Is There a Rebirth of BELIEF IN GOD? Justin Brierley vs Alex O'Connor 

16:21 Alex seems to have reached to the boundaries of everything in this word, and he seems to have understood everything that leads to to the conclusion that if people are becoming christians then it must be a political reason or some kind of force pressing by christians. This guy is stilk in a developing state, because he came to a conclusion the everything must have happened within the capacity of his understanding and nothing could have happened and nothing will happen outside of his notion of knowing the world. How can that be possible? How can we just limit everything in this world to that which he can perceive??? Why can't they be existed beyond human comprehension??? This proves that atheist's way on thinking is limited.

@@justinbrierley I enjoyed it. Alex was brilliant.

@rawan3435 Anything outside of our comprehension MUST be proven REAL first. Meaning, it's useless to insist something is REAL unless we COMPREHEND it. Many big mistakes have been made in history because of rushed certainty.

@@goodquestion7915 but how can we know that this brain we have can perceive that which is outside of its ability?? Inorder to understand anything we have to be outside of that thing. Inorder to understand the absence of time we have to be outside of time, but that is impossible. We cannot figure out even the gravity for so long, there's a number of other basic questions not yet solved even by mathematics. How can we believe there is nothing outside of our comprehension??

@rawan3435 Your questions are good. The problem starts when we MAKE decisions based on GUESSES on the answers to those questions. And even worse, when we LEGISLATE on those dubious answers.

Because?

You glazing this man

In the very brief moments that he actually spoke, you mean. "Always a delight to see Alex sit and nod his head".

Oh and open borders let's not forget those

No it’s not. Islam actually has a lot a converts too, Christianity also has a lot of converts but also a lot of people leave Christianity as well.

​@@km0262 Islamic converts are very less than birth rates.

And in Northern Europe sponsored by a generous child benefit system.

@@km0262 I partly follow. Many young people with muslim parents leave this 1400 year old very limited worldview behind them. But two years ago, an investigation was conducted by the Federal government in my country Belgium. We now have more practicing muslims than practicing christians. But also true. christianity, meanwhile, is falling lower and lower.

spot on. - feeling and genuinely believing being the modus operandi - and that’s the problem. because when reason sleeps…

I'll also save you some time. Alex will simply repeat every made-up nonsense about Christianity he ever heard without questioning any of it. And he'll probably repeat some nonsense about "slavery and genocide" and how "good people do evil things because of religion" or how religion is always the bad guy that fights against good science (completely ignoring all of the horrible stuff we have because of science, like weapons of mass destruction, etc. Or how a lot of scientific progress was based on highly unethical experiments). Then he will go on to strawmaning Christianity and "debunking" fundamentalist evangelicals while at the same time showing zero knowledge about religion or the Bible despite his claims of having studied theology. 😂

Yep. Tedious stuff. I remember when I first came across Unbelievable and was excited at some of the debates. Justin impressed me as a moderator, seemed open, and courteous, to the atheists. Then, when I sat down to him about to explain why he thinks Xtianity is the more reasonable option I was expecting something special. Nope. He had nothing. Same old. Now it reeks of a racket, a way to flog books and make money online etc.

Thanks for this, someone (Christian) told me about this guy and I thought "this has gotta be bs" so I thought I'd check him out. Thanks for summing him up.

Thanks for writing your feelings.

It's not just a bias from your side. Some of us are indeed Pharisees.

My friend try to read this comment section. You'll see atheists more often have that tone, after all, atheism is supposedly an enlightenment. Most atheists seem they have the answer here

Then you haven't been listening. Because a genuine theist doesn't hoard god from others, they share it. You sound like you've been part of terrible religious communities. I'm sorry to hear that.

I feel like a lot of that comes from him having hosted conversations between Christians and atheists for years. It’s easier to be more empathetic when you’re listening to different perspectives all the time and not just living in an echo chamber, and also witnessing and aiding in creating calm intellectual discussions as a host. Alex also recently said that in his private life he gets into some heated debates with people and isn’t always cool and collected, but when on camera he knows that his audience will notice when people are dishonest in conversation so he doesn’t need to worry about it and might as well stay calm. So it could be like that with Justin as well.

LSD takes away the brain's ability to filter out the peripheral stimuli that would otherwise prevent you from functioning in an efficient and focused way. My experience of God has deepened with age. I would describe it more like a deeply personal , calming relationship which is deeply affecting. It is not really anything like a sensory overload. sensory

Justin and Alex both have my respect for being able to discuss their differences without resorting to attacking each other. If only that could catch on.

Why, such a low bar you are setting here...

lol.

@@PoppysPrints lol. you need to get out more. brierly a pond scum in my estimation.

My respect to them accepting the set-up: small sofa, they barely both fit on it, one mic. WT? Who dropped the ball on this one?

I had the same initial reaction. Why a couch? For novelty? Bad decision.

Maybe to convey the symbolism of them being together or the same in some way, rather than separate and opposed.

I’m laughing in real time. Killer comment.

I think that after Alex had his way with Dinesh D’Souza, perhaps one might want to rethink who will be sitting on who’s lap.

@@TenMinuteTrips That was a case of Dinesh being wholly arrogant and unprepared. Alex is a major league mind, and if you're not in his arena he's gonna bowl over you. And mind you: I'm a Christian. I watched the first few minutes and I could literally feel my respect for Dinesh seeping out through my eyes and ears.

Alex is the GOAT at getting Hitchslapped 😂

​@@Treesandmountains odd as he seems to be the most successful hitch critic.

​@@mikeshivakmaybe he's referring to Alex's interview with Peter Hitchens lol

Generally Overrated Atheist Turd

I think he conducts himself well in recent years (before that, not so much). But if you think he’s the GOAT you must not be broadly read.

Why are we so uncomfortable with closeness? Your comment puzzles me.

@@Shawn-nq7du I'm more uncomfortable with visible discomfort rather than closeness. It appears a somewhat awkward position.

@@aaronscheuman understand

Or at least a bigger couch amiright lol

Agreed.

Absolutely agree

It gets smaller each time the camera cuts away until one is on the other’s lap.

It's not logic tho

@@loganappenfeller113😂 that’s a hilarious image

It’s not a couch, it’s a love seat 🙂

A Love-Your-Neighbors-Seat

Mmm, as a former atheist I disagree. Alex O Connor is definitely the most sophisticated atheist around at the moment. But what converted my heart in 2021 was the experience of evil in myself and seeing it very clearly in another, Augistine and Aquinas converted my intellect with logical arguments for God and supranational nature of faith & my burning desire to be the man my soon to be wife needs converted my will. When I was an atheist I wanted evidence and proof that was in the realm of empirical facts only but I’ve come to find out that’s only one aspect to reality and there are different schools of evidence.

@@Nrev973interesting. And I’m not intending to discount this… but that doesn’t seem to be the nature of the majority of these debates anymore.

@@Nrev973 lol, alex is NOT the "most sophisticated" he might be the most toffee nosed but there are HOARDS of counter apologists doing a great job. apparently it's not just religists who need to get out more.

@@stevenwizzle533 the only hing i can say in favour of jordan peterson is that at the time of the four horsemen peterson raised the bar for religious debate, he may have degenerated into incoherent psycho-babble now, but at the time both sides had to come up with better reasoning and better reasons and nothing has been the same. harris, dawkins, dennett and hitchens all improved their viewpoints during those early days and nothing has been the same since, other than the religists are losing cos they can't hide the fact god has never been demonstrated - and never will be.

Actually, I have always felt that up until recently all of the arguments for God for the last few thousand years have been based on emotional appeals. Now that more and more people want evidence for these claims and "faith" doesn't seem to cut it anymore, now they are making appeals to reason, logic, and (pseudo) science. The church leaders and apologists know full well that their institutions are bleeding membership at a seemingly irreversible, rapid pace. They are desperate to stop the bleeding, lest they perish (figuratively speaking).

cos they are needy and insecure. and it's hard having to maintain lies all the time, like "there;s no slavery in the bible" and "god never committed genocide imagine having to constantly make excuses for all that crap.

You must let scripture interpret Scripture and see the whole picture of the Bible, not just pick and choose. Of course there are troubling passages, but if you look to Christ and His example, you will find truth

Christians, like myself, criticize some atheists on Bible interpretation because much of it is childish. Few atheists have any knowledge of the ANE, know Hebrew, or factor in the contexts of a particular passage. Most implore an eisegesis approach to the Bible and cherry-pick passages to make a point. If you don't know the historical background of the Bible, then you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Bible interpretation. I will sadly admit that many Christians do similar things concerning Bible interpretation as well.

​@@clayw70literally just described 99.999 of christians, pastors, and apologists. they only understand the language, historical context etc in the way their particular seminary/institution/denomination has approved

What you're describing is exactly what "reading the Bible like a fundamentalist" means. Obviously there are parts of it that are more reasonably taken at face value than others. Reading it "like a fundamentalist" is taking every part of it at face value, quote by quote. Reading it "not like a fundamentalist" would be recognizing that some parts are more compatible with that way of reading than others.

surely god wouldn't let him -lie- make mistakes? hasn't he had revelation?

Justin is disingenuous I as an atheist always will tell the truth I have seen Justin lie and manipulate the truth on many occasions

​@@aroemaliuged4776'I as an atheist will always tell the truth.....' 😶

@@aroemaliuged4776who the hell are you??! You never lie… my arse

@@matthewstokes1608 How very Christian of you

I am not convinced any particular god is a reality, for I have never encountered any credible evidence suggesting such a reality. So,until I do encounter sufficient credible evidence that such a reality exists, I will continue to suspend any acknowledgment concerning the truth of _your_ claim that one does. Do you believe that I am _rationally justified_ in my position?

rational in the sense that it makes groups operate more efficiently with a common goal, not that there’s any truth in a man who came back to life paired with zombies rising up on Jerusalem

"do unto others, as you wish to be done with you".... Point out the irrationality... Please.

@@Theo_Skeptomai, I make a silly analogy iydm : remember back in school, when you liked a girl, but you kinda think she's out your league.. A good thing to do was send your friend, to talk to her friend, "my friend says he likes your friend, can you ask her, if she likes my friend??" If the answer was "yes"... Obviously you will approach her, confidently knowing you won't be rejected, right??... Well, you clearly had cheated! There's a lot of meaning in the passage when Christ says to Thomas ; because you saw is that you believe?... Blessed are those who without seeing believe ".....

@@anzawilldie4379 it is irrational to assume that others will want done to them what you want done to you.

A lot of people want to believe that there isn’t a God. What’s your point?

The christians i know will happily say everything good in their life comes from God. Any question about any evidece will allways be,"i feel it in my heart." Never any evidence. As a child I thought they must know something i don't. After a while i understood it is just make belief. They just belief without question. Any question will break down the facade.

​@@jamesjones11301994a lot of people can't find any evidence for god and don't just accept something without it.

@@jamesjones11301994 When I talk to people who don't believe in God, they have a chain of logic leading to their belief God doesn't exist. When I talk to people who believe in God, there is always the faith component that allows them to not use logic. I don't have enough faith to believe in a God.

@@jamesjones11301994 I doubt you've talked to many non-believers. The notion of: "They just want to sin." "You wouldn't believe even with evidence." Is false for so many of us. So many of us live good lives and beg for evidence. Yet when we have conversations, believers can't give their evidence that lead them to believe. The ones who are honest usually say, "It's faith". I can accept that it's faith but faith isn't logic and reason. Faith is what you do when you don' have good evidence. I want good evidence. What's your evidence?

Today people are less grounded than they were 10 years ago. Many people are searching for meaning. Some find identity politics others find religion of some sort. The way people do talk about God has changed over the 15 years as there is a far greater level of uncertainty.

This is a discussion about whether something is happening that's just started. It would be about Justin's intuitions vs. Alex's intuitions by definition. There wouldn't be statistics to back either side up at this point...

@@deschain1910 No, it's not about Justin's intuition vs. Alex's intuitions. It's simply about whether Justin is warranted to make that generalized claim as expressed by his new book based on his anecdotal evidence. Alex never made a comparable generalized claim about the changes of atheism landscape based on his experiences.

@@andrewtsai777 If you're actually wondering about the truth claim behind the question rather than the idea that the positive claim has the burden of evidence and the negative claim does not, then yes it would be intuition vs. intuition. This entire discussion is about speculation about the future and whether something has just begun which is foreshadowed by these public atheists becoming non-atheists (or non-believing proponents of Christianity?) whatever you might call them. This speculation would be just that, speculation. You can't have statistics about what this question is about.

@@deschain1910you should easily be able to have statistics about this kind of thing, or at the very least analysis from sociologists. This isn’t the first time places have become less religious and then there was a rise in religious again.

I can't stand listening to other Atheists because they are Woke and make ridiculous statements. I refuse to listen to people who don't know what a man or a woman is and uses terms like "pregnant person".

Whaddya mean "Scotland is already that 'bad'?" Surely you mean "Scotland has already woken up to this obvious con-game"

Belgium: 60% without a belief in a god. Two years ago, an investigation was conducted by the Federal government in my country Belgium. We now have more practicing muslims than practicing christians. There isn't much room for christianity anymore, it is. And don't forget the religion that is brought back in by immigrants (by former USSR countries, for example).

Did you listen to the entire conversation? Justin clearly said he doesn't believe there is a revival happening right now.

I think the difference is, in the past people said they were religious culturally but were atheist in practice. Now and in future I think the number of people who say they're religious are more likely to actually be so than before so the figures will only really every tell part of the story

@@alexjames9942that’s exactly it.

I remember, but I can see what godlessness is like now that it is strong, and it's rapidly becoming exactly what the fundamentalists said it would be.

New atheists are defined as the early group around the 2000’s like the 4 horsemen, Silverman, Atkinson, etc. Many of them have commented how the woke movement has made their movement spiral out of control into ridiculousness. And they can’t figure out why.

@@afiron4856 Yeah so you’re say the “New Atheist movement” is a ridiculous movement then? So you consider it a pejorative

@@lotsofstuff9645 no, I said it spiraled into ridiculousness. The four horsemen thought everyone could be civil without God and maintain morality, and they are seeing and admitting THEIR actions brought about the ridiculousness of woke because not everyone thinks like that after all. For reference see what Dawkins and Silverman admit about their role in wokeism.

@@afiron4856 Ok… I’ll just move on from that discussion then because I don’t think it’s going to go anywhere… So most atheists aren’t all that interested in the opinions of “the four horsemen” or if a god can be used to maintain a particular type of morality. Most atheists are simply interested to know if gods are a real or possible thing that exists in reality. When someone try’s to suggest the people need a god to have a particular system of morality, or to avoid what ever this scary “woke” culture is it feels like it’s a deflection from the discussion. Well before anyone has a discussion about what is or isn’t a good morality system, people just want to know if this god thing is real or is it just a tool people are using to attempt control, or something people believe in because they are afraid of death… or something else. It would be great if instead of giving people a new label like “new atheist” or “woke” or what ever new term they would like to come up with, if they would just frankly and openly discuss the topic. Forget about the character of the person asking the question for a second and just discuss the topic. The person asking could be a complete arse, I don’t care. So my original point was stop getting so caught up in playing the man and just play the ball.

@@afiron4856 Ahh…? ok. Let’s move on… “The Four Horsemen” aren’t some leadership of an atheist movement. Most atheists won’t know who they are or what they’ve said. Most atheists aren’t interested in whether morality exists outside of a god belief (which I’m sorry but that is a bizarre argument), or do they care about the term woke. My original point was about not using diversion like this and just talking about if a god actually can or does exist. Personally I would just like to know if god genuinely exists, or are people just believing because they are afraid of death, or because they are under the impression a god is just a useful tool to keep people civil?

Are you saying Tom Holland is promoting racism? I'm not sure how to interpret the parenthetical statement there...

I do not think you have read Tom Holland’s book, heard his argument, or thought critically about it. I have never heard Holland say the West gets everything from Christianity. He says certain important and fundamental things are taken mainly from Christianity which seems to be true. Christianity has dominated the West since around 325 AD. Getting some one’s argument right is very important. If you do not then you cannot really object to it properly.

@@deschain1910 Not directly. I am saying that he may inadvertently, by identifying the West with Christianity, promote a racist trope (which identified Europe with Christianity, or more precisely, The Reformation).

@@carlpeterson8182 I am reading that book now, but my concern is more of what Justin is saying. I also have seen interviews of Holland, and for what I gather of him, I think he has a double standard regarding the nature of historical change. So, Holland thinks Christianity, which he recognizes was the product of the blending of different cultures (Judaism, the Hellenistic Greco Roman world etc), developed into something unique, with some supposedly moral qualities that have endured to our days within the West. But for some reason, he seems to have a hard time accepting that from modernity or modern descended philosophical thought (like the Enlightenment). How much does the philosophical thought and the modern political order need to differ from Christianity to start being its own thing and not just an eternal offspring of that religion, dependent on it? If it conceptualizes God, freedom and political order differently from Christianity, how it is just an extension of that religion? And if not, why should we not think of Christianity as an extension of Judaism and Greco-Roman philosophy? It seems to me he, as Americans say, want to have his cake and eat it.

@@mendez704 I think first you have to understand that Holland is a historian. Thus, he is making a historical argument first. and it is very historical and humanism and othe3r forms of atheism and other worldviews are indebted massively to Christianity. Some atheists and others do not like that, but I think he proves it. That is the first point. I do not think he argues for a belief in the Christian God at all since he is not Christian. I believe he is an atheist. What I have heard is that he thinks in the future the West will move from a Christian worldview into something else. This might have some positive and negative effects. I do not see Holland is against the movement away from Christianity itself per se. I do think he warns against a total riddance of any and all portions of the Chrisitan worldview. I think you are somewhat correct when you say Christianity is a blend of cultures (Judaism, the Hellenistic Greco Roman world, etc). I think with the etc you mean other cultures also especially as time move along. the rediscovery of Aristotle and many more things influenced Christianity and Christianity influenced many other worldviews and cultures. But I think what is missing is that Christianity is also majorly influenced by a belief in the gospel and what Jesus did while on earth. the gospel and the NT is very tied up with the OT but there is a belief that God did something new in the NT or fulfilled the OT in the NT and the gospel. So that has to be added. You do not have to believe that occurred, but it is historical fact that Christianity is influenced greatly by the belief that it did occur.

a fair amount of Muslims are starting to leave Islam now, there´s better data for it in the US, than in the UK, but it seems that the trends in Christianity over the 20th century are hitting Muslims now, just a fair bit later.

If only there was any Christianity in those churches in the first place

Atheism has brought about the decline of Europe in no less than a decade of rule. This is literally a grave mistake.

Ye it look us quite a few years of education to get people to abandon christianity but islam has just joined civilization so it might take a bit for the education to reach them too

@@GoldenMechaTiger We're not out of the woods yet. But young people from Muslim families are leaving that 1400-year-old worldview behind as well. The pull of the 21st century is much stronger. Especially in Northern Europe.

Your desire is to defend a. default position that supports u r intelligence coming from a nonintelligent first cause. Keep defending that as it's totally irrational just from logic.

The 'that', and I think Justin made this clear, is for Jesus to resolve everything we need as 'the best shot' we got.

@@davidjanbaz7728 "Just from logic" has been debunked as a smart method. Examples: epicycles, flat earth, geocentrism, humors, witchcraft, gods, etc.

@davidjanbaz7728 Things coming from non-things have been proven True even in your worldview. My worldview: - Water from non-water - Walls from non-walls. - Stars frm non-stars. - .... a universe of etceteras ... Your worldview: - Everything from nothing - Non-smart people from smart people. - Christians from non- Christians. - etc.

@davidjanbaz7728 Your worldview is useless. You borrow from my worldview to express the ideas from your retrograde worldview.

Diseases come from deterioration of the human genome. There is a growing number of new cancer types and we know that cancer is in the genes. Evolution does not support that

Doesn't seem to be true for many modern scientists.

You realise that's not a Heisenberg quote. No one has ever been able to source that quote.

say my name

Atheists who claim GOD and science cannot go together are debunked by top scientists. Let's start with Albert Einstein: “The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who - in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’ - cannot hear the music of the spheres.” Next, the atheist’s hero, Charles Darwin, from his autobiography “The Autobiography of Charles Darwin: “When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” Even better, the founder of atomic physics, Sir Joseph J. Thompson: “As we conquer peak after peak we see in front of us regions full of interest and beauty, but we do not see our goal, we do not see the horizon; in the distance tower still higher peaks, which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects, and deepen the feeling, the truth of which is emphasized by every advance in science, that ‘Great are the Works of the Lord’.” And better, still. Ernest Walton: “One way to learn the mind of the Creator is to study His creation. We must pay God the compliment of studying His work of art and this should apply to all realms of human thought. A refusal to use our intelligence honestly is an act of contempt for Him who gave us that intelligence.” Nikola Tesla has Entered the Chat: “The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power.” Physicist and mathematician James Clerk Maxwell, whose contributions to science are considered to be of the same magnitude to those of Einstein and Newton, has also Entered the Chat: “Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created.” But let us not stop there. Sir Isaac Newton: “In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.” “I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.” William Kelvin, who was noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale based upon it: “I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.” “If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God.” Max Born, contributor to the development of quantum mechanics: “Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.” Surely, we must be done, right? No, we are just getting start. Michael Faraday: “Yet even in earthly matters I believe that ‘the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead,’ and I have never seen anything incompatible between those things of man which can be known by the spirit of man which is within him, and those higher things concerning his future, which he cannot know by that spirit.” Michio Kaku, theoretical physicist and string theory pioneer: “I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore. To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.” Onwards we march. Stephen Hawking: “It is relatively unusual that a physical scientist is truly an atheist. Why is this true? Some point to the anthropic constraints, the remarkable fine tuning of the universe. For example, Freeman Dyson, a Princeton faculty member, has said, ‘Nature has been kinder to us that we had any right to expect.' Charles Babbage, mathematician and “Father of the computer”: The works of the Creator, ever present to our senses, give a living and perpetual testimony of his power and goodness far surpassing any evidence transmitted through human testimony. The testimony of man becomes fainter at every stage of transmission, whilst each new inquiry into the works of the Almighty gives to us more exalted views of his wisdom, his goodness, and his power.” Isidor Isaac Rabi, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the magnetic properties of atomic nuclei: “Physics filled me with awe, put me in touch with a sense of original causes. Physics brought me closer to God. That feeling stayed with me throughout my years in science. Whenever one of my students came to me with a scientific project, I asked only one question, ‘Will it bring you nearer to God?’ William Henry Bragg: “From religion comes a man’s purpose; from science, his power to achieve it. Sometimes people ask if religion and science are not opposed to one another. They are: in the sense that the thumb and fingers of my hands are opposed to one another. It is an opposition by means of which anything can be grasped.” Robert Andrews Millikan: “To me it is unthinkable that a real atheist could be a scientist.” Albert Einstein: “The more I study science, the more I believe in God.”

Then why are scientists a higher percentage atheist than the standard population?

Alex is not remotely as intelligent as he believes he is, or you. Highly intelligent to an atheist, perhaps, but low intelligence to the spiritually discerned and illuminated.

fAlex is an apologist for a different faith. What is the difference?

​@@nemrodx2185Atheism is literally the rejection of religion all of it for the same or similar reasons you reject others

@@TotalAnalyst2 "Atheism is literally the rejection of religion all of it for the same or similar reasons you reject others" No, that's what atheist indoctrination and manipulation sells you so that you don't see the blind faith where you are!

@@nemrodx2185so would you say NOT being convinced that Islam is true is a religion in itself?

@@Dume_Guy Not being convinced is an emotional/psychological state. It has nothing to do with the truth of a hypothesis or worldview.

Have you read St. Thomas's books by any chance?

I understand your point. I think the issue is more nuanced. For instance: 1) For theists - “What is God? Define it please.” While a very small percentage will have the old man in the sky version, I suspect most will be vastly more nuanced… to the point that many may privately admit to not understanding why Jesus dying for our sins… makes much sense… from their nuanced impression of what god is perspective. 2) For atheists - “If we remove religion (Christianity, Islam, etc) from the discussion of god, and if we - in good faith - try to understand the 1st mover/Platonist argument for a creator (not god, per se) outside of religious dogma… can you appreciate the argument?”

​​​@@BruceWing1.) I think the definition of a thing ought to be a prerequisite for a belief in that thing. This line of thought is where igntheism / theological non-cognitivism comes from. 2.) What even is a prime mover or unmived mover? Is it not a contradictory concept? Does nature need a "first cause" at all?

@@umbraemilitos - I don’t disagree that people should attempt to better define their terms. That said, it is such a big topic, it’s understandable that it’s hard to define. Think about a unified field theory in physics. At a high level, we understand what it means. Digging deeper however, physicists have a difficult time discussing details.. because they don’t understand how things fit together. Also, like discussions of a god/creator, we have theories of a multiverse… or of the universe being a simulation. They are hypotheses that some people believe are true, but there is no evidence that they are true. Even if they are true, one can reasonably still hypothesize a first mover. As to your other questions, they are reasonable. So are questions relating to a first mover. If the universe created itself, that’s wild. Magical even. And if a first mover (whatever that even means) did it, that’s wild. Magical, too. Either direction one goes, one is in a supremely weird situation.

lol why? Atheists love talking about morals all the time. Always talking about the horrors in Palestine or Ukraine or whatever. But they can't ground any of there moral beliefs so its ultimately just how they feel.

​@@TheGogogwoIt's telling because rather than using any of the arguments related to external evidence, like the FTA or argument from miracles, he thinks the strongest is the one that ultimately rests on feelings and desires - that he feels as though some things are truly evil and desperately wants it to be the case that goodness and evil exist in some objective form. But the moral argument is very weak because of this reliance on subjective feelings. It shows that he has a strong sense of empathy and justice, but is willing to go with feeling over evidence in order to appease his desires in a way that is psychologically comfortable. When I was a believer I was the same - I desperately wanted it to be true. But I had to face the fact that it isn't. And that's ok.

@@someonesomeone25 You know what honestly I kinda agree with that. Moral argument isn't an argument you should be mainly using to prove the existence of God. I believe the FTA, resurrection, kalam and prophecies are better arguments Christians should be using more. I will stand by though that in this culture where athiests are obsessed with social justice the moral argument can be very attractive to them once they understand that they can't justify there morals past there feelings.

@@TheGogogwo I'm glad we can agree that the moral argument is not a particularly strong one. It's interesting that you think it has utility for those atheists who are progressive or concerned with justice and social change. I would fall into that category: I am liberal, socialist, democratic, progressive etc. But I am also a moral nihilist. I don't think the MA is as effective as you think in getting justice minded atheists to reconsider theism.

@@someonesomeone25 Just one question last question as a moral nihilist how do you reconcile the fact you can't justify any of the justice you want in the world other than a preference. Essentially the horrors happening in Palestine is about as relevant as someone not liking the colour purple in that worldview. Or getting other moral nihilists who have different preferences to care about these social justices? The only way that can be done is appealing to there feelings of empathy hoping they have some because if they don't not much else can get them to care.

Same here buddy. Do you find the same frustration that outside of Christian spaces there is almost no opportunity to converse about it? I excluded myself from a really good discussion group simply because I could see that my presence and points were only going to be a hinderance to people who are in great need of the love, acceptance and support of the church to keep them on a path that is helpful. I wish this kind of conversation was more commonplace in wider society. People can't understand that I'm an atheist when I get so excited when talking about the Bible!

You'll find Christians don't actually "enjoy the conversation" like you do, unless they think you're reaffirming the "virtues" of their faith at the same time. That isn't to say that there aren't virtues to their faith. But the predictable behavior by the overwhelming majority will leave you having to find those for yourself, because they sure don't know what they are.

Generally when moderating talks, yes. But when he's not moderating and making his own points, it's kinda the same fundamentally dishonest theist talking points (made worse when you realize he *knows* the faults to those arguments, because they've been discussed around him!).

​@@majmage Couldn't agree more. Justin is very good as a moderater, even though it's noticeable to tell where he really stands on the issues being discussed. But when he talks without being a moderator he ticks of the entire bingo-fallacy-card 😂

@@majmage a fair point

Atheist are unbiased and honest🤔. You are unbiased and honest?

@@majmage why would you label them dishonest?

that;s religion for you. expect god to sort everything out. 🤣

⁠Secular society came out of Christian society because it exists on the laurels that Christian society built. However, the secular age is only a temporary movement because it is not natural. God is returning via renewed passion for Christianity, the import of Islamists into the secular nations, and the illegal immigration of foreigners (20-30+ million) who are 85% religiously devout Christian, Catholic or Muslim. The secular movement in the west is dissolving quickly and also being annihilated by force - in the next 10-15 years this will be a majority theist nation again for Islam and Christianity will overtake it.

The rebirth he talks about is in intellectual circles and it probably precedes dissemination to wider audience. So we would see it in statistics few years delayed.

@@Treesandmountains doubt about christianity probably islam yeah. Most people on the planet live in asia and thy give f all

Remember, he didn't say 'revival', but 'rebirth'. He sees society becoming open to birthing a people turned toward Christianity. That's different than already reborn people being revived into the best followers of Jesus they can be.

Secular society came out of Christian society because it can only exist on the framework and laurels that Christian society built. This is even admitted by Richard Dawkins recently. Secular society has always been a temporary movement because it’s not natural. The rebirth in fiery passion and awakening in Jesus Christ is due to people starving for spiritual truth in a spiritually bankrupt society. It’s also due to the secular nations importing Islam and foreigners who are 75% devout religious Christian, Catholic, and Muslims. Within 10-15 years, your nation will be majority theist because of Christianity and Islam.

I was raised Christian and I was never told that the Bible wasn't written by humans for humans. That (the idea that it is written directly by God through humans) is more a fundamentalist stance. Obviously there were different versions of the Bible throughout history with different edits and translations. Atheists seem to think that contradictions in the Bible are a stronger argument than they really are, especially since it's clearly true if you just read the Bible that different parts of it are meant to be read very differently than other parts of it, including the fact that the New Testament is just very different from the Old Testament. Insisting that everything written in the Bible MUST be interpreted as God's word exactly and otherwise the entire Christian argument falls apart strikes me as the much more intellectually dishonest argument here...

@@deschain1910 Catholicism teaches the Bible was inspired by God but written by men. We know this. For example, Moses prays to God and asks him to forgive the Israelites by remembering his promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Does anyone think for a second that God really said, "hey that's a good idea, why didn't I think of it?" For a God, being outside of time and space, who sees past, present and for all eternity at once, could man really give him a good idea to change his mind? It is clearly his projection. It is impossible for the eternal to change; only temporal things change.

Why is slavery wrong?

@@angusmcculloch6653 it is wrong because of the dignity of the human person, made in the image and likeness of God.

@@Shawn-nq7du What about the dignity of a human person? What if a person wanted to be a slave? If the person offered to sell themselves into slavery...surely there's no dignity argument to be made there.

@harlowcj I support what you said if "helping others" or "fixing society" does NOT include: - Converting or indoctrinating as a condition for help. - Fixing others' beliefs. Given that, you are talking about humanism, which is what we need regardless of "otherworldly" satellite ideas.

@@goodquestion7915 Just would like to point out that you are "attempting to fix others beliefs" here. Can you name somebody who converted to humanism and completely changed how they live their life and relate to those around them? Christianity has a long history of exacting real change from within in a way that I'm very skeptical secular humanism ever could.

Ummm… you realize you said this right? 1.Christianity is about working on myself. 2. And if I focus on myself, I will reap the twisted and disoriented fruits I don’t think that’s what you mean, but it looks like it lol It’s funny though that focusing on yourself is put in a negative light…. To many Christians want to focus on every one else’s sins lately to the point that they are hurting more ppl then helping themselves. Maybe leave lgbt ppls alone and quit trying ban their marriage, maybe understand that some women need an abortion for some other reason than birth control, maybe quit damning others who don’t believe the way you do. If I want to be my own god what is it to you? Why should you care? You can follow your religion but don’t force me to follow your gods rules.

@@harlowcj the church failed me as a kid. I would have died alone if I hadn't discovered the beauty and truth of existentialism. A very different path to a similar conclusion as you 😹

@harlowcj Just one example? Every atheist is a Humanist unless they declare another idealism. They stopped being jerks, which is a big change. The Christians Hitler and Stalin were not atheists, read real history. The psychopth Mao Zedong was not Humanist.

It seems to me that the bigot to xtian pipeline is mostly people trying to find ways to justify irrational prejudices they have.

The same could be said about "The World" (not the planet earth, but the world) The Greek philosophical tradition call it κόσμοςor in English, cosmos(the 2000+ years old word from words like cosmetic comes from) and is also mentioned in the gospel manuscripts

Is Atheism "a fabrication of human desire, offering salvation in exchange for submission"?... The issue isn't being christian or non-christian - it's about humility, honesty and openness to truth. To many people waste their time to try and convince people of their fundamental views. Truth therefore falls astray.

so i assume you don't submit to anything at all right? you don't listen to the state, police, scientist, schools, even Alex himself or anything at all telling you what you should believe right? i'm sure you didn't get the jab at all cause you don't submit to nothin cause you just so gosh darn free

Truth for it's own sake can be and is the best reason for searching out belief. This is a strawman to this conversation but good for masses who just want security.

​@@NathanGuerraTV I don't know who and what you're refering to. But how can seaking out truth be a strawman to this conversation? And how does it provide "security"? "The price of understanding is letting go what you know" is a saying that in order to seek out the truth you need to challenge your current beliefs. Engaging in questions and beliefs outside your own, can often times be unpleasant. A genuin interest in seeking out truth can therefore provide a feeling opposite of security. But that doesn't mean you don't submit to what you believe to be truly meaningful, at the innermost level. We have to challenge our beliefs from a standpoint of "security" - or all truth will be "relative". Jan Patocka writes that in a society where which the truth becomes "relative" is a state of "security" where "seeking truth" ceases to exist. It ceases the problemacity between "myth" and "faith" (he doesn't use the religous term of faith, but from greek tradtition - you can use religious faith aswell). My point is this, people who genuinly seek the truth (both christians and non-christians) needs to do this by challenging their own beliefs - but out of the security of your innermost beliefs of meaning - this is what people of genun interest of the truth agrees on. This is something called "care for the soul" which means, we are allways on a journey to somewhere we don't yet know is. It would be interesting where Alex's journey takes him - if he at some time will start to believe in God - and thereafter called a hoax and a traitor by his followers.

Is love real?

@@williamschlass6371 When you say “is it real”, what exactly are you asking? It’s an emotion. Emotions exist. They are a process that your body (mostly your brain) goes through. So of course it’s real. Are you perhaps trying to get at something you’re trying not to say?

@@williamschlass6371 yes its an emotion that exists we know how it works at least to some extent

It feels weird to be defending Justin as I didn't find his arguments terribly compelling, but I don't think he argued that it isn't about logic. He (and even Alex) argued that it isn't about reason. Since love was brought up already in this comment thread, I'll use it as an example. People don't tend to reason themselves into loving someone. Love is an emotion that isn't dependent on a person's ability to reason. There are a number of factors that go loving another person, but whether or not it makes sense to do so does not tend to be a one of them. The argument here is that most religious people don't reason their way into belief. They have a religious experience that to them is as real as the emotion of love. Personally I have never had such an experience (and I doubt I'm built in a way that makes me capable of having one), but I think trying to reason most people out of (or into) a God belief probably makes much sense as reasoning them out of (or into) loving someone.

@@binkey3374 Yes, people can come across ideas via methods that are poorly thought through. I agree with that. Our instinct is to use a simple method such as instinct, an emotional response, or perhaps more of a hope. However since civilisation and probably more so since the enlightenment, we have attempted to fight our natural instinct to try and use more reliable methods. I agree that people don’t always, but if we want to find out how things work or what is or isn’t real then the methods we use to determine love or what we feel about things isn’t a good method to use. Religious arguments are ultimately about things that are supposed to exist in reality. Whether in this reality or some other supernatural one (to whatever extent that means). Either gods or supernatural things exist or they do not. Surely if we want to propose gods as a possible option to explain anything we would need to know if gods are a possible thing. I’m not aware of a good way to test that. Talk about how lots of people are generally convinced about things is all well and good, but if I’m honest it sounds like people are using poor methods. Encouraging better methods would probably be better. If we use better methods and they point to gods then great. If we use poor methods and they point to gods then I really don’t know what to do with that information.

Would you hire anyone as a babysitter nowadays? Without an extensive CCTV observation that is. I sure won't

@@DartNoobo oddly japan has no gods, no commandments, no hell, but sex crime is 30-50 times lower than europe or the US. in fact being gay was only illegal for a short period in the 1800's. funny place japan.

not only can you leave your laptop and phone and it won't be touched, i've been in the communal pool in ryokan with families i never met, pre school kids and total strangers all stark naked and no one bats an eye, and school kids, 6 year olds and up i mean, travel alone across tokyo and it's all totally acceptable.

@HarryNicNicholas hi Harry, I know you are an upstanding atheist. I don't know who and about what your comment is directed to. Hitch bless you, Dawkins guard you, and Spiffy Harris keep you. Blessed be His noodly awesomeness Ramen (You know I'm joking, right?) 🤣

I'd hire Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Who else do you have in mind?

Exactly, and that is a good thing.

Yeah, why wasn't there a commandment against slavery?

What makes you think that God didn't think it was wrong ? You make assomptions, better to get your facts straight.

@@ACatholic1 Perhaps because he never condemns it in the Bible. In fact, he gives quite a few instructions regarding how slavery should be practiced.

@@ACatholic1 Unfortunately for your sake, the facts we use when making these "assumption" are the supposed words of God, as spelled out in His holy book. Those are the facts we refer to, and I think we have them quite straight. Straight from the proverbial horse's mouth, if the majority of Christians are to be believed. If God did in fact think slavery was wrong, I think He should have said so. Apparently, no Christian was listening well enough to write it down in the all-important holy book if God ever said a word against slavery.

Not true

nicely put.

atheists don't actually exist, i am atheist because of what YOU believe, on a planet with no god and no notion of god, what would an atheist be called? you're very ignorant.

and why not? you want god as a best friend, i want to be god, i think i have ambition and you want to be a slave. and you're ignorant, you haven't a clue chum.

Sounds great. I am a nascent God. Good stuff that atheism.

@@arjuna190178 Peterson is just an annoying contrarian.

Good point actually. Peterson is a joke. Incoherent blablabla. And highly narcissistic.

@@MrSeedi76 He is just an annoying contrarian, who won't commit to anything.

He's intellectual. But he's not god absolutely he's wrong on lots of things but seems like u r that because U r not politically agree with him. Read his book 'maps of meaning'.

@@narendrasomawat5978I don’t disagree with because I have no idea what his position is. He won’t commit to anything. I’ve seen far too much of him already. I have no intention of reading anything from him. I’d rather read someone whom I totally disagree with, but actually states what they believe (or don’t believe) and argues their case.

@ecta9604 Cultural Christianity is the lasting effects of trauma. It's the equivalent of Religious PTSD.

@@ecta9604 Christianity is not like a lost love Maybe to you but not to Christians

@@HeIljumperindeed.. the reality is many try to desperately make it difficult for them to find God when it’s not so difficult to find God.

@@HeIljumperI agree. The original poster seemed to immediately assume that Christianity is becoming lost and that seems to assume it has no ability to come back to prominence

With the decline of Christianity comes social chaos - look no further than the nation you live in today. Christianity builds social cohesion; it is a natural side effect.

There is a rebirth in GOD. I can attest, as a former atheist of 20 years, and many of my friends were former atheists. Within the last couple years we have all been touched by the hand of GOD. The number of new Christians, and people returning to their faith with new fire and passion is unlike anything I have seen in my lifetime. Of course you deny this because you are still a godless atheist and you hate GOD. Secular society has always been a temporary movement because it came out of the framework and laurels that Christian society built.

@@Tomonaroma1221 You're full of sh*t!

​@@Tomonaroma1221Christianity came out of barbaric tribes so what's your point? We came from a mouse like mammal what's your point?

​@@Tomonaroma1221What logical conclusion made your belief in God back please explain and enlighten me.

​@@GIGADEV690kalam to fine tuning to privileged planet to information in the base of all life to Bible to practical effects of Christianity in one's life. Write it down, stop spamming

That is what alex o conner and atheists WISH were true. The rebirth of GOD is distinctly SPIRITUAL. Source: Myself - a former atheist of 20 years - all my former atheist friends, and millions upon millions around the world every year.

I was an Atheist for over 10 years. I researched Jesus and his existence and the eye witness accounts. I also don't fear if there's nothing after death. It's not why I believe now. Someone special was born 2000 years ago and changed the world. People definitely witnessed something remarkable.

No, people are seeing with their own eyes what type of evil comes pouring down on us absent God and His law, most are unable to name such a perception accurately due to the weakness of the church but it is the deep instinct to repent.

There are no eye witness accounts.

@@wills9392Amen

I'd suggest one is only slightly correlated to the other. I'm a Bible believing Christian and even studied theology and religious studies but am not part of any church and never visit one. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. Matthew:6:6

Prove it

@@gabrieledwards1066 You don't want proof, you want to stew in your unbelief and hatred of God. Even if Jesus Christ descended from the clouds before your very eyes, you would still be among those who crucify Him all over again.

@@Treesandmountains show me evidence of that.

@@Treesandmountains Wow, such kind words.

-A translation of a translation of a copy of a translation from a language that has changed from an anonymous source and then edited to fit a certain narrative.

I dont think that is true.

@@someonesomeone25 u will see it in the future don't worry sir the genz are waking up to the woke culture and gender delusional which is byproduct of new age athiesm there are young man who believe in building families and family values and athiesm doesn't offer that it just promotes individualism

​@@skateVlogger Are you saying that the apocalypse will occur in my lifetime?

@@someonesomeone25 Christ will win in the end with or without u ❤‍🩹☦️

@@skateVlogger a snake has 12 eyes and 13 limbs. Do you see how I just claimed complete utter bs without supporting my claim. And that just saying shit in no way makes it true. Your vile unintellectual opinions are sadly exactly what makes YT tick. Thanks for not thinking zealot

Isn't physicalism the majority view amongst educated people, even amongst philosophers?

The only metaphysical position I'm 99% sure of is naturalism. When it comes to all other metaphysical positions, including materialism, I'm agnostic.

I'm a new Christian at 38. I have a feeling a lot of people are coming to Christ. Christianity is TRUE, and doesn't have to hide behind lies, distortions, and power games.

@@someonesomeone25 Amongst educated? That's a good question. Do you mean those that are educated in the ivory tower of academia, or those outside and in the work force? I have a suspicious that those in the ivory tower are the majority. I'm curious if the same goes for philosophers? And do you mean doctorate level philosophers, or those who are uncredentialed? I'm not trying to be pendantic... i just believe the context matters. For instance, you can't say most scientists are atheist. It actually matters how you qualify it, because physicist believers are more prevalent than biologists (Ross, 20-20something lol)

@user-bz1pe9xm2h I didn't have a more specific demographic in mind, but it would be interesting to see it broken down. Where can I find the statistics to show, say, how many professors of philosophy in US and Europe are some form of physicalist/materialist?

What is your evidence that "so many of them (are) reconverting so quickly"? Got any? No atheists I know feels the least bit "lost at sea", young or old. It takes some courage to call yourself an atheist, so many folks who would actually fit that description may not self-identify as such. Your attempt to wrangle the data on the "none of the above" group reeks of desperation, or at least wishful thinking. But then again, almost all of religion is based on wishful thinking. Well, that and the fear of death.

The gods described in all these texts arent interested in agnosticism. It is believe or burn. That *is* what the texts say.

@@bertrandrussell894 oh i agree either put on the boy pants and say it’s made up or just pick a god.

Or replaced by islam. Lik here in Belgium.

Islam is growing, and will conquer most of Europe. Serves you right for abandoning Christianity.

i was born in the 50's and i thought even the church was atheist, that the bible was "guidelines" but not an actual history.

@@MrCanis4 islam is dying too, it's just that no one will admit to hating it's guts.

Briefly specifically did not say there was a rebirth of Christianity. Listen again. He says it 20-30 times it seems in the conversation. The book title does not even say it. Get the argument right at least.

That's easy. If your imagination doesn't agree with my imagination, it's not reality. But my imagination is reality because trust me bro.

well noone can perfectly I guess

@@S.D.323 we have methods that work better than others. Novel predictions has worked. Lucky rabbit foot hasn’t…for example. With that in mind, do you have a method?

What does this question suggest?

@@chosengen1able that the theist belief is founded on a failure of thought. That being unable to differentiate imagination and reality.

He tends to have a more accurate reading and understanding of the Bible and theology than most Christians. But maybe you meant something a little different. He has a theology degree from Oxford, I believe.

What is wrong with that. Why is that a problem?

​@@MrCanis4because cynicism is irrational. Blind

I think like briley says he ends up reading like a fundamentalist which is why it seems he misses the story. He has a very left brain read i think.

@@bedi4090 what do you mean by fundamentalist?

Who knows what Peterson believes since he refuses to answer. He is the master of lengthy word salads. I don’t think anyone should give him any attention, he has nothing to offer.