ideas to strive for but not always followed and have never been followed.
@Trolltician try again bud. Literally the first verse in genesis says "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth. It goes on to say the spirit of god was hovering over the face of the waters. How can you have waters in a void? And why would it say he created earth, if earth hasn't yet been created?
In verse 3: Then he created light and separated the light from the darkness.
As you can see, all of the necessary components for evening and morning are there (Context).
I was pointing out your flawed reasoning in referencing one metaphorical passage to support a completely irrelevant passage to be taken metaphorically.
Also would you consider the story of Adam and eve as non-literal since it was also written long after any witnesses to the story would be alive?
However if Adam and original sin is just a metaphor, then the entirety of Christian theology breaks down, because the whole reason jesus came was to undo what adam did!
Any Oxford professor worth their salt should have realised that science adapts and changes as new evidence comes to light. Indeed, science isn't afraid of admitting when it has been wrong! This gentleman appears to have never critically questioned his own beliefs.
So, why then science establishes its suppositions almost as a religion? Try to infere that evolution has faults in its source, adepts don't even argue with you, and give back a solely religious answer!
Science doesn’t “adapt or change”. Knowledge is gained and refined. The scientific method remains as is, and it is the unreliability of the method itself regarding certain theistic claims that some Oxford Professors worth their salt point out. Unfalsifiable means not inexistent.
@@ApozVideoz And yet it remains the most reliable method we have
@@gregalexander9565 Yes, reliable for phenomena that are testable and scientifically approachable per se. It still has nothing to do with theism.
@@ApozVideoz It has everything to do with theism when you make any sort of claim.
"Lost faith in atheism" - LOL, you don't even know what atheism is.
Atheism is just one more faith like any other. Its the belief of a non existence of God, and that's also a kind of belief, but atheism is a irrational and illogical belief, and contradicts all the evidences we have for God in nature, in the Universe.
The very existence of the Universe is an evidence for God, because the Universe is contingent, is not self-explanatory or self-existent. The Universe needa a Creator, sustainer and orderer. Also the properties that the Universe presents are evidences for Transcendent eternal Imaterial non-temporal spaceless omnipresent Creator Mind that creates, sustains and ordered all things in existence.
The Universe exists, so why the Universe exists? Why there is something rather than nothing? Furthermore the Universe is ordered, complex, very beautiful, has a mathematical structure, has tangibility, laws of nature, fine tunning, works in a marvelous way, is enormous, has billions of Galaxies, solar systems, planets, starts, black holes, a great variaty of beings that exist, has life, biodiversity, counsciousnes, intelligence, rationality, love and objective moral values.
All that points to a Intelligent Creator Mind that creates, sustains and ordered the entire Universe, giving being to all things.
"So who created God?" this is the classical question and its based on a missunderstanding of God.
God is a necessary being, he is not contingent. God is the first uncause cause of everything, He is uncreated, eternal, God is existence itself.
So that question don't make sense.
The reality is contingent and the only logical and reasonable Way to explain the existence of the contingent reality is the existence of a necessary being. Otherwise everything would be absurd.
@@OliviaRodriGoat because the Universe exists but it don't have to exist, and the Universe work in one Way but it could work in any other Way.
The Universe is not eternal, all things within the Universe make part of an cause-effect process, everything within the Universe has a beginning, the Universe is not self existent or self-explanatory and also the Universe is inanimate.
Space-time itself, matter, energy, laws of nature, all of that stuff had a beginning and are not self existent or self-explanatory. Things don't exist by themselves.
So, the Universe needs a Creator, sustainer and orderer, a necessary being, an uncreated Creator, a an eternal, imaterial, non-temporal, spaceless, omnipresent Mind the creates, sustains in existence and ordered all things.
@@OliviaRodriGoat The act of creation is not just the initial act of creation regardless of whether it is the Big Bang or before the Big Bang. Creation is something that is constantly happening all the time. The entire Universe is being created right now because it not exist by itself. The Universe do not gives being to itself, it is not self existent or self-explanatory. The Universe and everything within it is contingent, things do not exist by themselves, so it requires a necessary being for it existence. The Universe is being sustained in existence at every moment. So someone has to continually give existence to all things, creating new things and make them evolve.
We don't have the capacity to exists by ourselves, we don't give ourselves existence/being. Therefore it cannot be a deist god, as the Universe is always is always being created and sustained in existence. The Universe/nature is not autonomous. It requires an intelligent Creator and sustainer Mind that constantly gives being to all things, to all space-time itself, matter, energy, laws of nature, fine tunning, order, complexity, beauty, chemistry, physics biology, genetics, attoms,particles, living things, our counsciousnes, evolution itself, etc. That "Being" cannot be an object but must be an intelligent and personal Mind because the act of creating requires a will, a purpose, an intention. It has to be an intelligent, conscious and willing mind. It also has to be omnipresent because it is continuous giving being to all things and therefore it has to be present in them.
In addition to the very fact that the Universe exists(it doesn't have to exist and the Universe doesn't have to be the way it is), the Universe is very large, ordered, beautiful, complex, it had tangibility, it presents a mathematical structure, it works in a marvelous way, it is constituted by laws and that demands a law giver, ir is fine tunned for its very existence and for life. It is also a Universe with billions of Galaxies solar systems, planets black holes, a great variaty of beings, with life, biodiversity, conscious, intelligent, rational life, with moral values and living beings.
All that stuff points to an Intelligent Creator and sustainer Mind that gives being to all things at every moment....and not just in the beginning. That Being has to be Imaterial because it gives being to matter, it has to be non temporal and spaceless because it gives being to space-time itself, it had to be eternal because it is a necessary being and its impossible to have a infinite regress in time and in the cause-effect process, so it has to be a first uncause cause of everything and as I said before it has to be omnipresent because it gives being to all things, so it has to be present in all things.
Moreover there are also many historical, archeological, scientific, philosophical evidence for christianity, Jesus's life, his resurrection, and evidences from other backgrounds as well.
Stop having 'faith' in things, and you'll stop losing it. Try education.
@Language and Programming Channel ha ha. The faith that humans are naturally wired to possess is entirely different from the 'faith in Jesus' or 'faith in allah' doctrines which is being bombarded into the heads of little children. Wake up.
What education do you think is superior to studying then teaching at Oxford?
@@christophekeating21 Common sense? Looking at the world objectively and not subscribing to bronze age ideas of god and morality? It's a good starting point.
I was a theist, but my car broke down, so i looked at it, and say to my self, this can`t be right, this is hard and my mechanic says it simple, so i became an atheist. And everytime a theist tries to shutdown my claim of simplicity, it raises the question up. And the theists claim of it being hard, is refuted.
Congrats to Alister McGrath. Based on a total strawman, he went for "magic" as an answer. That must be the dumbest argument any theist will ever make. The only upside to this tragedy, is one less moron, is labeling it self, atheist.
Yawn. Just more acrimonious rhetoric and mindless posturing from an atheist. Let me know when something changes.
@Trolltician Yes and you Believe in Magic, aha haha. Do you think Santa is real too , or toothfairy. Haha. You mist be smart as fuck.
@@matsjonsson1704 What is your atheist cosmology?
I have a specific theistic cosmology consistent with current science, so I'd like to hear yours so we can compare them.
@@20july1944 science is a method, its like saying you got theistic math. So if you follow the principle of science, its the same.
@Trolltician Why would i ever bother with a person like you, taking me serious, you fucking believe that the walking dead is a documentary. I can only hope you comeback to reality, before you get the Darwin Award.
In the most educated and advanced peacefull countrys on earth, people like you are a minority, go figure.
a lot of triggered atheists here. I guess the word atheist in the videos title brought them here.
Oh... He's got a feeling. Well I guess that's proof of god. Oh wait. I've got a feeling there ain't.
The concept of theism x atheism is beyond our grasp! God doesn't care if you believe or not! There are many levels of belonging...
That's called idolatry. You're creating a God to fit you.
@@atheismisamentaldisorder1839 my dear you have missed the point. When Prof. Alister says he had lost his faith on Atheism I am wondering we all do. Robert, He is. It doesn't matter how fierce Science fights against God, it won't suffice.