5 Reasons People Are Becoming Atheists (and how to respond!) 

I will pray that you get better

God help you!

Amen. If it wasn't for God. Looking back. I'd be dead. Plain and simple. Everyone has abandoned me at some point. God has not. This is truth. I don't deserve Him. But I know it was and is Him. Most folks who still believe even a little bit I believe have no problem with God. It's people. And capital C Church.

❤

How hard would you find it to believe that my situation is shockingly similar? It's a test brother, it may be too late for this mortal would but not too late for our eternal souls. Feel free to respond back to me, I'd love to hear your long story.

How can it be, that pdf file atheists believe what atheist religion claims, that men can give birth, but then at the same time they reject the claim of islame, that women can be pregnant for ten years? There's zero evidence for either claim, they're both blatant lies. So why do they choose one lie over another lie? Is it because atheist religion teaches hypocrasy? Dishonesty? deceit?

So.. are we bags of flesh substituted by neurons and chemical reactions?

You present your points very well. I do believe in the triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) because there is always something that makes me believe in a higher power. I appreciate the fact that you want to understand opposing view points, as I myself do, because if we can understand one another we may find common ground even if we only agree to disagree.

"It gives you the space to pursue those things which are meaningful and fulfilling to yourself, instead of serving some purpose which is out of your control" What purpose is there out there that is better than the one pursued by Christians? I understand wanting to pursue a subjective purpose that is fulfilling at an individual level but I feel if you want to be humble and do something more than serve yourself, you will inevitably fall in line with Christian beliefs.

Subjective purpose is a noble pursuit, but it has been tried before and the ultimate end point is vanity. hedonism Popularity Greed/success Status Power Altruism/charity Children Sadly, if you take a long term view, you are powerless to change the outcome for anything, excluding your own popularity, wealth, power or status. You may start out idealistic and motivated - good! But, it will eventually dawn on you that it was all vanity. Prove me wrong, I would appreciate that. However, I don't mean to invalidate your subjective perspective, only to point out the rational ("objective") limitation of such subjective purpose to be self perpetuating.

The ETERNAL, ALL-POWERFUL, CREATOR of the universe says, "Can the gods of the other nations (religions) tell you the future? No! They are mere lifeless idols." But I..." and then He proceeds to FULFILL over one thousand prophecies in the Bible to demonstrate that God's word can be trusted. The Bible in the Old Testament predicted the Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah; Jesus was. The Bible predicted the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem; Jesus was. The Bible predicted the Messiah would be called a Nazarene; Jesus grew up in Nazareth. The Bible said the Messiah would be rejected by His own people; most Jews rejected Christ. The Bible said the Messiah would have his hands and feet pierced; it happened to Christ on the cross. (Do you think Jesus or his followers made this happen to fulfill prophecy, NO Rome decided how He would die) The Bible said the Messiah would be given vinegar; Jesus was given vinegar when He was hanging on the cross. The Bible said the Messiah would be buried in a rich man's tomb; Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, who was very rich. The Bible said the Messiah would die a criminal's death; Jesus was crucified between two criminals. The Bible said The Messiah would NOT have any broken bones; it was customary for crucified individuals to have their bones broken to hasten death, but when they came to Jesus, He was already dead. The Bible said the Messiah would be despised; the mobs spit on Jesus and mocked Him on the cross. The Bible said the Messiah would be a light unto the Gentiles (non-Jews) the Jews, by and large do NOT believe in Jesus, it is Gentiles (non-Jews) around the world who worship the Jewish Messiah, Jesus. The Bible says Jerusalem "...kills the prophets." While Jesus was much more than just a prophet, He was killed in Jerusalem. The Bible said the Messiah would be from the lineage of King David; Jesus was. The Bible said the Messiah would be called from Egypt; the parents of the infant Jesus, took Him to Egypt, until they were told they could bring Him back; the King who wanted to kill Him had himself died. The Bible said the Messiah would have people gamble for His clothes; the soldiers at the crucifixion gambled for Jesus' cloak. The Bible said the Messiah would bring in a new covenant; Jesus did. His death on the cross, once for all did away with the need for the slaughtering of lambs at the Jewish temple. The Bible said the Messiah would come 483 years AFTER the decree to re-build the temple; Jesus made His triumphant entry into Jerusalem on the very day as predicted. The Bible said the Messiah would suffer; Jesus was beaten, had his beard ripped out of His face, and was brutally nailed to the cross. The Bible said the Messiah would be a prophet; Jesus predicted the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. The Bible said the Messiah would come riding on a donkey; Jesus did. The Bible said the Messiah would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver; Judas Iscariot was given 30 pieces of silver for betraying Jesus. The Bible said the Messiah would be a willing sacrifice; Jesus willingly went to the cross, and even predicted His death in Jerusalem. The Bible said the Messiah would be proceeded by a messenger; Jesus was heralded by John the Baptist. The Bible said the Messiah would be descended from Abraham; Jesus was a descendant of Abraham. The Bible said the Messiah would be lifted up; Jesus was lifted up on the cross. The Bible said the Messiah would perform signs of healing; Jesus did. There are literally three HUNDRED prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. He also adds over one hundred scientific facts in scripture in all fields of science that were written down, thousands of years BEFORE the great scientists of the world would discover them. For example, up to a few hundred years ago surgeons used to wash their hands in basins of water, until they discovered it became a bowl of germs. They started using running water. The Bible instructed the use of running water thousands of years earlier. Soldiers used to die from disease, until they finally figured out to do their toilet business outside the camp. The Bible thousands of years before this, instructed the Israeli soldiers to take a small shovel outside the camp and bury their waste. Doctors used to drain blood (blood-letting) from sick patients, but thousands of years ago the Bible said, the life is in the blood. It wasn't until a couple hundred years ago, that oceanographers discovered mountains rising off the ocean floor, but the Bible thousands of years ago spoke of these mountains. The Bible says, "It is God who spreads out the stars." Astrophysicists now say the very fabric of space is spreading out taking the galaxies along for the ride. Up until about five hundred years ago, astronomers thought there was about 4,000-5,000 stars. But the Bible in Genesis compares the number of stars to the grains of sand along the seashore. Astronomers now say there are at least twice as many stars as sand on all the beaches of the world. Albert Einstein in his paper on relativity stated that matter, energy, space and time itself all had a beginning. But thousands of years earlier in Genesis chapter one the Bible says, "In the beginning (a reference to time having a beginning) God created the earth (matter) the heavens (space) and said let there be light (energy). I don't want to make this so long people won't read it, but you can go any Christian bookstore and find books on the hundreds and hundreds of fulfilled prophecies, in the Bible. There were 256 totally fulfilled prophecies concerning the birth, life, ministry, and death of Christ alone. So, God in HIS word has told of science thousands of years in advance of it being discovered by the great scientific minds of the world, He has spoken prophetic utterances that have come true, over and over again, in a literal, not metaphorical sense, again, to demonstrate His authority. He is God, we are His creation. This is His world, His universe. He is sovereign. Look, it's a great deal; surrender to His only means of forgiving our sins and reconciling ourselves to HIM, Christ dying on the cross, and reap eternal life, eternal peace, eternal health, and eternal joy. OR reject His offer of pardon and receive your just punishment. I choose Jesus Christ.

There are limits to human knowledge. It's not something many want to admit, but despite your best efforts to seek out meaning, you will never get there. This could cause a lapse into despair, and cause you to focus on the now and forget tomorrow (as they say eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die), but even this becomes meaningless eventually. But why do humans even seek meaning in life? Is this what seperates us from the animals. Consider this passage from the Bible which may provide an answer "I have seen the burden God has laid on the human race. He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end. I know that there is nothing better for people than to be happy and to do good while they live. That each of them may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all their toil-this is the gift of God. I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that people will fear him..............God will bring into judgement both the righteous and the wicked, for there will be a time for every activity, a time to judge for every deed" (Ecc 3:10:12).

tbf many of these revolutions were christians revolting against other christians 🤣

A nihilist? That must've been exhausting.

@@abyssimus yeah, like depressing.

I went through that also before returning to Catholicism, I was an atheist and had really nihilistic views. It sucked and I was miserable

@@christiansaravia7865 It sucks to not have free will, right. That's why I left communism, which is atheist religion.

So what convinced you that a god exists, then?

Thank you for your input, as a biologist I agree. But I also guess that the arguments that us two see as convincing are those we are the best and most credible at proposing. Father maybe has seen arguments from other perspective work, not because they're better, but because he's great at presenting those and people take him seriously when he does.

@@tafazziReadChannelDescription I think that's the problem. Fr. Casey is making arguments even I find weak, in the hopes of will convince skeptics. It won't.

Free will is one of those concepts in my opinion in which, just because we can have questions and disagreements, doesn’t mean it’ll work in practice. It’s like wanting the benefits of free will without prescribing to free will.

Our Christian faith commands us to do everything we can to make this world a place of peace and justice. My point is simply that it is not the only world we have and it is not worth losing our souls over or giving into despair when things aren't perfect.

@@BreakingInTheHabit It 100% is the only world we have and I will not see it destroyed because a bunch of cultist lunatics think it's not important to keep our planet habitable.

That is if we even have future generations 🤷🏾‍♂️

@@chibu3212 trust me there are still many people who still advocate for nuclear families.

@@czar6203 a lack of a nuclear family doesn't mean we won't have future generations though.

Empty enough to troll religious RU-vid videos, apparently.

@@Dan-km8zy Do only people with empty lives talk about religion? Casey's life must be incredibly empty, then.

@@thomasdalton1508 No, people who proclaim their awe at the vastness of the universe and the fullness of life it brings without religion, and then spend their time posting contrarian jabs on RU-vid are more empty than they think they are.

@@Dan-km8zy What of the lives of those that tell them their lives are empty?

@@thomasdalton1508 You tell me? You've uncovered the minutia of the universe and feel yourself superior. Educate me, like you pretended to in your original post.

Yeah but when science cannot even explain it’s own assumptions, it must be concluded that science is INHERENTLY AND MAJORLY LIMITED

@@ChaiJung > It is simple; When it happens then science looks for another way. It has no limitations other than constantly verifying its steps. And the above is something you cannot do with faith. With faith you can believe anything, but you will not know from it whether you are on the right or wrong path (you cannot verify it).

Like... when pdf file atheists claim that men can menstruate and give birth and nowhere in history has this been true, it's just a blatant lie?

Religion is limited by the lack of evidence based truths and religion hangs on to a monologue that is not supported by evidence nor is willing to change as new facts become known. Science, when stymied, looks for other paths and NEW ideas, and if proven, will change their views as needed.

@@jtapia0 oh, like... when pdf file atheists claim that men can menstruate and give birth while nowhere in history has this been true?

". But then I say… what about music? Music has a scientific formula - if you vibrate these things at the right frequency it can make a pleasant sound add a few different vibrations together and we have a song. Great science solved it, now tell me how science says how if they find the right song it can move you." ... I don't think you understand the difference between observation of reality and personal taste

I'm an atheist - an agnostic atheist - but I don't demand proof. I just ask for *one piece of good evidence* that one or more of those gods are real, rather than just imaginary. That's because evidence is how we distinguish reality from delusion and wishful-thinking. But *one* is always too much to ask of theists. If you have some _other_ method of distinguishing reality from delusion and wishful-thinking, some more _reliable_ method, I'd love to hear it. But as far as I can tell so far, religious beliefs seem indistinguishable from wishful-thinking. Worldwide, faith-based people _overwhelmingly_ believe in whichever religion and whichever god or gods they were taught to believe as a child. And Christians can't even agree with _other Christians_ about much of anything, let alone with the other faith-based people in the world, even when they're all supposedly following the same magic book supposedly provided to them by the same supposedly all-knowing deity! Of course, I enjoy music - inside and outside of a church. But what does that have to do with a god? _Any_ god, let alone a particular one? Music is great, but is it... magic? Why would you think so.

The ETERNAL, ALL-POWERFUL, CREATOR of the universe says, "Can the gods of the other nations (religions) tell you the future? No! They are mere lifeless idols." But I..." and then He proceeds to FULFILL over one thousand prophecies in the Bible to demonstrate that God's word can be trusted. The Bible in the Old Testament predicted the Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah; Jesus was. The Bible predicted the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem; Jesus was. The Bible predicted the Messiah would be called a Nazarene; Jesus grew up in Nazareth. The Bible said the Messiah would be rejected by His own people; most Jews rejected Christ. The Bible said the Messiah would have his hands and feet pierced; it happened to Christ on the cross. (Do you think Jesus or his followers made this happen to fulfill prophecy, NO Rome decided how He would die) The Bible said the Messiah would be given vinegar; Jesus was given vinegar when He was hanging on the cross. The Bible said the Messiah would be buried in a rich man's tomb; Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, who was very rich. The Bible said the Messiah would die a criminal's death; Jesus was crucified between two criminals. The Bible said The Messiah would NOT have any broken bones; it was customary for crucified individuals to have their bones broken to hasten death, but when they came to Jesus, He was already dead. The Bible said the Messiah would be despised; the mobs spit on Jesus and mocked Him on the cross. The Bible said the Messiah would be a light unto the Gentiles (non-Jews) the Jews, by and large do NOT believe in Jesus, it is Gentiles (non-Jews) around the world who worship the Jewish Messiah, Jesus. The Bible says Jerusalem "...kills the prophets." While Jesus was much more than just a prophet, He was killed in Jerusalem. The Bible said the Messiah would be from the lineage of King David; Jesus was. The Bible said the Messiah would be called from Egypt; the parents of the infant Jesus, took Him to Egypt, until they were told they could bring Him back; the King who wanted to kill Him had himself died. The Bible said the Messiah would have people gamble for His clothes; the soldiers at the crucifixion gambled for Jesus' cloak. The Bible said the Messiah would bring in a new covenant; Jesus did. His death on the cross, once for all did away with the need for the slaughtering of lambs at the Jewish temple. The Bible said the Messiah would come 483 years AFTER the decree to re-build the temple; Jesus made His triumphant entry into Jerusalem on the very day as predicted. The Bible said the Messiah would suffer; Jesus was beaten, had his beard ripped out of His face, and was brutally nailed to the cross. The Bible said the Messiah would be a prophet; Jesus predicted the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. The Bible said the Messiah would come riding on a donkey; Jesus did. The Bible said the Messiah would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver; Judas Iscariot was given 30 pieces of silver for betraying Jesus. The Bible said the Messiah would be a willing sacrifice; Jesus willingly went to the cross, and even predicted His death in Jerusalem. The Bible said the Messiah would be proceeded by a messenger; Jesus was heralded by John the Baptist. The Bible said the Messiah would be descended from Abraham; Jesus was a descendant of Abraham. The Bible said the Messiah would be lifted up; Jesus was lifted up on the cross. The Bible said the Messiah would perform signs of healing; Jesus did. There are literally three HUNDRED prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. He also adds over one hundred scientific facts in scripture in all fields of science that were written down, thousands of years BEFORE the great scientists of the world would discover them. For example, up to a few hundred years ago surgeons used to wash their hands in basins of water, until they discovered it became a bowl of germs. They started using running water. The Bible instructed the use of running water thousands of years earlier. Soldiers used to die from disease, until they finally figured out to do their toilet business outside the camp. The Bible thousands of years before this, instructed the Israeli soldiers to take a small shovel outside the camp and bury their waste. Doctors used to drain blood (blood-letting) from sick patients, but thousands of years ago the Bible said, the life is in the blood. It wasn't until a couple hundred years ago, that oceanographers discovered mountains rising off the ocean floor, but the Bible thousands of years ago spoke of these mountains. The Bible says, "It is God who spreads out the stars." Astrophysicists now say the very fabric of space is spreading out taking the galaxies along for the ride. Up until about five hundred years ago, astronomers thought there was about 4,000-5,000 stars. But the Bible in Genesis compares the number of stars to the grains of sand along the seashore. Astronomers now say there are at least twice as many stars as sand on all the beaches of the world. Albert Einstein in his paper on relativity stated that matter, energy, space and time itself all had a beginning. But thousands of years earlier in Genesis chapter one the Bible says, "In the beginning (a reference to time having a beginning) God created the earth (matter) the heavens (space) and said let there be light (energy). I don't want to make this so long people won't read it, but you can go any Christian bookstore and find books on the hundreds and hundreds of fulfilled prophecies, in the Bible. There were 256 totally fulfilled prophecies concerning the birth, life, ministry, and death of Christ alone. So, God in HIS word has told of science thousands of years in advance of it being discovered by the great scientific minds of the world, He has spoken prophetic utterances that have come true, over and over again, in a literal, not metaphorical sense, again, to demonstrate His authority. He is God, we are His creation. This is His world, His universe. He is sovereign. Look, it's a great deal; surrender to His only means of forgiving our sins and reconciling ourselves to HIM, Christ dying on the cross, and reap eternal life, eternal peace, eternal health, and eternal joy. OR reject His offer of pardon and receive your just punishment. I choose Jesus Christ.

@@MB777-qr2xv _"and then He proceeds to FULFILL over one thousand prophecies in the Bible to demonstrate that God's word can be trusted."_ Yeah? And can you demonstrate even *one* of them? I'm not impressed by unsupported claims. And your Gish Gallop is a known apologist tactic of pretending you have more than you actually do. So, can you pick out *one* specific prophecy, please, and *make your case?* Just *one?* Why is *one* too much to ask? Here, I'll even help you out. This is a list of criteria for a fulfilled prophecy. The prophecy must be: 1. Made clearly and demonstrably prior to the events predicted. 2. Intended to be a prediction. 3. A non-mundane claim. 4. Answerable only by a single, clear, verifiable occurrence. 5. Not open to interpretation. 6. Not something people actively attempted to fulfill. You claim to have more than a thousand. Can you demonstrate even *one?* _"He also adds over one hundred scientific facts in scripture in all fields of science that were written down, thousands of years BEFORE the great scientists of the world would discover them."_ That's actually pretty funny, because it's a favorite claim of Muslim apologists, too. Did you know that the Quran is _filled_ with scientific facts which could only have been told to Mohammad by Allah? Of course, it's complete nonsense, just like your own claims about the Bible. It's just cherry-picking bits from your favorite magic book, while ignoring the other bits (like Jesus telling his followers that they didn't need to wash their hands before eating), then _imaginatively_ interpreting them in the light of what science has already discovered - *not,* note, _before_ science discovered this stuff. It's not just the Bible and the Quran, of course. You can do this with pretty much _any_ big book of ancient superstition, if you just really, really _want_ to believe it. You simply take a big book and search through it for something - _anything_ - you can imaginatively interpret the way you want, that's all. That's why this is completely meaningless. But go ahead and show me a prophecy, if you can.

It turns out his sidekick had a thing for altar boys

We need to distinguish between truth as a metaphysical concept (the thing in itself) and our epistemology (how we know what we know.) We will never know the whole truth, correct, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, and more importantly, it doesn’t mean we know nothing! There are moral imperatives that are objectively true, unchanging, and fully understood by our faith (murder is bad.)

Catholic here- gave you a thumbs up for the good question!

Did his response satisfy you? Me, no.

At one level you’re right… when we’ve said a million true things about God we haven’t said anything that really reveals God in the way a spiritual experience might. But we also believe our interior senses can experience God as an immediate reality, that that has been so through history, and that God has deliberately communicated truths to us through religious tradition, and that there are sound theological arguments for why the Christian tradition represents the fullness of the truth that all human religious sentiment looks to. That does not lead to relativism - it’s process whereby we find our own deepest purest insights and intentions are harmonious with the insights of revelation

@@BreakingInTheHabit Moral imperatives? Hey man. Is slavery morally wrong? Your god blessed it, and gave instructions on how to get more of them...

Please direct any questions to the Our Lady of Guadalupe Province. friars.us/article/2024/04/10/fr.-patrick-tuttle--ofm--removed-from-ministry

No

Jesus is where we want to be affirmed, not to governments.

A Protest speaking I gather!

what happened?

Could you elaborate on how the 5 points are "much stronger"? I'd be interested to understand your feel

I'm an atheist, but I'd say that none of those five points were "atheist ideas." Admittedly, atheism isn't a belief system. You can believe anything - literally _anything_ - and still be an atheist as long as you don't believe in a god or gods. Well, OK, you said that those 5 points applied to _you,_ not to atheists in general. So that might be true. We atheists _are_ diverse, after all.

those are some very good reasons. I would however point you to true scientific rational. The need to prove the null hypothosss. Meaning if you can't prove the hypothesis you need to then prove the null or else you cannot come to a real conclusion. Regarding the existence of God, the Hypothesis is that God exists, if you can't prove that God exists then you have to prove God doesn't exist. However that is also implausible (if not impossible) to prove. Therefore you are left in the same neutral position as you were before. Going by that standard the most a person can be is Agnostic. Atheism itself is an untenable position due to lack of proof for the non-existence of God.

That's easy. It's doesn't matter how you like to define atheism from your comfort zone. Atheism is a belief. You have a burden of proof that you constantly run away from, theo.

There's so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start.

@Tzimiskes3506 Atheism is a POSITION, not a belief. But even if it were a belief, I wouldn't incur a burden of evidence. Only parties that assert a claim of truth incur such a burden. Do you agree?

@@Nick-ij5nt Start by stating _one_ thing wrong with my comment. And let's discuss it.

Except I know people who "deny the truth that is right in front of them" who are clearly not nihilists.

Unfortunately, Father Patrick has been accused of sexual misconduct and now isn’t allowed to do public ministry.

@@StMaximilianFanboy Although the details of what happened aren't known, the letter from the church refers to an "abuse survivor"... so it's more fitting to say "sexual abuse" rather than "misconduct", even if they also used that term.

@@anamewillcomelater Makes sense.

Very well said. If faith actually worked, you would see faith healers in hospitals, instead of the physicians who entirely rely on science and methodological naturalism.

@@weirdwilliam8500 I don't understand your point nor OP's. Science and religion are not competing. Science is the "how" of the material world, Religion is the "why" of material world and what is beyond matter. Many great scientists were profoundly religious.

Unfortunately they are competing. You have people who want to make decisions based on their interpretation of a 2000-year old book instead of on facts, and that can lead to very poor decisions that affect not only themselves but others.

@@georgesimon1760 Having a minority of people mistaking religion for science does not invalidate religion. As well as having a minority of people using science to define morality (think eugenics as an example) does not invalidate science.

@@satvrne in the US a minority of people can elect a president that wants to be a dictator. They're pretty close to accomplishing that. And with gerrymandering a minority can control Congress - one that will support the new dictator. The current Supreme Court has already been packed with religious right-wingers even through a minority of people. It's a problem. If Christians didn't fall head over heels for sociopathic narcissistic populists who have destroyed the distinction between truth and lies, people might have more respect for today's Christianity.

I'd say you might be an anomaly then.

​@@peterwallis4288well I got one other Factor working against me I'm autistic which makes relationships a little tricky now that doesn't mean it's not possible honestly it's very possible if it wasn't then there would be no more baby autistics being born and clearly that ain't happening. But it does make things a little trickier particularly with the initial contact because I got absolutely no intuition so it's hard for me to be able to read people enough to even know am I annoying them or do they actually enjoy me come up to them and trying to start a conversation I'm sure if I got something going it wouldn't be that hard but it's that initial stuff that makes it difficult for me. Let's be honest I'm actually quite content being single there are times I wonder and I'm curious about being in a romantic relationship but not enough to really make the effort. So what I say is I kind of hope I remain single but if the Lord has someone in mind then he'll have to bring them into my presence I'm not going to go out and look for them.

Put another way: It feels absurd to me that the earth is round (based on my experience walking around on flat ground). Does this make the earth no longer a globe?

That’s the core of apologetics about free will, objective morality, and ultimate purpose as well. “If those didn’t actually exist, then I would feel emotionally dissatisfied, so therefore they must exist.” The sad irony is that atheists don’t even feel emotional distress about this. We’re actually fine, and happy, and have plenty of meaning and purpose and moral consideration. It’s Christian indoctrination that tells you that you’ll be a rudderless nihilist without their god, and they tell you this over and over again. I think you only feel a “god shaped hole in your heart” because they cut a chunk out of your sense of personal agency, self-esteem, and confidence, probably while you were still a child.For those of us who weren’t abused in that way, we get along just fine without the Christian “cure.” 😊

@@weirdwilliam8500 Perhaps. I don't often feel like my life is rudderless, but I can see why it might feel necessary for some to believe in an objective source of morality. I think for most people that the "lighthouse" of morality that God/Gods provide is actually really helpful and good for society. On the other hand: even if we discovered tomorrow that morality was absolutely subjective, I don't believe that the entire world would necessarily descend into barbarism. There does seem to be an innate sense of right and wrong in each person. This could lend credence to a naturalistic explanation of morality, but you could make the argument that our innate sense of morality comes from God whether we believe in him or not. The latter doesn't really compel me, but it's there.

@@jakejmullin Fair enough, but ask 10 different Christians what the objective morals from god are, and you’ll get 10 different answers. Religion is just subjective morality that claims an institutional authority.

​​​@@weirdwilliam8500what you're referring to is subjective *understanding* of something. People can understand something totally real in 10 different ways, but that wouldn't make it any less real.

"can not" would imply a lack of imagination, "would not" would imply no desire to genuinely consider the alternative. Or course if this helps you navigate the world in a way that makes you happy, more power to you. That's all any of us do, after all.

Hey, I was a strong Atheist now a Christian and I become one for logical reasons, if you wish I am always open to talk and give you my reasons

And have you found even *one* piece of good evidence that their god is actually real, rather than just imaginary? I'm in my 70's, too. But all of their claims seem to be backed up by nothing but wishful-thinking.

So happy you are back!

@@Bill_Garthright evidence, what is evidence? There’s so many different kinds. types. methods of examining things to see whether they’re true or not, there’s no peer reviewed evidence or observed evidence, of course we wouldn’t expect there to be anyway, how could a immaterial being, be put into a test tube and tested? Or how can we observe God in the sky when he’s outside of space, through natural means (science) how can we prove the supernatural, in fact through the natural memes (science) how can we prove anything outside of the natural means? As apes on a floating rock in space how can we really know if anything is truly true, science progresses what we know today could later be falsified or our understanding changes, this is no god of the gaps reasoning, it’s no, “we don’t know how this is done therefore God” I couldn’t recommend more St. Thomas Aquinas, 5 proofs for the existence of God, the Catholic Church teaches that we can know that God exist through natural reason

@@Bill_Garthright evidence, what is evidence? There’s so many different kinds. types. methods of examining things to see whether they’re true or not, there’s no peer reviewed evidence or observed evidence, of course we wouldn’t expect there to be anyway, how could a immaterial being, be put into a test tube and tested? Or how can we observe God in the sky when he’s outside of space, through natural means (science) how can we prove the supernatural, in fact through the natural memes (science) how can we prove anything outside of the natural means? As apes on a floating rock in space how can we really know if anything is truly true, science progresses what we know today could later be falsified or our understanding changes, this is no god of the gaps reasoning, it’s no, “we don’t know how this is done therefore God” I couldn’t recommend more St. Thomas Aquinas, 5 proofs for the existence of God

@@Bill_Garthright I tried to reply to your comment. I don’t know if RU-vid is letting me though.

Maybe read a good bible guide ...perhaps some of Raymond Browne's work .

Bible in a year podcast is a good one. Takes you through the Bible at an easy pace, and provides explanation and guidance along the way.

Start in the New Testament, then do the Old.

Is there anything in this world that you find astonishing? It could be biology, the human mind, love, or even human creativity and engineering...?

You won’t get an answer. With religious people, it generally comes down to their feelings, particularly their intuition, emotional comfort, and need to feel cosmically special and significant. They are often indoctrinated over and over to feel that way, and to feel the need for such reassurances. Another big part of Christian doctrine is that everyone must have the same feelings because god put them in everyone. When you say you don’t have the same intuition or emotional needs, they are not allowed to believe you. Their worldview can’t accommodate your actual thoughts that you are thinking. It’s very frustrating, in my experience.

I would say that everyone is unique, and we each believe what makes sense to us. I believe there is a God, and that He interacts with each person in a unique way that makes sense to them.

@@ChaChaDancin How could you tell the difference between that, or everyone making up their own imaginary friend based on their personal feelings? I honestly can’t see a difference.

@@weirdwilliam8500 evidence. Evidence and experience in one’s own life that convinces one of a greater power. And the abundantly documented evidence of witnesses to miracles throughout history. One can either analyze and accept all that evidence, or one can ignore the evidence. It’s up to each individual to make up their own mind in the matter. As for me, I see the evidence as overwhelming that there is a God. Have a good one.

"So, you mean to tell me that World War II and the Holocaust were COMPLETELY unpreventable?" And how do you know that it wasn't unpreventable?

We are enfleshed spirits or animated bodies. The two cannot be separated without doing harm to each. In other words, the body affects the soul and the soul affects the body.

⁠@@BreakingInTheHabit If that were the case the soul would serve no notable function. Additionally this view makes the concept of a soul permitting life after death problematic. This is because you’d need special pleading in order to resolve this and appeal to the arbitrary and ad hoc notion that physical acts against the body hurt the soul…until the point of death where suddenly this doesn’t apply.

@@BreakingInTheHabit "The two cannot be separated without doing harm to each." That would imply that the soul wouldn't be able to survive the death of the body.

Perhaps, but remember that doesn't lead to magical thinking.

@@nosuchthing8 So what?

​@@nosuchthing8who is to say what is 'magical'? We don't know everything. It's likely there lots we have no idea about. For example, up until their discovery, people had no idea about the existence or the effects of radio waves, however that didn't mean they weren't there.

@peterwallis4288 that's true about radio waves, sure. But also atoms, viruses, on and on. And of course black holes, neuron stars, or even how biology explains how to turn water/grapes into wine. And the lagger cements the whole point. The ancients knew how to make wine, but invented a god as it's originator (Dionysus) So how did man go about finding how things really work? Science of course.

@nosuchthing8 but my point is we most likely still have no idea about some aspects of the universe. Do you think we have discovered everything? I am also not sure why we assume we could use science (which is a method to study the natural world), to explain the origin of the universe and time. It would make more sense that the origin of the universe would not be explained by the laws of nature that we know exist within the universe.

Oh the misunderstandings of history… the story of Galileo that everyone thinks they know was made up in the late 19th century by an anti-Catholic fundamentalist. Even Harvard knows so: www.amazon.com/Galileo-Other-Myths-Science-Religion/dp/0674057414

You are a better person than me then. It’s pretty easy for me to know something is wrong, and still do it anyway.

@@ChaChaDancin Remember. U must know it’s grave and still do it. If u knew it was sinful but not grave it’s still veinal. God bless u, and keep getting up when u fall! My issue is sometimes I put myself in a spot where” I know I can handle it despite putting myself in near occasion of sin” I do handle it, but then I realized I probably shouldn’t do that so I confess it as such. I learned from many online priest online that grave desires and Fantasies don’t need detail unless I do the act. My priest told me near occasion of sin isn’t sinful in itself and that near occasion of sin doesn’t need details. Which makes me glad that I avoided such embarrassing confession but it makes me feel like I walked easy. That was 6 month ago and haven’t done it since. I know in forgiven but it bugs me, but I must trust God mercy

2 or 3 ppl don't really prove much.

@@paulnejtek6588 go to any latin Mass and you'll see it packed with young people

The author Bart Ehrman is a biblical scholar who's work might answer some of your questions. And he does so from a secular, atheist point of view so you might find his conclusions less biased.

@@wrylyo his arguments against the Gospels and Yahweh being a part of a pantheon is the main reason I’m having this struggle. Like we have some idea of how the exodus might of happened with the Hyksos etc. As for the Gospels being written down by other people and the pantheon that would destroy Christianity making it just another religion like the Greek mythologies we learn about in school today. Mainly I’m looking for evidence to prove his theories wrong. Yes his stuff is just a theory but it still kinda scares me. As someone who’s been brought up in Christianity my entire life I don’t think I could mentally handle my entire thought process crumble around me.

It's good for a christian to have doubts because our faith is not based on beliving blindly . In regards of the "pantheon gods" i dont get why this should be a problem, people act like this is some incredible discorvery when we know the pagan nature of the jewish people from the bible. For exemple during the exodus God had to be quite harsh to them because they worshipped other false gods, or during the rest of the bible we see often the jewish turn to exemple baal. Also God selected the jewish to became his chosen people and of course before that thay didin't had a relashionship with him and problably when he manifested for the first time they called him with the name of their most height diety. In regards of the exodus it's almost impossible to track the history of nomadic people, for exemple we don't know much about the "sea people" from the callapse of the bronze age, the only way we have is to relay on written sources. Thanks to the old testament we can compare what is written with what we know about ancient egypt, there is a channel "inspiring phyloshophy" who made an incredible job by regrouping all those evidencies, i suggest you to give it a look(spoiler the exodus is almost certainly true). In regards of slavery God was clear, every human is made in his image so you cannot possess another person, in the old testament slavery was recorded in the same way we recorded bad stuff like nazism, but recording something does not mean endorsing it. Also the mosaic laws were not perfect, god knew about the wickedness of the human heart so he had to made a compromise by allowing a little bit of evil (much less of the rest of the world at the time) as a sacrifice to make possible to the rest of the world to be saved in the future. Sorry for my bad english, it's not my lenguage.

@@gmg9010 For me, those answers are in Natural Moral Law. Which is to say all men join together to fulfil a path back to God (religion). As these men are from all places, times, and knowledge levels, we see that in their works. We don't focus on their words but their objectives. In the bible story Tobit an earthly look seems a sentence of death to Tobit however Tobit does as God asks even when it seems death is certain; God rewards him (much like Job). The things that bother you are just the things common to those men on their path, it was their path not your path. Atheists like to say: "Well, why is that in the Bible?" and the answer is that is the path they walked on; we don't have to walk that path.

​​@@gmg9010 Hi. You have a lot of questions, and I couldn't hope to answer all of them in a single comment, since I'm also not an expert by any means, but just someone who is also searching to have a better understanding of the truth. This will be a long comment, but it must be so to share my perspective. 1. First of all, I certainly wouldn't recommend uncritically accepting everything Erhman says. He being an atheist certainly doesn't make him a "neutral" observer by any means, since atheism and secularism (as any serious religious scholar will admit) are not "neutral" perspectives in matters of religion, but *are already perspectives in themselves*, so it gives no privileged "unbiased" position to it's adherents. To believe there is such a thing would be to believe there is absolutely neutral history with no filter of interpretarion, wich there isn't. This doesn't mean that all is bias and there is no truth, but only that we must be aware of this fact, and that whatever truth there is is only graspable through a perspective. Also, Erhman is also an ex-christian who was raised in a fairly fundamentalist and literalist tradition, so it seems to me his work involves a certain "reckoning" with the perspective he grew up with, one that tends to be very restricted. Given how much of this area is prone to sensationalism, I tend to be very skeptical of any excessively "media-heavy" or "celebrity" scholar of this sort. Doesn't mean he's automatically wrong, just that we must maintain our critical thinking. There are a lot of less-than-solid ideas in biblical scholarship that are taken more seriously than they should in certain academic circles, but to elaborate on this would take a very long time. So, I would recommend you also read some other biblical scholars wich I honestly agree a lot more with - and their religious affiliations don't make them any less trustworthy. What really matters are what arguments you have. After all, what if their perspective, including the religious one, is actually the truth? I will recommend some at the end of my comment. 2. Regarding specifically your question about Yahweh being a deity in a pantheon. It's not an uncontroversial position, but it is one accepted by many very orthodox christian theologians (I'll mention some in the end), and one wich I personally don't have a lot of difficulty with. To put it in a more-or-less summed up way: the bible is not just a uniform, homogenous book. It was assembled over a long time, in a long tradition of a people (and, then, the Church). We christians believe the bible to be inspired by the holy spirit, and so the word of God, but this revelation was, of course, happens in human history, related by human authors, involved in human affairs. And, frequently, the ultimate, inspired meaning of an older inspired text can only be grasped in light of further revelation or inspiration. (Such as we fully understanding the meaning of the Old Testament only in light of God's ultimate revelation in Christ). So, we see the old testament the unfolding of Israel's relationship with God, their covenant. And so we see also the development of jewish monotheism. The old testament hebrews were a people like any other, but one with wich God entered a special covenant of fidelity. They wouldn't need to have, right away, full understanding of who God is in this sense. You see this understanding unfolding along God's self-revelation. So, initially Yahweh would have been a singular deity where others existed, but one wich was their God. But by the time you get, for example, by the latter chapters of the Book of Isaiah, and specially after the exile, you'll see biblical text unequivocally treating Yahweh as the only God that exists, the unconditioned absolute wich sustains all of creation. I could further elaborate, but this would make the comment even longer. In summary, I don't see any problem, from the point of view of christianity, in Israel gaining an growing understanding of God as the sole and absolute divinity in the unfolding of their relationship to Him, and this in turn revealing the deeper meaning of older traditions, such as God's role as the sovereign creator in Genesis. Genesis has no theomachia, no "struggle of the gods" against rivals to attain sovereignity and to impose order on chaotic matter, as the polytheist cosmogonies use to have (see, for example, the Babylonian Enuma Elish). In Genesis, God is already sovereign, creating through his word in successive stages. The same theme will be further expanded in other texts (see for example Isaiah 40:12-18). I would say recognizing the elements Genesis has borrowed from the mythologies of other peoples highlights it's uniqueness, since those elements are borrowed to then be subverted. This has implications for christianity's relation to philosophy, but I'll leave my rambling here. 3. So, I'll recommend some authors and books wich I believe could be useful to you in your investigation of this topic. You don't have to read all of them, or in any particular order, but it's meant more as a general orientation. I can maybe edit later when I have a look at my books, but I'll just list some I have at the top of my head. First, in terms of church documents on the bible, I would recommend Pope Pius XII's *Divino Afflante Spiritu* and Pope Benedict XVI's *Verbum Domini* as starters for the Church's perspective on the bible. I don't know if you're Catholic, but I think they are worthwile reads even if you aren't. From a general introductory bible studies point of view, Scott Hahn's and Curtis Mitch's *Ignatius Catholic Study Bible* series is a good one. It has a lot of short insights from a theological point of view, but also in historical matters (of course, from a catholic perspective, but as I said, it doesn't make them any more "biased" than anyone already is). Regarding the old testament, specially from a historical point of view, a good general overview is the *New Jerome Biblical Commentary*, a work by several scholars treating each book individually. On the gospels, something wich I couldn't touch on here for lenght reasons, I would recommend N.T. Wright (specially his massive *The Ressurection of The Son of God*, wich you can read in smaller chunks over time). Also Luke Timothy Johnson, and Richard Bauckham's *Jesus and The Eyewitnesses* (wich I'm not yet sure if I agree with all his conclusions, but an interesting perspective to consider). I then would strongly recommend the works of Joseph Ratzinger aka Pope Benedict XVI, wich was a brilliant theologian and scholar in his own right. Specially his *Introduction to Christianity*, wich is more philosophical/theological but touches a lot on the bible and it's development, and his article "Monotheism and Tolerance" in the book *What Is Christianity?* (wich touches on the question of old testament monotheism I wrote about). His *Regensburg Address* and his lecture *The God of Faith and The God of The Philosophers* are also worthwile reads. His Jesus of Nazareth books, on the gospels, are reportedly also very good, but I haven't got around to reading them yet. And lastly, on the relationship of christianity to what we call "mythologies", I would recommend G.K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man. Not by a scholar per se, but a very good book. If you would like any more or different recommendations or have any more doubts, you can jusy tag me. Good luck on your journey, and God bless.

I would also blame the governments cliche I know and I doubt I would do a great job but it feels like many world governments could be doing a lot better.

You can't just call something a straw man if you don't like it. I have given the textbook definitions of each of these ideas.

@@BreakingInTheHabit I agree you definitions are quite reasonable the problem is in asserting these are positions that all atheists hold. A brain may be a bunch of cells but very few people claim it is just that in the same way as a mobile phone is not just a lump of metal.

@@BreakingInTheHabit "I have given the textbook definitions of each of these ideas." It's not textbooks who are leaving Christianity, it's people. So you should talk about actual people and their views and positions, and not about textbook definitions.

Again, you skipped point number 1. If you fail to accept that, I can't really offer you much.

@@BreakingInTheHabit I don't skip it. I place it in discussion: How do you know (with a verifiable method) that something exists beyond death? If it is by faith, you can believe anything; You cannot know if what you believe by faith is true or false.

@@BreakingInTheHabit And even if they did skip 1, this wouldn’t make your claim justified. Because rejecting materialism doesn’t get you to an afterlife, that’s a non sequitur.

"Nihilism" is the consequence of stripping all (spiritual) frameworks from the dominant culture in the 19th century, partly by science, partly by philosophy. Schopenhauer found the world to be full of useless suffering and recommends a limiting of desire and resignation from life (and yes, the relation with Buddhism is not accidental). Nietzsche embraces this suffering and feels the strong should embrace it and use it to become even stronger. But on the other hand, he feels the majority of people wouldn't be able to handle "the loss of God". He regrets that "we killed God" - and feared for what would come - "true world theories", the atheist answer to the loss of meaning and purpose. And given the rise of communism, fascism and (more recently) wokeism, you can't deny he wasn't completely wrong. Camus saw three routes to nihilism - cease existing, cease existing as a person - aka joining some form of religion or ideology (one might say convert to a "true world theory") - or rebel against nihilism - in a sense: becoming the strong, independent man that Nietzsche propagated. Sartre picked up where Camus left off, proclaiming that one should make all choices by himself - and bear the consequences of those choices by himself. But that responsibility brings with it that without an overarching framework, there is no standard to measure ones actions. Even Nietzsche superior being has very few ethical absolutes to go by. The conclusion is that if every choice can be made, every choice is equally valid. And then we are in the realm of "relativism". You see - all these things are not separate issues - they are an interdependent part of an overarching internally consistent framework. But is has *no answers at all* for those who ask the question "Why am I here? What is the meaning of it all?", because - under this framework - you're obliged to either find, ignore or know the answer to those questions. For those people, I hope they find an answer with you. But I must confess I'm not one of them.

@@HansBezemer who's reading all this 😭

@@Dock284 Someone with a curious mind and an attention span exceeding 5 seconds.

I don't think that was the point

I discussed this in two other videos, in case you're interested: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mO0V5A4wi4M.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6AbVfZHu-S0.html

The classics fall on deaf ears in our poor age.

@@BreakingInTheHabit I can say meaningless things too. The blacksmith's dog made a bolt for the door.

@@jonrendell Did he get there while bolting ?

Secularism is about anything, excluding religion. He saying we should not fall into a secular mindset

@@growtocycle6992 ok let me say it in another way. What exactly is his prescription for what SHOULD be done? In regards to politics, should the church support a particular political party or should it not (and be by definition secular)? Should we as individual concern ourselves more with the worldly or the spiritual? For both questions he had explicit answers, which both seemed to support secularism, that is why i am confused.

​@@Finfiesecularism has nothing to do with politics... You can talk about politics and be religious and hence not secular, or you can be secular and talk about politics... Make sense?

@@growtocycle6992 ||secularism has nothing to do with politics|| Isn't the main point secularisation to seperate church and government? Both in the sense, that the church should not explicitly support a particular political party (as he said) and in the sense that the government should not be able to dictate how church services are held. And from that perspective, it seems he supports secularisation, which is confusing.

Determinism is more or less disproven. The bell inequalities we're the last hope for determinism and were more or less killed, thats what the physics nobel prize 2022 was given away for. Maybe we live in a deterministic world, but that is against the scientific Consensus at the Moment.

I think that’s a valid point, but I don’t think even in the civil war time that all of these issues were felt on the ground level, nor were people interacted with each other. Politicians were fighting, but Northerners didn’t see Southerners every day; their lives were consumed with conflict. Most probably had no idea about the details of war. Today, everything is so accessible and in your face, making every social interaction an opportunity for a fight.

@@BreakingInTheHabit Thanks so much for taking the time to respond. Sorry if my comment sounded too critical. I agree with your point and just want to say thanks again for posting so many videos recently, especially doing so much outreach to non-Christians

But this doesn’t mean it is incorrect

3:09 love is real but it is not so grandeos. It is just chemistry if someone don’t have that chemicals this means they cant feel those things. If we fallow your reasoning some people (people that cant feel these emotions) dont have a soul or missing some parts of their souls. Why?

4:04 this sentence is just absurd if humans have not analyzed these things our technology and sciences will be soo backwards

Bless you sir ı don’t agree to your beliefs but ı really like your videos

@@timur882Love is just chemistry but that doesn't take away from it's impact or anything. I know me enjoying certain foods is just chemistry but I still enjoy it. If I'm told the scientific process that goes into me enjoying the food I'm eating I don't suddenly stop enjoying it. Why do religious people act this way about love or even morality?

Unfortunately Father Patrick has been accused of sexual misconduct and doesn’t do public ministry anymore.

@@StMaximilianFanboy Fr??

@@dasFLOCKY unfortunately

@@StMaximilianFanboy just read the Statement.. Really depressing

@@dasFLOCKY Indeed, we must keep Father Casey in our prayers, he looked up to Father Patrick a lot.

What exactly am I , an agnostic atheist, "missing out on"?

@@Theo_Skeptomaiyou can’t be agnostic and atheist, they are completely different.

@@justadude4826 You can’t have a lack of belief and not be nihilistic, if you believe there is a point to your life you have faith in something, that might not be god but it’s a faith or belief in something.

@CoolLampShade WRONG. There is _but one_ claim that the position of atheism addresses. And that is the claim asserted by _certain_ theists that some particular god exists in reality. Like all claims to truth, this claim breaks down on three dichotomous axes: *_truth_* of the claim (true, false); *_acknowledgement_* as to the truth of the claim (acknowledge, fail to acknowledge); and *_sufficiency of knowledge_* as to ascertain the truth of such claim (sufficient, insufficient). It is the the position we take on these dichotomies that establishes our identity in regard to atheism and agnosticism. The first dichotomous axis addresses the truth _position._ Like any claim to truth, the 'theistic' claim is either true or _not_ true (false). There is no other possible option as is dictated by the laws of logic (Identity, Non Contradiction, and Excluded Middle). The second dichotomous axis addresses the acknowledgement _position._ The recipient evaluating the claim either acknowledges the claim as to be true (theism), or fails to acknowledge the claim to be true (atheism). Again, there is no other available option. The third dichotomous axis addresses the _sufficiency of knowledge_ as to the claim _position._ Either the recipient evaluating the claim has sufficient knowledge or information as to ascertain the truth of such claim (gnostism), or does _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information concerning the claim (agnosticism). The default 'acknowledgement' position on the claim that "a particular god(s) exists" is _atheism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the theistic claim for the first time. It would be impractical to acknowledge the truth of a claim _before_ hearing it for the first time. The default position addressing 'sufficiency of knowledge or information' is _agnosticism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim. One can not claim to have sufficient knowledge or information concerning any given claim _until_ he or she hears the claim for the first time. This presents four populations of recipients evaluating the claim that "a particular god(s) exists." The 'gnostic theist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) to theism by acknowledging the truth of the claim. Often this population claims to acquire "sufficient knowledge" from revelation from (or personal relationship with) the deity mentioned in the claim. The 'gnostic atheist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify remaining in the position of atheism (default) by _rejecting to acknowledge_ the claim. This population is sometimes referred to as 'strong atheists'. This population may or may not make the additional claim "god(s) don't exist." If so, like the theists in the original claim, those that make such a claim now encumber a burden of proof to substantiate such claim with evidence. The 'agnostic theist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) by does so _anyways_ by acknowledging the truth of the claim _through_ 'faith'. And last, the 'agnostic atheist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their initial position of atheism so they _continue to suspend acknowleging the truth of the claim until sufficent evidence is presented._ Of the four populations, only the 'gnostic theists' and the 'agnostic atheists' are *_justified_* in their final positions. The former is justified in changing their position to theism by 'revelation'. The latter is justified in suspending such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced, and therefore remain atheist. This is how I can demonstrate that I am indeed an atheist - an _agnostic_ atheist.

@@justadude4826 Yeah, so you believe there is no point in anything? Unless your agnostic

I mean health and kinship as well as being in an at least stable economic situation does tend to make people happy. I mean I'd be rather unhappy if I had arthritis or something in my 20's.

Maybe one day theists will explain why life not having some absolute meaning prevents people from finding one

@@randomusername3873 As "lumbering biological robots" (R. Dawkins) with illusory consciousness in a determinist universe, where do you get to insert meaning?

_"they act as if life was full of meaning"_ It is. You are misunderstanding the whole idea. "Meaning" doesn't just exist on its own. It must be "meaning" _to_ someone, to a thinking, feeling being. In this case, we human beings decide what has meaning to _ourselves._ The universe may be indifferent about us, but _I'm_ not indifferent. And neither are most people.

@@Bill_Garthright Individual meaning is solipsism. I might derive meaning from the perception that when I walk, I am in fact propelling the world under my feet while I remain still. As soon as I move beyond this notion, I am forced to confront objectivity, the idea that vying conscious perceptions exist that refute my fancy. Materialism insists that conscious awareness is epiphenomenal, an illusion of brain chemistry. However, it also requires the belief that the plural of illusion is objective fact. It can't be both. Either consciousness is real, in which case it requires a source that is not exclusively material, or reality exists entirely in the skull and true reality is an unknowable abstraction. Materialism conjures reality deus ex machina.

@@borderlands6606 _"Individual meaning is solipsism."_ No, it isn't. Sorry, but that's just silly. "Meaning" (in this particular sense of the word, as value, purpose, significance, etc.) requires a brain and it requires both an object _and a subject._ That's why it's always subjective. It's always "meaning" _to_ someone - even if just by implication. Now, if some magical being actually exists, some thinking, feeling being, then things could have meaning to _them,_ sure. But "meaning" doesn't just exist on its own. And I have yet to see even *one* piece of good evidence that any god is real, rather than just imaginary. I'm not going to argue with your strawman of materialism, because I don't define myself as a materialist, and... well, I just don't _care_ about your strawman. (I do think it's just a strawman, but if you can find a materialist, you can argue with _them_ about that.) I'm not a materialist, but just an atheist - an agnostic atheist, to be precise. I don't believe in a god or gods, but I don't claim to _know_ that all gods are simply imaginary. If you want to talk about _that,_ great. But my original objection was that you implied that _we_ must be indifferent if the universe is. And that's just not true. Thanks for the reply!

He did but this is first and oldest channel,God bless you brother or sister in Christ and may you have a blessed day!

yes but he deleted it after the scandal broke

@@johansvensson833 what?

@@roberthieber1 The other friar was removed from public ministry after an investigation following an accusation of sexual abuse.

@@anamewillcomelater oh man. That’s a bummer.

Seems like a lot of effort for a snide comment.

@@BreakingInTheHabit If you simply see my post as snide, then you’ve very much missed the point. Yes, it’s satirised but it actually captures real comments made by theists (mainly Christians) of various denominations and illustrates both the propensity of religion to protect itself through misinformation and the extent of disunity amongst those all claiming to know the single version of the ‘truth’ of God. However, I’m more than happy to debate these issues on your topics of choice. For time and space, I'll just stick to the first one. Scientific materialism (and morality) All humans have a sense of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ which are born from their genetics and modified by their environment, which drive their primal instincts to survive and thrive. However, these ‘moral values’ are subjective in nature and do not always align and are not based on an objective standard. These instincts lead to the formation of societies that organise themselves and cooperate for their mutual benefit and this includes reaching consensus on issues of moral ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ and they police themselves accordingly. Theists arguing the case for objective morality are on shaky ground, as they can’t even agree on what is considered good and bad, let alone ultimate versions of these. One theist may consider homosexuality bad and another good (or at least not inherently bad). One theist may consider the holocaust man-made sin and another part of God’s bigger picture. In this sense theists exhibit exactly the same traits as described by evolution whereby right and wrong are subjective and can only be agreed upon by consensus. Religion is just an archaic method of attempting to create this consensus. Hitler was ‘bad’ by any reasonable subjective measure and was eventually eradicated, but evolution doesn’t assume any sense of fairness or justice within its process, no matter how desirable that might be. You seem to claim that you can only appreciate love, beauty, art, etc. if there is a God, but as humans we are all an integral part of the natural world and we are very much in harmony with all these things and when the ‘survive’ instinct is satisfied the ‘thrive’ component is very much active.

You consider yourself a chad, but will transform into a meme if you write that book; do what you want, indeed.

oh wait this is satire I felt like nobody would put in that much effort for satire.

@@Dock284 When logic, reason and rational thought fail to break through, you have to resort to satire. If I can get 1 or 2 people to recognise the contradictions in their perspective on the world, then it's worth it. It's interesting that no-one bats an eyelid at the effort required to create 500+ videos pushing theism, but a moderate length post satirising it, is considered a lot of effort.... Perhaps there's another contradiction there....

This a really good reply! I congratulate you fine Person!

Thank you for saving me the headache of watching the entire video myself. I've been involved in the Christian vs Atheist debates for several years now and I'm honestly tired of trying to find even a single decent argument for Christianity that isn't due to them lacking epistemological rigor. It's wearing on me how many people believe in myths and miracles yet still think they have the more rational position. I keep trying to give them the benefit of the doubt and hear them out, but I'm disappointed every time. Yet it's the rational approach that had me convert to different religions and eventually deconvert, so I know it's not bias on my part. I could still be wrong, but Christians simply can't provide compelling evidence and most of them don't even know what evidence is. Starting today, I'm not wasting any more time with them.

I think there are two issues here. The first one is the scientific world view. It can't be denied it chopped off a significant portion of the Bibles authority in the 19th century. I agree with you that some theists are perfectly capable of combining a naturalist view and retaining their belief. Stephen J. Gould called that "Non-overlapping magisteria". Others are atheist, but hold certain ethical views like humanism (most notoriously, "the four horsemen"). Again others are strong believers of certain ideologies. None of these are essentially "nihilist". Since atheism itself cannot be called an ideology in the strictest sense (since it is simply a lack of belief in a deity) it's hard to associate it with *ANY* philosophical school. However, one cannot deny the criticism of religion and the centralization of man in the universe in the continental philosophical schools of the late 19th century up to the mid 20th century. Personally, I have no problem if one shoves it into the "atheism" drawer. One can take Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Camus and Sartre ("nihilism")- or Hegel, Marx, Lenin, (optionally with Gentile and Mussolini) - but both these schools can be characterized and associated with fundamental religious criticism. As I stated earlier as a comment - it is naive to say that "nihilism" was propagated. Quite the contrary, all authors tried to *resolve* nihilism for its bleak and hopeless outlook (which seems incompatible with the human spirit). However, I wouldn't call it outright "strawmanning" for the reasons I stated before. When these 5 points are condensed into "modernism" and (for lack of a better word) "existentialism" we get IMHO a much better view of what a stereotype "atheist" is in the view of a theist: one that sees the world without an absolute ethical framework and tries to understand it through science alone. Personally, I think two things: 1. It doesn't do any favors to the reality of the wide range of atheists and agnosts existing; 2. To those it does rightfully address, it does very little debunking and offers no viable alternatives. The "debunking" has no bearing to their methods or views. The alternatives offered are diametrically opposed to their views. Let me put it this way: a clairvoyant that gives a detective useful information has no added value if this information cannot be converted to solid evidence that can hold up in court. But these are usually not vids that are meant to convert people, but to *retain* them. If you view that way, it makes much more sense.

1. All he said is that under determinism justice doesn't make any sense. Would you arrest a tree that fell on your car? No, then why arrest the thief that broke into it? It's true that there are a lot of deterministic factors guiding our choices, it's a non sequitur to conclude that all factors are just that. Free will has a lot to do with morality, the freedom to always be able to do the right thing regardless of circumstances. God, being outside of time, can see all time at once, however, He incorporates human free will into His knowledge of the future, i.e. He knows what you'll freely choose. 2. Science is not the only source of truth since it cannot explain everything by default. For example, love, beauty, trust etc. 3. Longing for fulfillment is certainly not wishful thinking, rather it's an innate desire all of us have. This world, no matter how hard we try, can never make us really, truly happy. Deep inside we have this burning flame for the love of God. 4. They definitely aren't religious ideas. There are different kinds of atheists believing in those world views. Yes, gravity objectively exist, but so does morality. How can you get that from God? Well, God is the ipsum esse, sheer existence, the foundation of reality. That's how! 5. Btw, these might not be atheistic ideas, they aren't Christian either. PS: You noted that he gave little effort to debunk them. And your right, little effort is all you need!

@@davethesid8960 1. And even if this was true and not a complete misunderstanding of how determinism works, this wouldn’t debunk determinism. This would be an argument from consequence fallacy. This also ignores the fact that the justice system is literally a factor in determining crime. If someone doesn’t do something out of fear of being punished through the legal system then this factor is one of the things which determines this decision. 2. Science absolutely can explain things like love, beauty and trust. Trust is actually very easy, it’s a product of our evolution as a social species. Tribes which trusted each other had a higher likelihood of survival due to improved social cohesion and thus this would be a trait selected for. And if you’re asking for an explanation beyond that then I’m not even convinced such an ask would be coherent. 3. Much like the presenter of this video, you seem to like misrepresenting. Because I never said longing for fulfilment is wishful thinking. I was saying that trying to infer the truth of eternity from the desire for eternity is wishful thinking. It’s practically the definition. 4. Please demonstrate that morality objectively exists. You merely appeal to a god as if that gets you there but it doesn’t. That’s a complete non sequitur and not logically valid. 5. That’s not a relevant rebuttal. If I was to make a video about debunking Christian ideas and pointed out Muhammad didn’t split the moon you could rightly say, “this isn’t a Christian idea,” but would it be in any way relevant for me to respond to this by saying “they aren’t atheistic either,” that would be entirely irrelevant. It’s not just that he gave little effort, it’s that he utterly failed to do so and in most of these there wasn’t even an attempt. He first point is literally a fallacy and nothing more, his second attempt appeals to modes of reasoning rejected by those he’s trying to convince are wrong, his third idea he claims to debunk he doesn’t even make a case for, the forth idea is a strawman and actually contradicts his previous statements, and he finished off strong with another case of not making any argument against the idea he is supposedly debunking. Much like the presenter, your arguments are very shallow and do not work or stand up to even mild scrutiny.