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

It really is. Religion causes nothing but conflict and promotes archaic beliefs some of which are outright barbaric.

explain how?

@@stingrayshat because now we can move forward instead of living with a bronze age mentality. We don't need a ancient book that gives instructions on slavery and mass genocides to base our morals on.

@@stingrayshat That is like someone saying we have finally become a post-scarcity society, that is great news our species and some dingbat coming along and saying "Explain how that is great news." It is pretty darn self-explanatory.

Where will civilization be when all morals have been tossed aside? No morality based on anything but God has ever stood the test of time

There are intelligent people on both the side of belief and non-belief its not merely as black and white as having information/education

@@angelleon1284 I hope you realize your response is a straw man. I never argued that educated people don't hold irrational beliefs. My point is that the more information you have and the more educated you become, the more likely you are to apply critical thinking, which helps insulate you from myths and superstitions.

@@JohnSpencer90 By that logic your claim is also a straw man that attempts to simply break down the idea of tendency towards atheism to mere information and education, insinuating that better education/information= atheism

@@angelleon1284 I won't do your research for you, but Various statistics ( PEW, ARIS, GSS) suggest a clear correlation between higher education levels and atheism, with educated individuals more likely to identify as atheists compared to the general population. However, you don't need to be an Atheist to conclude that Christian Theology is irrational, and is being held together mostly by baby boomers who are terrified of dying.

@@angelleon1284 I won't do your research for you, but Various statistics ( PEW, ARIS, GSS) suggest a clear correlation between higher education levels and atheism, with educated individuals more likely to identify as atheists compared to the general population. However, you don't need to be an Atheist to conclude that Christian Theology is incredibly over the top.

there's no "technically" about it, this guy just lied through his teeth while proselytizing for jesus

What dishonest thing did he say?

@@kaizer4506 You really don't know?

@@Steelmage99 You clearly have nothing, and so you attack the person rather than his arguments

@@kaizer4506 Well, basically everything he said about atheists is wrong and I am pretty sure he knows it. So that would be dishonest.

@@kaizer4506 OK, so you don't know. As a rule, members of group A shouldn't present the stances and motivations of group B. For instance, an atheist shouldn't present *_what_* a theist believes, and *_why_* they believe it. Would you agree with that?

I did better than an atheist in my class but ey. You do you.

@@omegajg7459 With age comes wisdom, then you will realize that it was a jab at religious dogma.

@@omegajg7459 Do you want a cookie?

@@Rick_Gonja Nah, I wanna take a break from seeing this comment

No, not true, knowledge is the wisdom of religion the Catholic Church created. Universitys College Schools Hospitals Scientific research Of all Branches Including Biology Geology Astronomy and Chemistry Math and many more so the church is a Patrion of sciences and education a Across the world Sense early centuries the church's was the labs for scientist and hospitals college was a Please where moks Taught scientific studies to Students. You can look it up Not only that Christianity Change the whole world by Music Culture laws art Technology and Military and Power, Businesses Society Philosophy Theology history and Pioneers and exploration. So yeah people should think christianity for Society And for all the glory that it did to the world Even through this day the church Hold no Hate to science Though they are Catholic. And the catholic church has Dynasies Across the world in colleges in cities and countries that has Marriages For the communities Most of the founding fathers of modern science Were people of clarity of the church The first Nurses were Actually nuns of the church All the way up to 20 Century There saints in the Middle ages that Did Medical research⚕️ For centuries It begin since the fourth century the medical research of Biology. So yes the knowledge I's From the church So as reason and logic. God Bless you ✝️🇻🇦

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.

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?

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?

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.

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).

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...

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.

The problem here is that you've presented a false dichotomy, that one has free will or one does not. It doesn't work like that since from the moment you are born, your life is determined and shaped by your environment. So what we have is volition within a particular context.

@@almcdermid9669 We are conditioned by environment but we energetically interact with it and influence it as well with our conscious frontal cortex, unlike purely instinctual animals. At any given moment with clarity, honesty courage, the seeds of motivation, a person can push against conditioning and choose otherwise, ie. recondition. Ain’t easy but possible. I’ve see it all the time. Also, agreement is choice, eg. the world now agrees slavery is wrong.

@@themobbit9061 That happened to 4 years ago; now I'm an atheist. But we are conditioned, which why geography plays a part in what religion one becomes.

@@themobbit9061 Slavery was always.

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.

God created us to love us, and wanted us to love him in return. There is no love without free will, so he gave us that as well. If you cannot choose to be apart from God, then you can’t truly choose to be with him either. The first people chose to be apart from God and so welcomed all that is not God: sin, suffering, evil desires and pain. Christians also believe that suffering is brief and minor compared to the infinite good that comes next. You may disagree with this view of God, but this view is not inherently contradictory

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.

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

I think you're completely missing the point. Like, completely. The whole problem with atheism is that it is a deficient worldview that claims that only that which is provable is real or meaningful. This is a modern fallacy that eliminates all other forms of truth (art, history, beauty, poetry, literature, intuition, love) and is self-contradictory (logical positivism rejects assumptions about the existence of an underlying reality, but uncritically accepts the existence of empirical data). Why should we have to play by your rules and throw out what humans have known for centuries? And to your second point, just because I did not answer the question with empirical evidence doesn't mean that I misrepresented what "the other side says." I may not have convinced you, but each of these five points are academic definitions of the concepts alive in our world.

@@BreakingInTheHabit Nope. You are misrepresenting the other side as if they were saying X or Y (any of those 5 things you mentioned in the video), when atheism is just the lack of belief in a deity, that's all. Just an idea: Listen for one moment to the other side, so you can stop putting words in their mouths. Maybe talk to VicedRhino, TheSkepTick or any of the other guys that have been responding to your content.

​@@BreakingInTheHabit *"The whole problem with atheism is that it is a deficient worldview that claims that only that which is provable is real or meaningful."* To quote you: "I think you're completely missing the point. Like, completely." You even make MY point for me when you say: "This is a modern fallacy that eliminates all other forms of truth (art, history, beauty, poetry, literature, intuition, love)" So why would you think we're saying what you point out is self evident?

@@BreakingInTheHabit Im sorry but what kind of "truth" is poetry? Could you tell what the "truth" value a verse has? It can cause emotions in a reader, yes. But the fact that it will cause them in one person and not in another is immediately discrediting it as "truth". Your argument here is nothing more than a word salad...

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.

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 ?

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.

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?

". 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.

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

@@BreakingInTheHabit Yes, of course. It's all propaganda. Because the catholic church would never do anything violent or abhorrent. Hey, how many cathars are there in southern France today? None? Gosh, I wonder where they went!

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.

He kind of strawmanned on that. I don't think any scientific materialist believes consciousness is an "illusion". just that it can be explained through neurology and biochemistry, rather than a magical invisible energy. that idea doesn't even contradict any religion. You could say that god gave us this amazing complex brain capable of conciousness through elaborate neural networks. If anything its more impressive and convincing than an unmeasurable aura that makes all our decisions.

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.

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.

Someone missed the point. Or didn't watch the video.

They didn't really, since actual evidence of God or gods would halt the decline of theism. Here you are just rattling off your excuses. I'd recommend VicedRhino's and TMM's replies to you video,

Also your entire analysis is bad and shallow. Just a series of slogan like statements without a modicum of thoughtfulness.

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.

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

@@generalyousif3640 I’d certainly recommend confessing the thing you feel guilty about. It’s hard to think of something that would make me feel guilty (not just embarrassed) that isn’t sinful Also, remember Jesus said that when you hate your neighbor, you have murdered him in your heart. Near occasion may not be a sin, but indulging thoughts of sinful behavior certainly can be. God bless!

@@kaizer4506 “ It’s hard for me to feel guilty about something that isn’t sinful” Well, let me tell you about a scrupulous mind, it’s one where someone is feels guilt over a lot of stuff that are either slightly sinful or not sinful at all. Regardless, my priest told me it’s fine, because I resisted and the near occasion of sin would have been sinful if I committed the actual sin

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.

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.

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.

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.

He is not being truthful; he's strawmanning atheism.

It turns out his sidekick had a thing for altar boys

2 or 3 ppl don't really prove much.

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

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.

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.

​@@BreakingInTheHabit You're SO CLOSE to getting it.

@@BreakingInTheHabit So according to you this: Cannibal : a human that eats other humans. Zombie : A person that rises from the dead. Catholic : Cannibals that worship a water walking zombie. Isn't a strawman because it's just listing definitions. Surely you can at least see that it is (like your claims) disingenuous at best?

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

"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.

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?

I don't think that was the point

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

I'm an Agnostic Atheist as well, but even if I were to become theist, it absolutely would not be Christianity. I'm curious why Christianity of all things would sway you?

@@GRAHFMETAL ik you did not ask me but I will answer, the bible has predicted many things (for example they predicted both Islam and Mormonism). And many arguments for the existence of God and that Christ is lord. Though I think Hinduism, Judaism, Atheism and general theism could all also be true but I do not believe in them. Before I converted I hated everyone and I hated life and did not feel remorse when I hurt people. As soon as I converted I started feeling real guilt and I also felt a level of love I never ever felt before. After researching further I am now an Orthdox Christian. Hope this helped or that you found this interesting! God bless you my friend

@@GRAHFMETAL Also keep in mind I suffer from Schizoid Personality Disorder which makes it unlikely for this to just be some emotional thing

@@TruePluto @TruePluto It was a useless answer, albeit harmless, until you said "God bless you friend" at the end, knowing that I'm an Atheist, so that just made your comment both sanctimonious and ignorant. I'm not interested in talking to you.

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

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.

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.

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.

You can’t. But that’s the very mindset I’m trying to show is foolish: there are very few things you can know for sure, and if you throw out everything that can’t be proven absolutely, you’re going to throw out most of life.

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

"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?

1. Without God free will by absolutely cannot exist. The laws of energy and matter dictate matter must act and react in a certain away and if you could measure the millions of trillions of variables you could determine entire timeline of the universe beginning to end. 2. Not the strongest point agreed 3. Doesn’t mean antagonism but it certainly is increasingly so 4. Either matter is eternal or God is both require faith. Sorry facts are almost entirely based on observation and perception. Consider time dilation. How do we determine our sense of time is in fact the correct one? 5. Depression is up suicide is up Fatal over doses are up meaning people are doing harder stronger drugs. Or maybe this is one of those “facts” a that isn’t as objective as you think

@@drewidlifestyle7883 1. Adding a god doesn't change the laws of physics. Your claim can only be true if the universe is deterministic, but it can also be probabilistic. For example the uncertainty principle. Some outcomes are more likely than others but it can't be determined which one actually happens. God would have created the laws of physics as they are observed, otherwise they are wrong and your claim is invalid. God creating the laws of physics makes no difference to the existence of free will. 2. Nothing to say here. 3. A lot of that perception is caused by non-Christian people getting the same rights as Christians. For example Satanism being allowed in schools, because Christianity is, or marriages between homosexuals, etc... Losing privileges feels like discrimination. 4. "Either matter is eternal or God is both require faith." -drew Maybe, but at least matter demonstrably exists. Even if we say that eternity of something requires faith, the existence of matter doesn't, while the existence of god does. So what's the point of adding a god? "How do we determine our sense of time is in fact the correct one?" -drew All of them are correct in their frame of reference. That's what relativity is about. There is no absolute time. 5. For depression you also need to account that we are better at detecting it, so even milder forms of depressions are counted. One of reasons for depressions is being in a minority group. Non-religious people are more likely to be depressed in religious communities, while religious people are more likely to be depressed in non-religious communities. I'm not a psychologist so I'm not going too deep into it.

@@drewidlifestyle7883 _"Without God free will by absolutely cannot exist."_ I would say you've got that exactly backwards. _With_ God, free will absolutely cannot exist - at least, by the common idea of "God." If there's an omniscient, omnipotent creator god, then free will cannot exist. After all, he would have created you knowing everything that you would do. Once you started to exist, you could do nothing else but what he saw you would do, because if you did, he'd be wrong. And an omniscient god can't _be_ wrong. So you have no choice but to do exactly what he programmed you to do. Remember, since he's also omnipotent, supposedly, he could have created you any way he wanted. Or he could have created someone else, instead of you. So _you_ were deliberately planned. It wasn't just an accident. Your god wasn't forced by some _other_ god to create a random person. The result was _exactly_ what he wanted. Because, again, he knew exactly what he would get _and_ he had the ability to create whatever he wanted. It's the combination of "omniscient" and "omnipotent" which makes free will impossible with a creator god. If any of that is true (I see no reason to think that it is), then none of us have any free will. We _have_ to do exactly what "God" created us to do. There has never been a point in our existence where we could do anything else. Because if we _did,_ then "God" would be wrong. And that contradicts the premises. _"both require faith"_ Nope. "I don't know" does *not* require faith! The fact that I don't believe you doesn't mean you _can't_ be right. It just means that I've never seen anything distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing up god beliefs, that's all.

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.