The way she's framing atheism really portrays her religious mindset. As a former atheist, its weird she would criticize atheism for its lack of clear answers when all atheism claims is that nobody actually has the answers and we shouldn't pretend we do.
No, Atheists say for certain there is no creator when everything around us points to there being one. Really Atheists are willfully ignorant. It's gotten so bad they are trying to prove there are infinite realities as to explain their position given how insanely unlikely it is for our current reality to exist by chance.
It’s very obvious that she never really understood why she was an atheist (I.e. she was a cultural atheist), and so was very easily swayed by religion.
Isn’t that more agnostic rather than atheist? Atheist usually claim that there is a material answer when agnosticism says we just don’t know? That’s at least my understanding
@@abstractdaddy1384 Usually they were just Christians who went through a phase of doubt until something traumatic happened in their lives that led them back into the safety of Christianity… like Lee Strobel.
Particularly anarcho-capitalist conventions. You mean a group of people abiding by the most selfish philosophy of them all do suspect things? You don't say!
This person was atheist in the most passive sense that they didn't have a religion yet. But there was no conviction and or thought behind their position why they went looking for it. This is fundamentally unlike any atheist she's trying to identify with in order to validate her "change."
@@jonny-dp2qr my guess is you're a theist and probably can't differentiate the different types of atheist. Which is probably not all your fault. I don't know that I ever have an upfront conversation with theist anymore. You guys have a narrow perception of the word which make you incapable of actually perceive atheist. So conversations with you if I attempt to be upfront become a circular disagreement which may distort your view of atheists. so you build these ridiculous conceptions in your mind which you believe are true and automatically apply as a stereotype albeit the truth of the stereotype is moreso a funhouse mirror of your minds than the people you apply it to. Kind of like a racists who think every minority is a criminal. The stereotype is a reflection of the racist opposed to anything truthful about minorities in general.
"I used to be a hardcore atheist, but then I heard the most boring level 0 boilerplate apologetics and became a theist." Press X to doubt. Edit: then she brings up Anthony Flew, whose conversion from atheist to theist at the end of his life is widely mischaracterized by apologists. Mega-doubt.
I really wish just one time I could hear an atheist-turned-theist give an argument that shows that they understand the majority atheist position. It’s like when these people say they didn’t believe it, they really just mean they were salty at God for a few years. How can she say she was a hardcore atheist and then give the damn prime mover argument?
@@cevan5042 They're unconvincing basic arguments. It's difficult to believe that she became atheist in good faith without considering those questions.
people like this frustrate me. Its clear why shes an ex-atheist because she is unable to think critically. This is exactly what tiny said at the beginning.
It's clear she was an atheist at some point, she is unable to think critically. It's funny cause the smartest people in the world are not atheists. They're religious.
Yeah, it really shows that being an atheist doesnt mean that youre able to think critically. You can just absorb atheism from parents just as religion, so that at the first question you cant instantly answer they listen to the first person that gives them a half bakes answer, in this case some preacher probably
@@humblehomunculus2722I reckon she was just indoctrinated into atheism without critically thinking her way into that position, which is why it was so easy for her to convert
@@pimpnamedslickback7780well acknowledging we don’t know is agnosticism. But if you are an agnostic, you thus don’t believe in a God - therefore are an atheist
I heard the baby in the background and the comment on the screen at 8:05 perfectly encapsulates my analysis of her trajectory: "gets pregnant> has baby> becomes pro life> becomes religious" It's funny she thinks she had some sort of special path when in reality it was exactly what D described in the beginning about big life events triggering changes
3:07 destiny calls her out as he answers her question of what makes people shift views so drastically ofc the baby googoo gaga, 10:13 she mentions her child lol confirmed
For someone who was an atheist, she does not have even the faintest grasp of what being atheist means. Throwing in abiogenesis is a perfect example of this.
So all atheists are alike? Atheist just means without a god. There are a variety of views in the spectrum of atheism. No true Scotsman/atheist is fallacious.
@@mountbrocken They didn't say all atheist are alike. They said that the girl in the video might be misunderstanding on what "atheist" actually means when she says she used to be one. btw. atheist doesn't mean "without a god"
@@mountbrocken if you know what atheist means then why did you say it means "without a god". Are you stupid or something? And yes, I question what people claim they are if it doesn't adhere to the definition.
All her reasons for becoming religious are just wanting to fit in with a group "I became pro life and changed my mind" --> I'm now an outlier in a group I previously identified with "I saw atheist libertarians be bad" --> There are people in a group I identify with I don't want to associate with "Societies today are still very religious / laws are based in religion" --> I feel bad being in a minority group / it would be easier to be in the other group
Not only that but her reasons for believing is just filling in the gaps of unknown knowledge with god. She acts like the big bang happening by itself is harder to believe than a silent god who caused it who also programmed cells with the "will to live" & reproduce. I'm agnostic btw, I don't have the answers to life's biggest questions but I also don't pretend like I do when I have no way of truly knowing one way or the other. I'm not so arrogant to assume I have all the right answers just because I was born into a certain religion, especially knowing if I was born in another country I'd be raised to believe in THAT religion. One theory I've heard that's interesting is that the universe is actually the inside of a black hole & that when this black hole opened up it actually WAS the big bang. It also explains the way the universe has expanded constantly & apparently even the hawking radiation numbers confirm this is possible. Imagine if that's why we haven't found life elsewhere yet, because an even bigger universe exists on the other side of the black hole. Mind blowing to think about even if it is just a theory.
There have been many studies on the sociology of religious conversion since a landmark study by Lofland and Stark in 1965. A lot of the model they proposed for why people convert has been brought into question with recent scholarship. However, there is one thing they contributed that has stood the test of time since then. This observation is that people are converted into a new religion *primarily* by their social networks. There may be other factors that drive a person to be a religious seeker initially but the social networks of a religious seeker will influence which religion they convert to. The parts of this person's conversation that you identified demonstrate this perfectly.
@@frankmarano1118 What evidence do you have to support the existence of this other universe? What grounds do you have to call that a theory? What have we tested to support this claim? None of this is theory, and it never will be
17:50 The easiest explanation is that "things good at reproducing will reproduce more than things that don't." The people who commit suicide at a young age aren't the ones having kids.
Yes, that's the selection mechanism - over a long period of time, only those things that produce offspring that are motivated to have more offspring will persist.
@@TheLight-vf1bb Every single mutation is either beneficial, neutral, or detrimental to the survival of the lifeform. The lifeforms with beneficial and neutral ones survive while the ones with detrimental ones die off.
@@TheLight-vf1bb well theres atheists that believe there cant be a god. but id argue even just real agnostic atheists would need proof that doesnt exist yet today to change their mind.
@@TheLight-vf1bbSomeone who reasoned their self into being an atheist, rather than just being an atheist by default since your parents didn't drill a religion into you. The first would need some hard arguments to become a theist, the second could just need ANY argument.
@@NavAK_86 going from what you were tought as naive kid to claiming nobody can know is a way more reasonable development than going as an adult from nobody can know to exactly this one cult knows.
She was one half baked atheist. She probably just followed the wave. The things she was saying or fighting for are like in the first 10 questions in the atheist route to answer.
She was never an atheist. Maybe at some point she had some doubts/questions and just called it “atheism”, but there is 0 shot she actually accepted any atheist conclusions or philosophy.
@schmittywerbenjagermanjens2649 non-religious probably though. Boldly claim she was never an atheist is getting close to the no true Scottsman framing.
@@willjapheth23789 yeah, I think there are a lot of fragile atheist in the comment section feeling the need to establish a difference between 'real atheists' and 'trenders' lol
Here is a prime example on why i dont take ppl who say “i use to be an atheist” very seriously. Im not denying that they were atheists, but i do doubt they have asked questions with critical thinking of religion. Her entire “life changing” story was “some atheists do bad” essentially. And that she FELT like there needed to be some moral giver. Any atheist who has really dove into learning would not change their minds based on that alone. Destiny didnt even need to go into the hard questions to see her crumble.
A debate as old as time. “Here’s a reason god exists” “Here’s why that doesn’t make sense” “Here’s a different reason god exists” /repeat until one of you dies
@@donkeyparadise9276You can SAY it, sure. You can’t be a reasonable person and say it about anything, and no one gives a shit about some lunatic screaming nonsense.
If she’s basing her shift to theism on that, she should look into how many people in prison claim to be Christians or Muslim…it’s alot more that those claiming to be atheists. Aside from the prison argument, you could simply look at very secular countries like Norway, Finland, Sweden, Japan, and look at the much lower crime stats.
@@justaname109 Right?? so not only is her argument a non sequitur (what the heck does the moral behavior of people on this planet tell us about the existence or nonexistence of God? Nothing.) but it also doesn't support her conclusion even if it _wasn't_ a non sequitur.
@@justaname109the prison thing is probably because people get converted in prison not necessarily that they committed a crime while religious. the secular countries point is good though.
I do not believe she was an Atheist in the sense of "I reasoned myself into questioning the existence of God", everything she said about her religious journey screams of an individual that moves with the social tide in their life.
I would agree if it weren't for the fact that society is vehemently anti-religion and moving more and more progressive every year. She's definitely in the minority if she converted due to being socially convinced.
@@junkaccount2535 social tide doesn't care about what is happening at statistical scale, it only cares about your local bubble. If you're in an area that tends religious it doesn't matter if every big city is atheistic.
@@gallavanting2041 Depends on how active you are in your social bubble and your greater worldwide consciousness. What you're saying may have been true in 1945, but I doubt that same logic can be used in 2023 when everyone has the "correct opinion" on every topic shoved down their throats through media and the internet 24/7. If that were true way less people would be radicalized.
@@junkaccount2535 it 100% can be, it just requires someone to value their in-person interactions more than their online ones. Which I accept is a radical proposition in a DDG comment section.
its possible. if her parent(s) are from form soviet countries...religion was outlawed during communism so people were forced to be atheists and as such people born into those societies did not have strong attachments to being atheists...
@@sonork6219 she litteraly said she was an atheist because her father was an atheist. (so yeah, she wasn't the: i have researched my way into being an atheist, but she was an atheist non the less)
@@twotestticklez6096 i doubt it. Its a subject ive discussed and listened experts weigh in for more than a decade. This is the forefront question on my mind. I dont deny i could change. But i have 2 kids and nothing has changed my views. Only enforced
@@milosniffer5293 Prepare yourself, I'm gonna hit you up with TAG, the Transcendental argument for the existence of God. It's long and it's something I saved for whenever Someone these discussions happen. So keep in mind that I'm not targeting you, it was someone else at that time. f you accept the very possibility that Logics are without grounding (and it doesn't matter if you "don't know" if they are, because your notion of "knowing" itself is grounded on universals you cannot prove empirically, including laws of Logic, so in fact you just "cannot know" anything according to this skeptic paradigm), then you accept that your whole paradigm is without grounding. You are refuted de facto by your own standards. You have no right to use Logic in a debate to defend a worldview where Logic may be without grounding. It's assuming that your paradigm may be without grounding (which is the case, you have no grounding, from a skeptical view, for anything you say, for any "stance" whatsoever). So you need to give a justification, you cannot just say "l don't know, I don't have to". Yes you have to, otherwise there's no debate possible at all, for you cannot justify your use of language grammar, reasoning, value judgment, and so forth. You're stuck. And that's the argument. So you have two options : either you deny grounding for universals, and so you cannot know nor affirm anything meaningful in a debate (your own speech is pure meaninglessness on your own standards, for you have no basis for meaning nor communication of meaning), or you have a justification that is different from the existence of God. What is your justification that proves or attempt to prove that something else than God can be the grounding for all these universals and transcendentals you are using every day as a human person? If you say" I don't know", than you lose the debate (it would be even better to say "l can't know", for a materialist empiricist paradigm prevents you from knowing anything, and destroys all possible scientific methodology). You lose the debate because it is not permitted in a debate to be arbitrary or "ad hoc": if you use universals, you must explain how it is even possible according to your worldview. If you can't, then your worldview is absurd. Accepting to be absurd is losing a debate. The TAG İs not a direct proof of God, we know that (there cannot be a "direct proof" of a transcendent being which surpasses creation itself and is the basis for proving anything), but if you cannot propose another answer to the transcendantal question: what is the grounding for all these universals interlocked together and necessary for knowledge, Maths, Ethics, language, etc.? Then you fail to refute it. If you cannot refute an argument, you can say it does not convince you, but you cannot say it is invalid or a fallacy. How is it a fallacy when you cannot explain how all this can even work without God? You must understand that at this level of questioning, you cannot say " I don't know'. At this metaphysical level of questioning, if you do not accept our justification but don't have any other to refute it, than all falls down. That is the argument, and that is devastating. yes you have a reason to justify X, because you use X all the time. If you do not justify X, then you use X arbitrarily. Plus, you didn't prove that our justification of X is false. In fact, according to your paradigm, you can't prove anything unempirical. You lose the debate from the beginning. any claim which affirms something bears the burden of proof. That is why the burden of proof is on the atheist who affirms that there is no god. So when someone starts out saying that they don't know if god exists, but their conversation reveals that they positively deny that God exists by equating Him with fairies and easter bunnies, then the burden of proof now rests on them. Not knowing is fine. But claiming to know that God is something, namely "like fairies and easter bunnies" means... "Lucy! You got some 'splaining to do!" I am serious about my reasons for believing. You accuse theists of believing in some kinda god of the gaps, and I'm trying to say that whatever may be discovered about the real world does nothing to touch my understanding of God. He is not some kind of "X Factor" He does not exist in the spaces where we lack explanation. Or l should say he doesn't just exist there. Your god is too small. God exists as a foundation for reality, so He is there before we gain the knowledge of a heliocentric model and after. I can thank my God for every scientific discovery. Can you? Like I said, your god is too small. If you understood the biblical concept of God you would stop using pathetic objections like "the god of the gaps" Whatever the justification is or isn't, you still have a "choice"between believing or not, and saying "I dont know,so while waiting for a scientific revelation whichshall never occur, I live as if there were no God", is living as an unbeliever, and choosing to do so. Pragmatically, skeptics/agnostics are atheists, obviously. Or do you pray to a "maybe existing God", or to the "empirically Unjustifiable and probably not existing God"? No, obviously. "probably not existing God"? No, obviously. By the way, proving the Atheist/Skeptic position to be false is here completely sufficient in itself. Between two opposite positions, if one is proven to be false, then the other is right. It's called proof by reductio ad absurdum. And that's the argument. Once you understood that a Transcendantal Being cannot be 'proven" directly by empirical means, you should stop asking or waiting for an impossible justification for it (that neither science nor anything of the sort can give you). If for you justifications necessarily need to be empirical, then there is no justification for God of course, but that's being arbitrary in your presupposition (how do you empirically prove your empiricism to be true?). And the fact that one cannot know anything without immaterial universals or transcendentals is sufficient to show that empiricism is sily (or leads to solipsism and total autism when consistently applied). If you're not an empiricist, than you have no reason to deem the TAG invalid, for it is built logically and without logical flaw. If you literally think that Logic or Maths or Ethics or the scientific method using them are maybe without foundation, then all your paradigm of thought is without foundation. In other words, your whole position is without foundation. That's also part of the argument. By your own assumptions, you reduce your worldview to naught.
My grandma had dementia 10 years before she dies and she could still do crosswords, sudoku, wordsearches, she wrote notes to her family when she couldn't speak, she could have written a book even with her dementia if she wanted to, she just didn't remember her day to day routine from the day she developed dementia but everything before that was crystal clear.
Destiny hit the nail on the head in the first 5 minutes. Having a sufficiently critical mind automatically drifts you away from religiosity, or at the very least fundamentalist religiosity. I think she also proved in this Convo that she lacks that, and the only reason she was an atheist was being exposed to it and its arguments first, not because of critical evaluation.
Disagree completely. A critical mind doesn’t draw anyone to atheism, Christianity, islam, Judaism, buddhism etc. Because mostly everyone is critical of all sorts of ideas, even ideas they agree with. What draws people to Atheism is a selective criticism, where the idea of a soul, spirit, or anything that is immaterial is effectively said to be irrational. Despite the fact that atheists often accept or entertain inherently irrational beliefs quite often. For example, the idea that the universe had no beginning and thus always existed without a direct material cause(s) is wholly irrational. Because there is not a single thing in the known universe that acts in a similar way. At least within the Christian worldview, we accept the fact that there something more to reality than just the material world. Atheists often reject that view, thus making their view of this topic even more irrational than the Christian one. Being a critical thinker does not automatically drift u into becoming a atheist. It can drift u into all sorts of ideologies and beliefs. C.S Lewis was a critical thinker, Bart eerman is a critical thinker, Dr Micheal Brown is a critical thinker, OUR BOY STEVE KENNETH BONNEL III is a critical thinker etc. what makes people drift towards Christianity, atheism, etc. is the facts they believe corresponds best to the their lived experiences and ideas they they think will make the world better (Which hints to the fact that we are aiming to achieve an objective ideal which is a theistic doctrine) The End
@@Beeeep24 So, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but for the 1 billionth time on the internet, you are a theist misrepresenting atheism. Sure, people can be atheists and hold all types of beliefs, but the only belief that has to do with their atheism is that they don't hold sufficient evidence exists for a belief in god. Theists often represent atheists as believing the universe came from nothing, simply because they don't believe in a divine creator. Atheism itself doesn't make any claim about the origin of the universe ... that's the realm of cosmology. Not having a definitive answer, atheists can entertain various hypotheses about the origins of the universe, but their particular conclusions (if any) are not brought about by their atheism. Being a sufficiently critical thinker and examining religion absolutely leads to atheism, because religion is a house of cards. It perhaps didn't used to be that way, because humanity didn't possess sufficient scientific knowledge to see all the obvious flaws. For instance, at some point in human history, it may have been reasonable to assume the earth was the center of the universe ... but we have sufficient knowledge now to know that's ridiculous. By extension, it's possible that at some point in history (and this is debatable), belief in a particular religion may have held up scrutiny, but we've long passed that point.
@@Beeeep24Another god of the gaps argument. Magic describes reality basically. I would grant you that there is some stuff we haven't identified yet, but does that mean it was generated by an entity who is supremely powerful yet cares about us. It is an unnecessary leap of logic.
I actually believe her about her atheist past. If it's true that her family (especially her dad) were hardcore atheists, I see how someone as uncritical as her could grow up characterizing herself as a "hardcore atheist". But it's not because she thought about any of these things critically. She's obviously incapable of that. She was just indoctrinated, followed the wave, and probably repeated a bunch of arguments she heard against theism. Then, when she found out that the small group of atheists that she personally chose to attach herself to were "icky", she decided to go in the complete opposite direction. Again, not because she thought about it critically. She just has a mind ripe for indoctrination. And now she's repeating other people's arguments in favor of religion. I guess she's like the JustPearlyThings of Jesus.
I’d agree. In the same way evangelical kids are uncritically taught Christian believes, ex soviet kids can absolutely be uncritically be taught atheistic beliefs.
Most atheists I’ve come across have really shitty or “icky” outlooks on life and what it means to be a human. Take that for what it is, doesn’t mean they’re bad people at all
There's this semi-meme take that some people just have too low IQs to understand hypotheticals. I think the same goes for switching from teleological thinking to mechanistic thinking. Because ironically, mechanistic thinking requires a certain capacity for abstraction. Like I'm convinced you literally couldn't explain to people that amoebas don't "like" or "want" or "look for" food. They are biological machines that have food sensors on their membrane and when food attaches, a series of chemical reactions happen that bring that foodstuff into the cell and break it down for energy.
@@mindlander No, science has nothing to do with faith. Science is material, it can be tested, verified, studied. God cannot be studied, he is outside of our existence.
You just asked me the question because I posted the comment. And if we went back in time with the universe in the exact same position as it was back then, you would do it again. You can't control what you are going to think, desire, or do, and even if you could, you would always be working with the consequences of previous events. Your response, like, dislike, or lack of comment on this comment is purely a consequence of our previous conversation. There's no free will by logic, there's nothing to be argued.
What bothers me with these arguments is that they try to prove the concept of god but they never prove that the Christian god exists specifically. Or at least I haven’t heard any arguments that prove a Christian god. It’s always a general definition This makes me doubt any Christian philosopher because even if I grant that these arguments are valid it still seems to me that they always jump to a specific version of a god that they believe in. It makes sense that they accept divine command theory but why believe the commands of any religion here on earth is true ?
@@ihaveachihuahau That's not true. If you believe in the christan god, and it turns out that the jews were right, you're still not making it to heaven. As a religious person you're realistically only like .1% more likely to make it into heaven on the basis of belief.
@@ihaveachihuahau You could have thrown away your entire life. Personally as a gay person I would have to abstain from any relationships for my entire life basically living only half a life just to have no god. That would cause a lot of harm to my life and to the life of many others. It’s also not just choice like that if I don’t believe in god I don’t believe in him That’s beside the point though because that has little to do with my initial comment
@@ihaveachihuahau Nope, if you are a Christian who thinks that Jesus is God but he isn’t then you are an idolater and the God of the Bible will punish you forever. Or like Newton said: Believing in the Trinity is the worst sin a Christian can commit. Of course it’s also possible that there is a God who never interacted with humans but will punish everyone who believes in false religions and rewards everyone who passed his test and realized that all religions are false. In that case only Atheists will go to heaven. And considering how demonstrably false all religions are this is by far the most likely version of a theistic God.😉
Isn’t organisms innate will to live literally supporting evolution? Because organisms that have the will survive longer than those who don’t leading to them reproducing more and becoming the majority?
Most organisms don't have any "will" they don't make choices at all. You need to be able to make rational decisions to have a "will". With evolution, it's not a "will to live" it's that organisms who exhibited certain behaviors tended to live and reproduce, and that got passed on. Most of it is luck.
It does sorta. Buuut these types in the video conflate the process of the natural selection with the orgins of life itself and move between these two concepts/processes through the entirety of the conversation almost every time. Regardless of how life started, as long as there is life it funtions thru the process of natural selection. The starting point is almost irrelevant to that, it could have come from the formation of amino acids, God, an demon coming on a rock, a unicorn fart. It does little to change the process of natural selection. And once it's started most the questions she asked in particular are answers, that which is "selected" for by the environment goes on to create more of itself. It's really that simple.
I grew up a theist (very hardcore evangelical), and my beliefs lasted less than...two years?...once I went to university and met a lot of new people and learned how to actually think critically about information that was presented to me. All the arguments that I thought were slam dunks for Christianity, I heard the counterarguments and realized those were just better. I'd go back to theism in a heartbeat if sufficient evidence was ever presented to me, but I've looked and looked and never found any. All I heard are stupid arguments like teleology and "prime mover," like this person was presenting.
"last two years"? Did you start thinking/existing two years before you went to university? I really get your comment otherwise, but that part was hilarious and nonsensical to me. Especially since I have a very christian family and I quit Christianity one week into the preperations into my "Communion" cause as I told everybody, family friends etc. who ostracized me afterward that shit made no sense to me. I was eight years old at the time. Also glad I stayed true to myself, but also wish Id done it later, cause growing up in a very religous town and getting excluded from social events, your own family etc. for years, some still to this day, from 8 years old onwards is some rough shit I wish onto noone. Everything got positives and negatives I guess. Either way have a good one dear reader.
For me, it was 14 and it took 1 day for me to be a very deep fundamentalist Christian to an atheist. It was a radical transformation in my perception of reality, but I was not "smarter" the day after. I just had the right mindset or critical thinking that I applied to Christianity, but because it was not based on an emotional sentiment towards God, when given counter evidence (with direct bible passages which I thought were noncontradictionary by nature) my belief in God quickly dissolved.
I mean, to shake things up in this comment thread. I was raised baptist. But then went athiest. Then realized that maybe it isn't actually as simple as yes or no... I believe that there is something. But the bible is nothing but a collection of stories. Same for any other text. However...there is an interconnectedness between us humans. Perhaps that is god. Or, let's say the big bang isn't a theory...it is totally correct. Provable. As many would call into question it's existence as hypothetical. (not me, but let's just make that variable a non-variable) So, have things just always repeated that way? What started it? What made "existence," a thing? Or has everything just always existed...infinitely in both directions on a timeline? Personally, I have found there is a sort of "guiding force." A flow to the world we live on. You can go against it, but things become much harder. Like swimming upstream. You can go with the flow...and things become much easier, and tend to work out. What is THAT thing? You can remove the word god, if you would like, as it has a negative connotation to many. But what is the interconnectedness between us that makes things work out? (or not) Is it karma? (really dharma, right? Because karma would be next lifetime, if I understand those two terms correctly) I dunno. I don't see a point in defining anything in these terms. 🤷♂️ Just...existing and trying to find your own personal path and acknowledging that the entire world doesn't revolve around you while still trying to advance your own life path.
Would love to know the arguments that changed your mind Was it the classic “gods not real bc we have no proof of his existence” Or maybe “What kind of all holy god allows suffering ?” 😂
“Ex-atheist” sounds really similar to a religious person who questioned their faith once for a few minutes before going back to the blanket of ignorant comfort
DNA and RNA molecules likely developed the ability to replicate before cells even existed. The phenomenon has been recreated in a lab. It’s just a matter of the right molecules making contact with each other. The chemical structure of the molecules dictates how they behave and interact.
Something interesting to look into is clay imprinting. Molecules brushing against clay can imprint their structure, and then, if other chemicals happen upon that site, they can actually basically be templated into a copy of that.
@@alal-om3pt We have not replicated the evolution of reproducing/replicating cells from replicating RNA/DNA ancestors. But what I think the original comment meant was the we have conducted experiments where RNA molecules were evolving due to selection on them. That is evidence of the RNA world hypothesis, however, we are still uncertain if that is what was actually happening before the first single celled organisms emerged.
I've never understood why did it even went away. The underlying issue for almost every topic is religion thinking that breaks the foundational that a reasonable needs to reach sound beliefs. If that's broken, the only option left is pure fucking luck out of an inifnite amount of possible conclusions.
Same thing happened to my sister lol She was a gay lefty but said one wrong thing in an LGBTQ Facebook group and then got so much hate that she went to the opposite side and is now a hardcore Jordan Peterson/Ben Shapiro/Milo Yiannopaulos fan with far right views. 😂
Christian with degree in bio here. Destiny is VERY correct that her 'will to live' argument is completely explained away by natural selection. He does a solid enough job explaining it to her. With natural selection one expects that the organism behaving in a way that appears as if it has a 'will to live' will likely have increased fitness, and pass on this set of genes. We even have a cultural meme implying this very concept, the "Darwin Award". In this, the human acting as if he does not have a strong 'will to live' will likely be removed from the gene pool, hence less fitness. Again, having a 'will to live' does not counter natural selection. Exactly the opposite, it would be predicted by natural selection.
Be sure to watch out for one of the oldest irrationalities that is still rooted in humans: Not being comfortable with saying "I don't know." You don't need to know the answer to the origin of life, consciousness or the universe any more than the people thousands of years ago when it came to know what lightning was. No, it wasn't Zeus or Thor or Indra etc. and those people should've been humble enough to admit when they didn't know. You are in the same position.
@@crazyninja9450 And religious people believe that a god who apparently didn't come out of nothing but somehow always existed in nothing, created the universe out of nothing, just for their personal benefit.
@@crazyninja9450the point is arguing about our beliefs about life doesn't matter because there's no way we will ever genuinely know why we're here or where we came from
@@mikoi7472 Yeah, I really don't get how the religious people who insert their God into the crevices that science hasn't yet filled think they have a good argument. The whole thing about how God is necessary for the beginning of the universe is just a special pleading fallacy.
@@mikoi7472 I mean you believe the same thing too just minus the God part. You think nothing formed nothing then nothing formed the perfectly fined tuned world we live in and some how nothing formed humans.
The claim that purpose had to be there for the world to exist. What Atheism did she believe in beforehand, it sounds like she had a house of cards anyone could just blow over.
Destiny claims God can't exist because he is immaterial. Yet, string theory tells us we have at least 7 dimensions and we only can observe 4 (length, width, height and time). Destiny, your viewpoint was debunked back in the late 60's. This is why the original concept of Materialism is outdated. Materialism as a paradigm was built on there only being 3 physical dimensions (+time).
Destiny did an in person debate panel at a Libertarian conference a couple months back. Pretty sure this is the lady in the audience that asked what is more important, positive freedoms or negative freedoms.
She said the desire to sustain and reproduce is an adaptation, this isn't really true. It's the fundamental nature of life, before there were even cells in existence. Probably before even DNA existed. Molecules naturally developed self repeating patterns forming the first RNA because otherwise they just disappear. Life as we know it today is the same. A human being is a certain pattern of protection and defense that DNA molecules developed over time. Reproduction and self sustaining is not an adaptation because it's the very core of what life is. But you don't need a creator or something like that to spark this existence either. It just makes sense intuitively that things that can repeat and sustain will exist more easily than things that cant. This is why life is considered by many to just be an emerging property of the universe.
But what created life? How are MOLECULES developing/adapting? My main issue with the origin of life is the idea that inanimate material can somehow adapt. We know that life has this capability because of the directions essentially encoded into them. How the hell is inanimate material doing this? Why would molecules 'care'? Theres no reason for them to adapt and not just dissapear.
The "will to live" concept may seem challenging to explain at first, but it becomes clear when we consider simple logic. Let's imagine two organisms, Organism A and Organism B, each possessing different mutations. Organism A has the mutation of wanting to eat, while Organism B lacks this desire. Using basic logic, Organism A thrives because its "will" to live drives it to eat, procreate, and pass on its genes to more individuals with the same drive. In contrast, Organism B's lack of desire to eat leads to a failure in gene propagation. Consequently, organisms with the will to eat will persist in the gene pool, while those without it will eventually go extinct. This principle, known as natural selection, governs the survival of species.
Well, this is also why the dinosaurs disappeared, because they ate too much, they had a great desire to eat, sorry, to live. Leave the logic for when you grow up, okay? It also matters how efficiently you think, if the body uses certain resources intelligently. The mechanism is both automatic and conscious
@@danstoica2824 First of all, they went extinct because of the meteor. Second, what are you talking about? It's simple. The only reason you want to live is that your dad had that will, and his father did, and his father, and so on. Most, if not every human and animal in the world, want to live. And the ones who don't, kill themselves and do not give birth to children, so that trait is gone. Even if they have a child, that child will off themselves before they make another child. Let's say the reason they killed themselves was because of clinical depression. What's hard to grasp here? And my point wasn't "eat=live." My point was eating is, as well as you know, a good indicator of if you're going to live or not. If, as you said, an animal has a desire to eat too much to the point of death, they die, thus losing that trait in the gene pool.
@@rapperyoh2191 I don't think you understand anything I wanted to convey to you. First of all, we cannot appreciate the quality of genes only by survival. And the genes are complicated by the phenomena that form them and the energy that activates them, a certain type of energy. So the genes do not disappear if a certain animal from the animal class disappears, when it does not multiply. To disappear, many related animals of the same class must disappear, and even then, if the category of animals does not disappear, they reappear gradually, under optimal conditions. And with the dinosaurs, I just wanted to tell you that it means more than the desire to eat to ensure survival, but it was definitely not a very good example. But yours is not very good either, it explains something but not enough.
@@rapperyoh2191 When I die, my genes don't die, even if I haven't procreated. Instead, they are not dominant and manifest themselves indirectly in related individuals, until one day when an individual like me will be reborn from the ashes.
When she said “how is it possible that the first animal already had the need for reproduction, that is not explained by evolution” she lost me. How come this people are never truly knowledgeable about science ?
In her defense, "but then who made god" doesn't disprove anything, that's how all of science works. "If the atom isn't the smallest, what's smaller?" She's just neither empirically correct or even internally consistent...
It pretty much does though. Like, if your belief in God comes from your inability to believe that the universe can exist without a creator then how can God exist without a creator? At some point down the line there has to be a point where something comes out of nonexistence.
That's a terrible analogy and shows you missed the point of that particular statement. The existence of something smaller than an atom isn't something you'd infer from the existence of an atom so you wouldn't ask that, and nobody would argue that the existence of the atom necessitate the existence of something smaller. The problem with the god hypothesis relative to the universe, is that apologetics argue specifically that the existence of the universe NECESSITATES a cause, and that's why god exists, but then turn on a dime and reject that god does by the same logic. Why does the universe require a cause if god does not? If god does not require a cause, why must the universe? The argument here isn't about proving that god doesn't exist, it's about demonstrating that the religious person's inference and argument is fallacious. It's not a scientific argument either way. "Who made god?" isn't supposed to disprove god exists. It's supposed get the apologist recognize they're engaged in special pleading.
@@hian You don't understand your own position, or mine, and yet you write so much thoughtless drivel... You are throwing a wrench into the concept of causality, nothing to do with god. "If X caused Y, then what caused X? Can't explain it? Then nothing must have caused X or X always existed" will never make sense regardless of context. Replacing the word "god" with "universe" solves nothing metaphysically. She's wrong because of her self-contradicting definition of god(and empirically), but not because her definition of god includes creating everything we might use to infer their possible existence. That isn't contradicted by anything, and a fundamental part of actual inference in science.
@@KoopstaKlicca No you can't. This is called special pleading. Saying that the buck stops at God for no real reason other than it has to for that ideology to make sense doesn't work.
my understanding of the Universe is you cannot create or destroy matter in a closed system. Energy can become matter and vice versa but the sum of the total remains consistent. So everything in the Universe is eternal, it always existed, it just used to be super compressed and then the Big Bang happened and everything got really spread out. We also know time slows the more gravity there is and the more mass in a single place the more gravity there is, so time basically did not move when the entire Universe was in one place.
What is most interesting about the first mover argument is Destiny's objections aren't ones that are brought up by serious philosophers. I mean if it's as simple as "maybe the universe is eternal" then why would atheists such as Lawrence Krauss resort to trying to argue the universe created itself or came from nothing by redefining nothing as something? To me it's obvious that they know the argument the universe is eternal doesn't work. Alex Conner went back and forth on this point with William Craig and wasn't able to show the universe could theoretically even be possible.
@@kamifuujin the universe is fine-tuned to allow life, the constants are perfectly set to allow a life supporting universe to exist. If any of these were altered by just a tiny bit, a life supporting universe could not exist. Let me give you a few examples of this, obviously there is still much more. The odds of the Gravitational constant to be so finely-tuned by chance is 1 in 10^60, the cosmological constant is 1 in 10^120, strong force is 1 in 10^40, and there is still a lot more. There are 3 possile explanations for this which are: necessity, chance, design. There is absolutely no reason to think it's necessity we know the universe could have been a complete mess, one would have to show that the laws of physics are somehow incompatible with a life prohibiting universe. There is no evidence to think this. The chance for it is so incredibly small that it is not plausible at all, your brain isn't even able to fully compehend how small it is, no rational person would believe this. But what about the multiverse? How many alternate universes are there? There is no reason to answer with anything other than infinite. An actual infinity cannot however exist in reality, and there are thought experiments such as Hilbert's hotel which show the absurdity of dealing with actual infinites. I can go more in depth into this in a seperate response if you want. An actual infinity is only an idea, it doesn't exist in reality. So it doesn't seem to be necessity or chance, the option we are left with is design, which makes perfect sense and is by far the best explanation. To put this into a deductive argument: 1. The universe is fine-tuned. 2. The fine-tuning of the universe is a result of either physical necessity, chance, or intelligent design. 3. It's not a result of physical necessity or chance. 4. therefore, it's a result of intelligent design.
It wasn't until this convo did I understand the theist assertion that atheism is also a religion based on faith. I expect that the only time theists were able to accept (and filter) information and synthesize their reflections on atheist positions were from philosophical discussions with ex-atheists.
Becoming "pro-life" doesn't necessitate becoming religious. I have a friend that is atheist/agnostic and is super pro life (or anti-abortion if you get to get real technical) based on his own ethical/moral reasoning. I'm sure there's more to this lady's story. But I can assure her that pro-life atheists and agnostics do in fact exist if she didn't know that could be an option.
I was raised catholic but by the time of my first communion, I had asked so many questions that I dropped it. Haven’t stepped foot in a church since. For like the next decade my mom would still deny that I was an atheist. I think the worst religious people are converts.
You're doing the exact same thing all the atheists in this comment section are pissed about "As a former atheist", whatever questions you were asking at 8 years old, were dumb You didn't even dip your foot into the faith, how are you going to claim you were raised catholic lol?
@@bentoomet8805 that has nothing to do with atheism, dingbat. Seems you are agnostic to all knowledge, since you live a life full of whatever you choose to believe instead of referring to researched ideas and generally accepted facts
@usucdik incorrect, although I would have agreed when I was a militant atheist. Agnosticism is the only position on God that isn't positing an unknown as known. I believe a Christian who understands that faith is necessary would understand and be an Agnostic theist, and a rational atheist would be Agnostic atheist. Personally I don't have a horse in the race in terms of desire so I'm true neutral. Although I have had odd experiences that i can't explain very well in a purely material context.
@@daquickscopa39 nope. It's not a position at all. It's a completely made up label for people trying to be politically indifferent and don't want to take a position because it might end up with them arguing with others. Real agnosticism is Christian agnosticism. Other than that you only have the colloquial usage that is just a generic term and not a category of religious beliefs.
I actually just finished the Joe Rogan ep with Stephen C Meyer, and he much more succinctly made the arguments "for" God than this chick... but even all his arguments and "evidence" boil down to the same "we can't explain this, therefore God." I don't think I've ever heard any argument that doesn't boil down to that - and it's a TERRIBLY weak argument.
I don't see how. God is a fairly decent hypothesis when asking "how did the universe come into formation?". I will say its stupid to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN god exists, but i think its a fairly decent hypothesis.
I love when people who aren't versed in physics and are also Christians or other .... Try to use physics they don't understand to explain their religion lol
why do you love that? vast majority of christians understand physics pretty well...after all biggest physicist in history of humanity was devout christian who said "the more i learn about the world the more i believe in god".
@@The_Legend_Himself Nah, we have pretty good evidence that at least one universe exists and there is no reason to assume that whatever created our universe happened only once… but we have zero verifiable evidence for the existence of gods.
The hitch with a lot of religious people when it comes to discussions about god and its existence is their skepticism doesn't extend past their own beliefs. What I mean is that, they take advantage of scientific doubt, of which there is plenty. Meaning, scientists don't always have the answers to fundamental questions about why things happen the way they do. A Christian for example can put god in that role. So they'll make full use of the doubt to call into question the difficulties science has in answering questions. But when we extend this to the existence of god, they can understand a position of skepticism and doubt, just as an atheist can admit they don't know 100% certainty god doesn't exist. But a religious person goes a step further and then all of a sudden stops using doubt. They not only believe that a supreme deity exists but further that it is ONLY their supreme deity that exists. And then all of the subsequent internal beliefs, stories, and what not that constitute the religion. Why are they all of a sudden doubt blind, or less skeptical? I would say that they are still in a well of doubt, but that this notion of faith (reinforced by community) pushes them to make bolder unprovable claims, which in turn act as virtue signals to the rest of the community. All of this to say, arguing with religious people is 100% pointless. They take from the table what they want, they give nothing back, and an opponent is only valuable in that they reinforce or reaffirm their faith. Stop debating religious people and religion will die.
I don't know if i'd be considered religious. I believe in god but decided i have no reason to believe in a particular faith. To some extent i concede this is true. people tend not to extend skepticism towards even their own beliefs. I've attempted to do this, and i hope i've done it properly even if im still a theist. In my eyes i don't see enough evidence to believe in any of the major religions, though i feel that due to the arguments i've seen, the plausibility of a god is more likely than not. That said i'm not a hardcore believer. If its proven the universe was caused by something else, then thats the end of the story.
@@jackooooooooo I hear you. But let's kind of point out the absurdity of the existence of god and the unintelligibility of such a thing. There could be a creator, but let's say that this creator just eats a ton of matter and then shits it out and we are the result. In other words, we are the shit of a creator who doesn't care about us. I know intuitively that doesn't sound plausible and obviously unappealing. But I constructed it that way to show that when it comes to god, we literally cannot know what we are dealing with. And our intuitions about what it could be are plagued with assumptions baked in by growing up with religious societies, values, and cultures. Since we don't know whether a creator is real or true, we can say that this creator who shits us out is just as plausible as one that has a "hand" in construction, is as plausible as one that directly interferes with humanity. We literally cannot know which one it is, or if one is even there.
@@user-ms2bt7ln4d Why is this implausible? Why can a god who 'shit us out' not exist lol? It may sound ridiculous but it does have a chance of being the way god created the universe. The only change it makes to the base hypothesis is it adds 'specifics'. Intuitively, the idea does not sound that retarded for me. A 'careless' god is entirely possible.
@@jackooooooooo I think you've misunderstood my point. It isn't the plausibility of the specific kind, a shit-god, that is the issue. But rather, the problem that literally any scenario we can imagine has equal plausibility. And the same for scenarios that we can't imagine. Another way to think of it, humans have invented millions of gods, monotheists deny all of them except one, and atheists deny all of them period. If each of those gods has equal plausibility for having created the universe, how do we decide which one actually did? It's impossible. This is where belief and faith emerge in order to establish how their specific god/s are the one creator. But anyone can believe anything with equal force and it can be true. That isn't really a very strong support for the existence of something, though.
@@user-ms2bt7ln4d I think theres evidence of the existence of a 'god', atleast in my opinion. Where i diverge is i have no faith in a particular god, or i don't have a particular image of god in my head. I understand what you mean "how do you know this god is tje right one?" and "how is your god any realer than the others?" which is why i'd moreso im deistic in my belief, or i don't believe in specific god with specific characteristics. So theres a possibility my god is cornholio the shit gobbler, or it could be vishnu, zeus, ect. I don't know what this 'god' is like, but i think one exists.
how can you be a hardcore atheist, study philosophy and commit so much of yourself to the question of if there is god and not even understand the basic evolutionary argument?
For what i listened about her she was never really an atheist woman but just a woman who had no religion this is very different. She was just born in a household where they never went to church that is why she was convinced by the most basic religion arguments there are.
Her arguments only work towards a strict deist god, and not any particular brand. Even then she'd have to tackle the Problem of Evil to prove her god isn't an evil god. Or a fickle god. Or an absentee god. This woman seems very new to the community of arguing apologetics, and has no idea of the arguments heading her way. Sadly, this lends me to be suspicious to her claims of having ever been raised, or educated within atheist circles.
all the arguments for atheism are perfectly cogent and valid and religion seems perfectly delusional until god enters your heart--which is something that cannot be communicated or justified in a debate.
I’d have to wonder why a loving god keeps himself hidden from us then, and why he’d punish us for accepting the conclusion that he doesn’t exist which we draw using the equipment he gave us.
I love science, but I am a spiritual person, and that helps me understand the stuff that science can't yet explain. I don't think there is anything wrong with either argument. The truth is that we don't know the truth.
Yes, we don't know. But it's absolutely incorrect to think that the earliest forms of life had intent or will to survive. She has a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works. It's not random. It's a progression of events informed by the fundamental laws of the universe. Things that are not suited to the environment die off, and the things that thrive are what pass on it's genetic code.
We need a new atheist arc. The shittiest religius arguments are comming back again, and see less and less people adressing them, as most of them got bored of talking about the same shit for decades.
Why? It won't change anything. Do you just want destiny to burn his bridges with religious people? We've seen that even during the peak of atheism, it did not deter religious people. it just put atheists on a more equal playing field.
It's always the flipfloppers who know nothing of either side. Just being blown around in the wind if the best orator they stumble across. She has below highschool level understanding in biology and physics.
I am very staunchly agnostic. I don't think we can definitively know if there's something resembling a god, or if there isn't a god. At least not yet. It would fundamentally be a question of "are we just here by random chance, or is it part of a higher power's plan?". I just think being agnostic is the most reasonable way to approach this question of life. We do not have enough information to close the book on this issue, not even close. And we may never get that information, in the case that we are looking for something that just isn't there.
@@frostdracohardstyle Atheists say "There is no god, and such an idea is entirely pointless." Definitively. Agnostics say "There's no way to prove or disprove it yet, but we should keep looking, because we still don't understand the creation of the universe."
@@Nazzul No lol, actual atheists will gatekeep and call agnostics "half-hearted fencesitters who still have an inkling of delusion". Didn't you ever watch AiU?
@@peewee0224 I’ll pray for you, brother. If you ever change your heart and mind, I just the New Living Translation as a start but the New King James Version is my favorite to study from. God bless you, peewee0224
People are missing a major part. She was an Atheist because she didn't believe in a god but she did not apply skepticism to religion once she looked at it.
I like watching destiny but every time religion comes up I remember two things 1. How little he knows about Christianity(which is understandable) 2. How cringe his audience is when it comes to religion in general.
He was raised as a very religious Catholic, went to Catholic school, and was actively a believer almost his whole life, but of course it's not good enough for you, since he disagrees with you.
yeah sadly his audience isn’t just a bunch of atheists (that’d be completely fine) but a bunch of reddit atheists, one of the most cringe species to currently exist
I think the larger question here is why people almost universally feel the need to adopt the completely polar opposite position from the one they held before and found flaws in. Why can't it be, "You know this ideology, philosophy, theology, cosmology, etc has some really interesting concepts that I agree with, and others that I don't. I think I will take the ones that I agree with and apply those." Also, someone should let this lady know that it appears her microphone has been hacked by a very vocal toddler.
As an atheist, I've grown so tired of reddit atheism and religion vs atheism debates. I know it's all so cool and exciting when you're young and first identify as atheist and you can't wait to dunk on the christf*gs with your superior facks and lojick, but once you understand what faith is you realize the whole thing is exhausting and pointless. People who have faith hold a different belief system than you, that's simply all it is. In fact, as an atheist, you have to accept that there are certain things that you also have faith in that you cannot justify with your own facts or logic, that or you're just a completely passive nihilist who only follows the law out of fear of violence.
Get angry at the cringe athiests when your government is importing millions of people who think they should behead you for drawing a picture of muhammad.
" you're just a completely passive nihilist who only follows the law out of fear of violence" You just described religious law. If you grow tired of something, remove yourself from it. it doesn't change the fact atheist's are one of the most hated groups through no fault of our own. There wouldnt need to be said debates and arguments if religious people would keep this shit to themselves. You know who brings up my atheism the most? My religious family, who wont leave me the fuck alone about it. I almost never mention it because i dont define myself by being an atheist. I simply am one.
Very true. As a Christian I respect atheists such as yourself who are willing to admit that at the end of the day they’re no better than someone who’s religious, you just have different beliefs about how we got here and why we are here. The same way that it’s really cringe to judge someone for being agnostic or atheist, it’s just as cringe to judge someone for being religious or believing in God. Also love that you point out that as an atheist you also rely on faith to a larger extent than most typical reddit atheists are willing to admit. Props
So she went to secular conferences where she saw sexual assaults and immorality of all kinds, and then decided that there has to be a lawgiver. She must not be Christian. If you read the Bible you find out pretty quickly that theocracy doesn't prevent any of that. Solomon had nearly 1000 wives and hundreds of concubines and god didn't punish him according to the law. Jephthah sacrificed his daughter because he told god that he would if god helped him win a battle. Josiah sacrificed people on alters, god murdered children via bear attack because they were making fun of a bald man. David had a man murdered because he wanted the man's wife, and god didn't punish him according to the law. Instead, god murdered David's baby. Speaking of abortion, the Christian lawgiver isn't against that either. In the book of Numbers Chapter 5 a law is given that if a man is suspicious that his wife cheated on him and got pregnant with another man's child, a priest is to make the woman drink a certain concoction that will either kill the child or not. If there is a miscarriage, it meant the child was not lawful. I submit that most of the laws we have kept that were in books like the Bible didn't originate in holy books. Holy books adopted them from societies that preceded them. Many of the laws that we've discarded however might have originated in holy books. They have just the right amount of Hocus pocus which would require something unsubstantiated to intervene, like a god.
Ngl destiny's religion takes are the same boring reddit atheist takes I have heard for years. Actually, religion debates are boring in general because they most certainly will not change their minds or convince the other side that their argument is right.
most politics debates are the same. No one's changing their mind at the end. Its just people yelling at each other in both cases. You just like politics more than religion debates.
Religion is perhaps the most boring thing to debate against or for. It really just boils down to either you have faith or you don't. Everything else has been talked to death literally since the dawn of humanity. It's true that its boring, because we've heard it so much, because it's possibly the most debated subject in all of history. Everyone on both sides has heard it all before.
