TAG, one of the reasons i like your videos so well is that you maintain a civil, respectful tone while expressing your skepticism. i think it unfortunate that most of the skeptics on YouTube (that i've seen, anyway) do seem, as believers note, angry and insulting toward believers. In this regard, you're a better spokesperson for your viewpoint than many of the "luminary" skeptics. i think you may be a young Dan Dennet (meant as a compliment)
Trivia fact, .. you mentioned the Thomas Hamilton gun massacre in Dunblane Scotland, Did you know the famous tennis player Andy Murray was a little schoolkid caught up in this shooting that day, I believe he hid in a cupboard.
This was a very well-reasoned argument approached from several different angles, which furthered the insight gained from following it. Well done, +1 subscriber!
I'm a 57 year old grandma who feels as though I am about to loose my faith. One thing making me hold onto it, is the apparent Old Testament prophecies written about Jesus 700 years before his birth--especially Isaiah 53 and part of Psalms 22. Do you feel these Old Testament prophecies provide evidence to support Jesus' life and death on the cross? If not, why not?
> I'm a 57 year old grandma who feels as though I am about to lose my faith.
If that's a good thing (meaning you're suffering from the cognitive dissonance of trying to reconcile science with Genesis, or suffering from fears about the imaginary torture pit called hell, etc.), then congratulations!
If that's a bad thing (meaning you're sad about realizing there's no afterlife, and that there's no god in control of life, etc.), then my sympathies.
> Do you feel these Old Testament prophecies provide evidence to support Jesus' life and death on the cross?
Not in the least.
> why not?
Read Isaiah books 52-54, and you will see that it's all about Israel—the so-called prophecies in the poetic sections of Isaiah 53 are only the interpretations of Christians who find what they want to see.
With poetry, there's lots of room for interpretation. (Which is why Nostradamus's verses can be interpreted as predictions: but only *after*-the-fact---his writing is too vague to have any advance predictive powers.)
Even if you believe Isaiah 53 is *really* about Jesus, it still could be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Meaning people were expecting to have a scapegoat sacrificed for them, so they went ahead and wrote such a story.
Keep in mind that there's little objective evidence of Jesus' genuine life story. There were lots of Greek and Roman historians around during that time period, but Jesus wasn't popular enough to attract the attention of any of them. So all we have are second-hand accounts written some 40-90 years after his death.
I have similar comments about Psalm 22 . . . and note how many verses in Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 DON'T fit the Jesus story.
For example, Isaiah 53:2 says "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him." Does that really fit the Christian image of Jesus? And Psalm 22:12 says "bulls surround me" and Psalm 22:16 says "dogs surround me." None of these passages fit the Jesus story—so when Christians cherry-pick their way through the Bible looking for prophecies, they just skip such passages over.
Epydemic2020 seems to have NO problem with suffering at present, BUT he's very young and likely healthy! I would love to follow him through the next 30 years of his life! I doubt he will feel the same!
Great music is great music regardless! I also love Take 6 (a Christian a cappella group) and the great gospel singer Mahalia Jackson. (You'll find some of Mahalia's videos in my Favorites [that is, on my ToddGates musician channel, not my ToddAllenGates author channel].)
Great video series; I saw all three parts and totally agree. It was nice of you to acknowledge Epydemic2020 and his efforts. Well done sir, I'll eagerly await for more. : )
I hope to be able to return to making videos sometime this fall, but work obligations are overwhelming me at the moment. But if you're interested in checking out my prior videos, the best one to start with is the series called "Using the Socratic Method with Christian Proselytizers." A lot of my subsequent series are based on that one.
> God does do all those things! but thru us, christians!
Outlawing rape and murder is not done exclusively by Christians. Community-destroying behavior is outlawed in *all* societies that have thrived: whether religious (including Hindu & Buddhist & Islamic etc. societies) or secular (today's Japan, Sweden, Denmark, etc.)
Here in America, Christianity was much stronger 200 years ago—but that's also when slavery was in full force: back when whites could legally rape and kill their slaves.
Going back to the Middle Ages, Christianity had great legal power—enough for the Inquisition to legally torture those who didn't interpret the Bible the way the Church did. Galileo was almost burnt at the stake because of the Church's power over science.
Religion certainly *can* encourage people to be more moral: but religion also gives ground for people to be completely immoral (in terms of restricting the rights of women and gays, promoting slavery and genocide, etc.)—because they don't have to look at the negative effects on society, but only say "my Holy Book [be in the Bible, the Quran, the Rig Veda, etc.] says GOD wants me to do this."
You know, with all these thorough answers pointing out hiccups in Christian thinking, and using logic and reasoning it probably why you aren't getting any responses to your responses. I find it quite amusing, heh. Great work!
back then christians were also burned, tortured, murdered, and the list goes on. but the christian faith was so strong that it still exist today.
and there still murdered in today! it's against the law to be a christian in 51 countries. including china, but there are more christians in china then there is anywhere else.
i believe what they did to atheist and scientist back then was evil. but those people were messed up! what they did was not by God but by the Devil.
please come fall in my arms again i'll be here to catch you when you do never mind all the never ending struggles they only make me stronger everytime all all the everlasting troubles come i'm stronger than before thank God for disaster disaster and tears thank God for my reasons my reasons to fear everytime that i've lost it all and death is calling me i understand this is what saved my life again
Certainly, there are countless examples of this sort of thing. And in my own experience, my most significant life-improving events came out of things that I initially found painful (being laid off, getting smashed up in a car accident, etc.)
But what about the fact that most gazelles face the terrifying sentence of death from being chased and torn apart by the likes of a pack of ferocious hyenas?
What about the baby born with a crippling disease that kills her after a few painful months?
What about the tsunami that killed 300,000 in eleven countries?
What about the millions of young children that die every year from the excruciatingly painful death of dehydration via diarrhea?
I am a struggler, i've had painfull athritis since i was five years old! i remember throwing things agenst the wall because i was so mad a god. but now i thank him and relize that he blessed me!!!
if my family dies tomarrow, at least i know where there going! i'll miss them, but i'll know where there going!
if i knew i was going to die tomarrow, i would be happy about it! in fact one of my friends is in that sittuation right now, and his wife is jelouse of him!!! death is not a bad thing, for a christian.
> if my family dies tomorrow, at least i know where there going! i'll miss them, but i'll know where there going!
It's true that Christianity promises an afterlife, as does Islam (if you obey the will of Allah) and Hinduism (if you obey the caste rules, you'll have a favorable reincarnation). But what proof do the likes of Islam and Hinduism have of their claims?
Perhaps you think they have no proof—that Islam and Hinduism's promises are based only on blind faith in the ancient writings of ancient people who were just documenting their wishful thinking.
If that's how you feel, then I agree with you—and you now also understand why I'm skeptical of Christianity's claims.
But then again, if Christianity makes you happy, I think it's best for you NOT to contemplate such matters.
3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
If you think your feedback may ultimately save me from what your Holy Book claims is a place called Hell, then I actually DO appreciate it. Although it's true I see no evidence for believing that such a place really exists, I nonetheless appreciate the goodwill gesture.
> and don't tell me what is best for me, you aren't my God.
Sorry if I sounded condescending: my only point is that although I see no evidence that the claims of any organized religion have any basis in reality, I *do* see evidence that religious beliefs can make many theists (Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, etc.) happy.
So if you were to lose your faith (which, not surprisingly, is what I think an investigation of the truth will lead to), you might become less happy.
None of the videos I make are aimed at making believers into non-believers. My target audience is only those people who are already struggling with mental conflicts caused by their faith (Genesis vs. science, etc.), or those who already nontheists, but need help stating their case to proselytizers.
> so what's your God? everyone has one. yours could be money, competition, youtube videos...??? who do you worship?
I know you mean the words "God" and "worship" in a figurate manner, but I prefer to use them in strictly religious contexts: that a "god" is used to describe a supernatural Higher Power that's believed to have created the universe, and "worshipping god" means you're expressing gratitude, or praising, or reaching out (etc.) to this said-Creator of the Universe.
So in that sense, I don't worship any god, because I see no evidence that one exists.
In the figurative sense of "what god do you worship?", I'm going to first reinterpret your question as "What do you pursue to make you happy?" To answer that question, I first need to say that I think happiness is best achieved when our lives contain a satisfactory balance between our four dimensions:
For me, that means finding the right balance between time for my day job, time for my wife & children & friends, and time for writing, piano, and blues harmonica.
I discuss this subject further on my ToddAllenGates2 channel (the one I'm now writing from) in my series called "Pursuit of Happiness." (The videos on this channel have nothing to do with religion.)
As far as anyone can demonstrate, this is all there is, so I think life here on earth is VITALLY important!
> it's only the beginning!
It's natural for humans—scared of death as we are—to invent stories about life after death: and such tales long pre-date the Bible. But I see no reason to believe that such tales are anything other than wishful thinking.
But if belief in an afterlife offers you comfort, I'll say no more on the subject.
> blessed are those who have not seen yet have believed.
So you consider it a virtue to believe something with no evidence?
If so, what about the suicide bombers who "know by their faith" that Allah will reward them in heaven?
If faith—belief without evidence—is a virtue, then what's wrong with the suicide bombers' reasoning?
I maintain that holding convictions that are based on zero evidence (faith in Allah, faith in the Hindu god Kali, faith in Jesus) can be quite dangerous.
I said I don't worship any supernatural being. And as for my pursuit of happiness, I seek a satisfactory balance between time for my day job, exercise, my wife, kids, family, friends, reading, writing, and music. That's my answer to your question.
> but why don't you think about this. What if your wrong.
Your position is that there are only two choices: Christianity or atheism. But historically there have been THOUSANDS of religions—and any one of them *could* be right. So if it turns out that one of those non-Christians religion is THE one, that means we both would be wrong.
Maybe Islam is the right religion, and we should be praying toward Mecca 5 times a day.
A Muslim could ask you why you don't pray to Allah as directed in the Koran: the Divine Word of the Creator. If you say you see no reason to believe that the Koran is God's Word, the Muslim could reply "What if you're wrong? It means you will go to hell! You should believe in Allah and pray to Him just in case!"
Yet if you can understand why you find the Muslim's threat to be meaningless, you'll understand why I find the Christian's threat to be meaningless.
It took me three months to finish it, but yes. And I've studied the interpretations of Christian apologists and philosophers: Saint Augustine, C.S. Lewis, Alvin Plantinga, J. P. Moreland, Lee Strobel, Lynn Anderson, Norman Geisler, Peter Kreeft, Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig, etc.
For me, studying the bible only confirms that it's the effort of none other than ancient humans: its ignorance of the age of the earth and ignorance of dinosaurs and people outside the Middle East; its rationalizations for slavery and wholesale slaughter of enemy tribes, etc.
I love your style, Todd - so calm, cool, rational - and relevant! You don't waste words, so you never waste my time. Thanks for this 3-parter (and a 5-star 'tip' to the waiter)!
> You don't waste words, so you never waste my time. Thanks for this 3-parter
Thanks Linda! As I mentioned earlier to another commenter, I actually wanted to limit this to 10 minutes, but I just didn't have the time to condense it. It's like the saying, "Sorry this letter is so long; I didn't have the time to make it short." (But I'm glad to hear that you felt all 30 minutes qualified as a non-time waster!)
> Todd I'm glad you didn't have time to distill the video down to a 10 minute video. I like it just the way it is.
Thanks! I'm still surprised this half-hour response to a well-worn topic has gotten as many views & comments as it has (although much of the attention is thanks to ProfMTH's shout-out).
There is a little irony in the title of the series "The problem with suffering".
Religions have no problem with suffering, in fact they almost invariably exploit our fears of suffering. They develope an imagined fear of the consequences of disbelief as an imaginary hell of eternal suffering. It will make the less informed, as well as the superstitious afraid to not believe. Fear of suffering is our most evolved emotion, and pillar of survival in a lion-eat-human world.
> Excellent points throughout, Todd. I wish I had found you and subbed sooner! I look forward to watching you this fall...
Thanks! Also, if you want to check out any of my other videos in the meantime, my "main" series is "Using the Socratic Method with Christian Proselytizers." Five of my other video series (which start with the numbers 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5) are all built off that one.
Ha! I just reviewed The Case for Faith (in video form) on my channel. The logic was dizzying . . . since at least 80% of it was circular. The other 20% appeal to emotion.
When I was young I found the problem of evil (suffering, pain, etc.) convincing enough to say there was a contradiction in a benevolent Creator and the world as we currently observe it. However, at the present time, I think that position is faulty because it does not account for God's promise to right all wrongs in the future.
Consequently, I don't think Epydemic2020 will follow the path of skepticism. I think he will live in faith of those things that are yet unseen (God's promises).
> When I was young I found the problem of evil . . . convincing enough to say there was a contradiction in a benevolent Creator and the world . . .
I think that's the natural response. In Lee Strobel's "The Case for Faith," he says it's the single biggest obstacle for those who want to believe in a Loving Omnipotent God. He quotes novelist Peter De Vries, who says the question of suffering is "the question mark turned like a fishhook in the human heart."
> that position is faulty because it does not account for God's promise to right all wrongs in the future.
*If* you "know" the Christian concept of God is true (for other reasons, such as you felt some personal communication with him), then yes, that would make sense. Based on observable evidence, I see no reason to hold such a belief—but that's a discussion for a separate video series!
Anyway, that's why I call this series "stalemating with Epydemic," not something like "destroying Epydemic's argument."
An analogy I stumbled upon the other day: if you open a crate of oranges and discover that every single orange you see on top is rotten, would you conclude that because the top ones are so rotten, the remaining oranges on the bottom must be good? You'd probably be more likely to conclude that the rotten oranges on top are representative of the box as a whole.
Yet I've heard theists argue that the suffering here on earth is somehow proof that greater rewards and pleasure must be awaiting us in heaven. (This was from a Jewish site defending belief in heaven—the writer acknowledged that the Hebrew Bible mentions little about the afterlife, but said " there is so much injustice here on earth that there MUST be an afterlife where all wrongs will be righted.)
> Consequently, I don't think Epydemic2020 will follow the path of skepticism. I think he will live in faith of those things that are yet unseen (God's promises).
His faith in God (for reasons outside of the problem of suffering) seems very strong, so yes, I agree.
But if he someday concludes that "things unseen" are unseen because they exist only as wishful thinking—then I think his "insider knowledge" and argumentative skills will make him an excellent skeptic!
Hi Todd, in regard to the Jewish site, it depends on how the person was structuring his argument. He may not have used that argument to build a case from the ground up. Maybe he was arguing a case presupposing the Jewish God. In which case, his argument isn't that bad depending on how he framed it. For example, he may have made an afterlife consistent with the Jewish scriptures and the suffering we see here today.
It depends. If you have a link I can check out exactly what he was arguing.
> If you have a link I can check out exactly what he was arguing.
Most of the Jewish sites I've looked at agree that the Old Testament's passages on the afterlife can be interpreted in a number of ways: that no one view has ever been deemed "official," and there is much room for speculation.
One guy's defense of heaven and hell was based not on Jewish scripture, but the following "logic" (or what a skeptic would deem wishful thinking!):
"For anyone who believes in a just and caring G-d, the existence of an afterlife makes logical sense. Could it be this world is just a playground without consequences? Did Hitler get away with killing 6,000,000 Jews? No. There is obviously a place where good people receive reward and bad people get punished."
I'll send you a pm for the links to some of the Jewish sites I was reading from.
I will be making a video (probably my a couple videos after my response to todd, in which I examine that verse in Hebrews you quote from. You might find it interesting.
Once again you have made me insanely jealous by the way you put into clear and logical words what I have been trying to convey to various theists I have exchanges with.
Joshua040103 says god made pain
1. To mete out just punishment
2. To bring about a greater good
3. To glorify Himself
Of the 3, I find 3 the most odd,
He actually says that god made the whole of creation is fot the glorification of er.... Himself.
> Once again you have made me insanely jealous by the way you put into clear and logical words what I have been trying to convey to various theists I have exchanges with.
Sorry! (If it makes you feel any better, it probably took me over 12 hours of writing and re-writes to put this half-hour speech together . . . and I wish I had had the time to put a few days more work into it so that I could have cut it down to 10 minutes!)
> The Christian equivalent to a hypothesis and scientific theory is a "belief" and "mega-belief?"
YouTuber "Evid3nc3" described his belief in God as a "mega-belief" because it was held together by lots of separate beliefs: that God answered prayers, God was the First Cause, God was the Master Designer, God wrote the Bible, God talked to him, etc. So when he started to have doubts about just 1 or 2 of those separate beliefs, his "mega-belief" still stayed intact.
congratulations on having employment, todd.these days that is not a given, so till you come back i will play 'catch up' with your extensive and informative list on your sites!
> congratulations on having employment, todd. These days that is not a given
I have to remind myself of that after every 14-hour workday! (I really can't complain: for the most part, my company treats me well, and this is an unusual time period—one that will be over in a few months.)
bravo todd.cognitive dissonance was the constant dripping of sanity on the rock of my salvation, eventually wearing a crevice that my screaming mind shattered with a cleaving blow.thank you for this small series of three videos!your time is appreciated.peace
> cognitive dissonance was the constant dripping of sanity on the rock of my salvation, eventually wearing a crevice that my screaming mind shattered with a cleaving blow.
Amazing sentence: I'm going to have to commit it to memory!
This reminds me of some theists I've heard talking about how they "deal with doubt" and how it's always kinda there in the background.
Interestingly, I (as an atheist) *never* have this problem. I do have times when I'm unsure about something, but I never feel like I have to "reinforce" my atheism. It's totally different, and I think you do a good job of pointing out why.
> This reminds me of some theists I've heard talking about how they "deal with doubt" and how it's always kinda there in the background. Interestingly, I (as an atheist) *never* have this problem.
I suppose that's the difference between a worldview that can rely on facts & logic, and one that can't!
Great rebuttal but here is my question however simplistic it may be.
If the finite cannot comprehend the infinite how can the finite know that the infinite exists in the first place therefore if god is infinite how do we ever know a god exists?
Recognizing the existence of a thing does not require comprehension. I don't understand the complex mathematics behind quantum physics, but I accept it's existence regardless.
A better way to use this might be: If you cannot comprehend your infinite god, what makes you think you've got it right when you claim to know what he wants from us? How do you know he's even benevolent in the first place?
Although I agree with your second statement the question is not if you or I can understand a specific subject(such as quantum mechanics) as there are those who do understand these subjects to some level (and though their work extending our knowledge) but if the human mind can confirm the existence of god as the human mind cannot comprehend the infinite (as per the presented argument). Again how can you verify something that cannot be comprehended in the first place?
How do you distinguish that from wishful thinking?
If the human mind can comprehend quantum mechanics (which it apparently can because it is a specific field of study at least comprehend mathematically) wouldnt it be reasonable to say quantum mechanics is not an infinite as per the presented argument? I of course reject the idea that the human mind cannot comprehend an infinite but I am attempting to look at this through the eyes of the presented argument as though it was true.
Saying we cannot comprehend and an infinite then saying god is infinite is about a poor and useless of an argument as saying god lives outside of space/time.
I don't think we actually disagree, we are just looking at two different aspects of the same argument. On the subject of that very argument: It's like I've been trying to tell this guy Smokisounds in the comments section of this video: /watch?v=UGYQyWKCeDs
He keeps insisting the first cause argument is 'unbeatable' but refuses to see that asserting the necessity of causation while denying it for god by default is contradictory.
That is of course assuming there is a first cause which we have no way of knowing. Do we live in an infinite number of universes? Does our universe have an infinite number of Big Bangs followed by big crunches? Was there an actual start where we can say "that's the beginning" but then again we are getting into infinites (which we apparently cant understand) but I am (pardon the expression) preaching to the choir so to speak.
> Great rebuttal but here is my question however simplistic it may be. If the finite cannot comprehend the infinite how can the finite know that the infinite exists in the first place therefore if god is infinite how do we ever know a god exists
I suppose the Infinite blesses us with *just enough* knowledge to be aware of His Infiniteness ... and then stops there!
Well then with all the interpretations of what/who god is it is fair to say most have gotten it wrong if god exists. The next step is why is he right and so many others wrong?
I know you already know this so this is mostly rhetorical as you are obviously much better spoken on this than I could hope to be.
> you are obviously much better spoken on this than I could hope to be
TOO kind! (I would actually be much more impressed with myself if I could make a video without having to type out almost every word! I've tried to make videos where I just speak spontaneously . . . but I end up repeating myself, or forgetting too many things, losing my place, etc. They're so bad that I just live with the lesser evil of having to constantly look down to my notes.)
Hey superfly. I have been watching your stuff for a while now.
I never said "the finite can't know the infinite".
Originally I argued that an action is moral or immoral given the circumstances. Humans are not in a position to truly assess the morality of God because of our limited perspective. We do not know the circumstances or intentions of God, so making a claim that God is immoral, would be like saying "Killing is immoral" without knowing whether it was killing for fun or for self defense.
I would agree that what is deemed moral or immoral is dependent on circumstance but I again refer back to the point that if our perception (as you put it) is limited how can we know that something exists that is beyond our perspective assuming god is beyond our perspective? If some aspect(s) of god is someone way within our perspective then how do we perceive that aspect(s) of god?
Some knowledge is attainable, some knowledge is not. I can not think of a way to determine God's circumstances or intentions with certainty.
As to God's existence, that would be attainable knowledge. A sound argument which makes God either logically necessary or the most probable of alternatives would suffice to prove the existence of God, whereas an argument which makes Him logically contradictory or sufficiently improbable would do the opposite.
Again I would agree that some knowledge is obtainable and some is not but nothing could be ever determined with 100% certainty. As you adequately put it, it is due to our limitations.
The problem with the position you just took (via your own admittance that we do not know the circumstances or intentions of God) is we could not know if the argument was logically valid or not as we do not understand intent or circumstance of God.
That is one of the reasons I argue the problem of evil cannot be an effective argument for atheism. If the fact of the matter is "we don't know what this argument proves" the only logical position is to admit "we dont know" not claim God is improbable.
My argument (in this instance) is not to prove the existence of God, but merely to disprove the evidential problem of evil.
If a gods definition of love (therefore evil) is interoperated differently from mans then what is considered love (and evil) is subjective. This would make evil nothing more than a concept (which it actually is). If evil (therefore love) is a concept then evil (and love) are constructs of the individual(s) and not actualities that can be truly definable. If we do not know the circumstances or intentions of God (your words again) then how do we know how a god defines love and evil?
Apparently you hold to subjective morality, but I do not (I have 2 videos on that topic). If man defines love in a way that is different from God, I would say that man would be wrong. If a human deemed torturing innocent babies for fun was acceptable, I would say that is is objectively wrong, regardless of human opinion. We do have some innate morality.
The only reason the problem of evil even has the possibility of disproving God is because God is defined as all loving and all good.
Morality IS subjective. The perceptions of the moral thing to do has most certainly changed, this is an undeniable fact.
It used to be moral to stone people to death and this is no longer the case. Regardless if that was changed by a god or by man the whole idea that it HAS changed MAKES it subjective by default. It used to be that a man could not be found guilty of raping his wife (of one flesh - you cannot rape yourself), it is now a crime and unacceptable.
In the bible and eye for an eye changed to turn the other cheek. Why the change? If it was objective then no need for change and it was Jesus himself that change that. Can you say subjective?
Morality is within all of us as it is detrimental to our species to start killing and destroying each other. This is obvious in many of the primates that have tendencies to ostracize the destructive members of society. Humans are not an exception here, we are part of the rule when it comes to primates.
You are citing changes in law not changes in morality. What is legal and what is immoral are not equivalent. (although in most cases the act of breaking law is immoral)
Matthew 19:8 provides one reason the law (not to be confused with morality) changed.
I thought gods law was perfect. Why change something that is perfect? Laws are deemed by what is considered moral. The two are inseparable. Law determines punishment for committing what is considered immoral acts. If the law has changed so have the perceptions of morality.
Hence subjectivity. I also find the concept of adultery immoral but swingers don't, they enjoy the idea of sharing their spouses and they are not hurting anyone else, so whats the problem in a case like this? Why would this be considered immoral if all parties are consenting? The idea of being immoral is when the action actually in some way hurts another person. Adultery is however a grounds for divorce and used to be considered a crime even if it was consensual as in the actions of swingers.
So is adultery immoral? Well that depends, if no one is getting hurt and it is consensual. no. Murder however it would be safe to say is accepted as being immoral by most as someone is getting killed. The are criminal laws about murder.
You have thus far not produced any valid points. They are easily refuted. You are so far gone in your belief I dont think you understand what it means to rationalize. As mentioned in the adultery and murder examples what would be consider moral or immoral is dependent on if someone is getting hurt. In the case of adultery there are certainly cases where no one will get hurt. In the case of murder there is ALWASYS someone who gets hurt..
Can adultery hurt people and is that illegal? if no, what is immoral is not always illegal.
Not all "killing" is bad. "Murder" simply means illegal killing. Kinda begs the question to say there are criminal laws about murder dont you think?
"You are so far gone I don't understand what it is like to be rational"
That is disappointing to hear you say something like that. Comments like that take away any desire I have to engage in discourse with you. I expected better of you.
You didn't read my post did you. I specifically used the word Murder many times and not kill (except once) as kill is vague (that was deliberate) and the definition of Murder is "premeditated killing".
Can adultery hurt people? Yes it can hurt their feelings but is there any real harm other than that (other than your personal reaction) but again it is dependent on the situation and circumstance as there could be good reason for it.
Fine I will user Websters Encyclopedic Dictionary I have sitting on my lap as I am typing this
The unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought
aforethought is defined as premeditation.
But why don't you try a legal definition which defines it as Intentional homicide (Intentional is premeditation). I can play bingo too. Don't insult my intelligence and don't play semantics with me.
Finally.. Most primates (including ourselves) take issue with behaviors destructive to the whole (as I mentioned before to you). This is sociological and inherent in all primates. It is not give to us by gods.
I realize primates and use have innate morality developed by sociobiological evolution. This is not contradictory to my viewpoint (and actually supports it). You should watch my upcoming video on objective morality. I should finish it up after I respond to Todd.
Morally you seem to adopt a form of consequentialism. I don't agree with that viewpoint and I hope to address it in the upcoming video.
Would all adultery be immoral then? No. Is all murder immoral. Yes. Hence the laws. Same goes with stealing. Is it immoral? Dependent on the situation (what if you are stealing food and you are starving). IN this ca ether are laws but in the case of steeling there is always someone with a definable loss.
Morality is based on the circumstances. FOr example if I was trying to kill you then that would be considered immoral, wouldn't it unless you attacked my kid with a knife then is it immoral?
TAG, one of the reasons i like your videos so well is that you maintain a civil, respectful tone while expressing your skepticism. i think it unfortunate that most of the skeptics on YouTube (that i've seen, anyway) do seem, as believers note, angry and insulting toward believers. In this regard, you're a better spokesperson for your viewpoint than many of the "luminary" skeptics. i think you may be a young Dan Dennet (meant as a compliment)
i'm enjoying "Dialogue". Well worth the $15.
987viewer 11 months ago
@987viewer
> I think you may be a young Dan Dennet (meant as a compliment). i'm enjoying "Dialogue". Well worth the $15.
Thank you--great to hear!
ToddAllenGates 11 months ago
Actually I did not stick with throughout the series, I actually enjoyed them, Lots of good Content.
jrev37 11 months ago
@jrev37
> Lots of good Content.
Thanks!
ToddAllenGates 11 months ago
Trivia fact, .. you mentioned the Thomas Hamilton gun massacre in Dunblane Scotland, Did you know the famous tennis player Andy Murray was a little schoolkid caught up in this shooting that day, I believe he hid in a cupboard.
Excellent video btw ,well argued points.
bonnie43uk 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bonnie43uk
> Did you know the famous tennis player Andy Murray was a little schoolkid caught up in this shooting that day
Kinda underscores the tragedy of all the lives that were cut short.
> Excellent video btw ,well argued points
Thanks!
1999Roxy 1 year ago
This was a very well-reasoned argument approached from several different angles, which furthered the insight gained from following it. Well done, +1 subscriber!
TheBlackwaterDemon 1 year ago
@TheBlackwaterDemon
> This was a very well-reasoned argument approached from several different angles, which furthered the insight gained from following it.
I'm flattered, thank you ... and thanks for the sub as well!
- Todd
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
I'm a 57 year old grandma who feels as though I am about to loose my faith. One thing making me hold onto it, is the apparent Old Testament prophecies written about Jesus 700 years before his birth--especially Isaiah 53 and part of Psalms 22. Do you feel these Old Testament prophecies provide evidence to support Jesus' life and death on the cross? If not, why not?
seeker571 1 year ago
@seeker571
1 of 5:
> I'm a 57 year old grandma who feels as though I am about to lose my faith.
If that's a good thing (meaning you're suffering from the cognitive dissonance of trying to reconcile science with Genesis, or suffering from fears about the imaginary torture pit called hell, etc.), then congratulations!
If that's a bad thing (meaning you're sad about realizing there's no afterlife, and that there's no god in control of life, etc.), then my sympathies.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
2 of 5:
> Do you feel these Old Testament prophecies provide evidence to support Jesus' life and death on the cross?
Not in the least.
> why not?
Read Isaiah books 52-54, and you will see that it's all about Israel—the so-called prophecies in the poetic sections of Isaiah 53 are only the interpretations of Christians who find what they want to see.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
3 of 5:
With poetry, there's lots of room for interpretation. (Which is why Nostradamus's verses can be interpreted as predictions: but only *after*-the-fact---his writing is too vague to have any advance predictive powers.)
Even if you believe Isaiah 53 is *really* about Jesus, it still could be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Meaning people were expecting to have a scapegoat sacrificed for them, so they went ahead and wrote such a story.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
4 of 5:
Keep in mind that there's little objective evidence of Jesus' genuine life story. There were lots of Greek and Roman historians around during that time period, but Jesus wasn't popular enough to attract the attention of any of them. So all we have are second-hand accounts written some 40-90 years after his death.
I have similar comments about Psalm 22 . . . and note how many verses in Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 DON'T fit the Jesus story.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
5 of 5:
For example, Isaiah 53:2 says "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him." Does that really fit the Christian image of Jesus? And Psalm 22:12 says "bulls surround me" and Psalm 22:16 says "dogs surround me." None of these passages fit the Jesus story—so when Christians cherry-pick their way through the Bible looking for prophecies, they just skip such passages over.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
Thank you for your brilliant videos and I look forward to more. You are very brave and it can't all be as easy as you make it seem.
daisytg1 2 years ago
> Thank you for your brilliant videos
TOO kind, but thank you!
ToddAllenGates2 2 years ago
Epydemic2020 seems to have NO problem with suffering at present, BUT he's very young and likely healthy! I would love to follow him through the next 30 years of his life! I doubt he will feel the same!
99minerkc 2 years ago
By the way, Family Force 5 is a christian band
hawknelsonchik 2 years ago
> By the way, Family Force 5 is a christian band
Great music is great music regardless! I also love Take 6 (a Christian a cappella group) and the great gospel singer Mahalia Jackson. (You'll find some of Mahalia's videos in my Favorites [that is, on my ToddGates musician channel, not my ToddAllenGates author channel].)
ToddGates 2 years ago
Great video series; I saw all three parts and totally agree. It was nice of you to acknowledge Epydemic2020 and his efforts. Well done sir, I'll eagerly await for more. : )
Naked4Jesus 2 years ago
> Great video series
Thank you!
> I'll eagerly await for more
I hope to be able to return to making videos sometime this fall, but work obligations are overwhelming me at the moment. But if you're interested in checking out my prior videos, the best one to start with is the series called "Using the Socratic Method with Christian Proselytizers." A lot of my subsequent series are based on that one.
Thanks for watching!
- Todd
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This dude looks like a bad ass serial killer. Whatever you say dude. Stalking the girls at the cubicals. While getting paid.
jasonlaredo 2 years ago
If God doesn't stop rapists and murderers, doesn't feed the poor, doesn't shelter the homeless, why should we?
ReligionIsACrutch 2 years ago
> If God doesn't stop rapists and murderers, doesn't feed the poor, doesn't shelter the homeless, why should we?
Because if the fictional character of Jehovah was our role model, society would crumble!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Do you think God should just drop a house out of the sky?
God dose do all those things! but thru us, christians! but christians have grown so week to what they use to be...
hawknelsonchik 2 years ago
1 of 3:
> God does do all those things! but thru us, christians!
Outlawing rape and murder is not done exclusively by Christians. Community-destroying behavior is outlawed in *all* societies that have thrived: whether religious (including Hindu & Buddhist & Islamic etc. societies) or secular (today's Japan, Sweden, Denmark, etc.)
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 3:
> but christians have grown so weak
Here in America, Christianity was much stronger 200 years ago—but that's also when slavery was in full force: back when whites could legally rape and kill their slaves.
Going back to the Middle Ages, Christianity had great legal power—enough for the Inquisition to legally torture those who didn't interpret the Bible the way the Church did. Galileo was almost burnt at the stake because of the Church's power over science.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
3 of 3:
Religion certainly *can* encourage people to be more moral: but religion also gives ground for people to be completely immoral (in terms of restricting the rights of women and gays, promoting slavery and genocide, etc.)—because they don't have to look at the negative effects on society, but only say "my Holy Book [be in the Bible, the Quran, the Rig Veda, etc.] says GOD wants me to do this."
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
You know, with all these thorough answers pointing out hiccups in Christian thinking, and using logic and reasoning it probably why you aren't getting any responses to your responses. I find it quite amusing, heh. Great work!
Swidhelm 2 years ago
> Great work!
Thank you!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
back then christians were also burned, tortured, murdered, and the list goes on. but the christian faith was so strong that it still exist today.
and there still murdered in today! it's against the law to be a christian in 51 countries. including china, but there are more christians in china then there is anywhere else.
i believe what they did to atheist and scientist back then was evil. but those people were messed up! what they did was not by God but by the Devil.
hawknelsonchik 2 years ago
hawknelsonchik 2 years ago
1 of 3:
> never mind all the never ending struggles
they only make me stronger
everytime all the everlasting troubles come
i'm stronger than before
Certainly, there are countless examples of this sort of thing. And in my own experience, my most significant life-improving events came out of things that I initially found painful (being laid off, getting smashed up in a car accident, etc.)
ToddGates 2 years ago
2 of 3:
But what about the fact that most gazelles face the terrifying sentence of death from being chased and torn apart by the likes of a pack of ferocious hyenas?
What about the baby born with a crippling disease that kills her after a few painful months?
What about the tsunami that killed 300,000 in eleven countries?
What about the millions of young children that die every year from the excruciatingly painful death of dehydration via diarrhea?
ToddGates 2 years ago
3 of 3:
You have to look at only extremely limited cherry-picked examples to believe the conclusion "ALL struggles only make us stronger" is valid.
(PS: I checked out your channel -- I'm a fan of Family Force 5 too! One of my teenagers got me listening to them.)
ToddGates 2 years ago
I am a struggler, i've had painfull athritis since i was five years old! i remember throwing things agenst the wall because i was so mad a god. but now i thank him and relize that he blessed me!!!
hawknelsonchik 2 years ago
if my family dies tomarrow, at least i know where there going! i'll miss them, but i'll know where there going!
if i knew i was going to die tomarrow, i would be happy about it! in fact one of my friends is in that sittuation right now, and his wife is jelouse of him!!! death is not a bad thing, for a christian.
hawknelsonchik 2 years ago
1 of 2:
> if my family dies tomorrow, at least i know where there going! i'll miss them, but i'll know where there going!
It's true that Christianity promises an afterlife, as does Islam (if you obey the will of Allah) and Hinduism (if you obey the caste rules, you'll have a favorable reincarnation). But what proof do the likes of Islam and Hinduism have of their claims?
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 2:
Perhaps you think they have no proof—that Islam and Hinduism's promises are based only on blind faith in the ancient writings of ancient people who were just documenting their wishful thinking.
If that's how you feel, then I agree with you—and you now also understand why I'm skeptical of Christianity's claims.
But then again, if Christianity makes you happy, I think it's best for you NOT to contemplate such matters.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
hawknelsonchik 2 years ago
Im not "contemplating" to "make me happy" I'm doing this for your own good
and don't tell me what is best for me, you aren't my God.
hawknelsonchik 2 years ago
so what's your God? everyone has one. yours could be money, competition, youtube videos...???
so what's your God? who do you worship?
hawknelsonchik 2 years ago
1 of 8:
> I'm doing this for your own good
If you think your feedback may ultimately save me from what your Holy Book claims is a place called Hell, then I actually DO appreciate it. Although it's true I see no evidence for believing that such a place really exists, I nonetheless appreciate the goodwill gesture.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 8:
> and don't tell me what is best for me, you aren't my God.
Sorry if I sounded condescending: my only point is that although I see no evidence that the claims of any organized religion have any basis in reality, I *do* see evidence that religious beliefs can make many theists (Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, etc.) happy.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
3 of 8:
So if you were to lose your faith (which, not surprisingly, is what I think an investigation of the truth will lead to), you might become less happy.
None of the videos I make are aimed at making believers into non-believers. My target audience is only those people who are already struggling with mental conflicts caused by their faith (Genesis vs. science, etc.), or those who already nontheists, but need help stating their case to proselytizers.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
4 of 8:
> so what's your God? everyone has one. yours could be money, competition, youtube videos...??? who do you worship?
I know you mean the words "God" and "worship" in a figurate manner, but I prefer to use them in strictly religious contexts: that a "god" is used to describe a supernatural Higher Power that's believed to have created the universe, and "worshipping god" means you're expressing gratitude, or praising, or reaching out (etc.) to this said-Creator of the Universe.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
5 of 8:
So in that sense, I don't worship any god, because I see no evidence that one exists.
In the figurative sense of "what god do you worship?", I'm going to first reinterpret your question as "What do you pursue to make you happy?" To answer that question, I first need to say that I think happiness is best achieved when our lives contain a satisfactory balance between our four dimensions:
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
6 of 8:
- our physical dimension (food, clothes, shelter, exercise, etc.)
- our emotional/social dimension (time with family, friends, partners)
- our intellectual dimension (continual learning)
- our "spiritual" dimension (religion *or* music, art, nature, etc.)
For me, that means finding the right balance between time for my day job, time for my wife & children & friends, and time for writing, piano, and blues harmonica.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
7 of 8:
I discuss this subject further on my ToddAllenGates2 channel (the one I'm now writing from) in my series called "Pursuit of Happiness." (The videos on this channel have nothing to do with religion.)
ToddAllenGates2 2 years ago
8 of 8:
Also, I post all my music videos on my ToddGates channel (the one I'm now writing from). No Family Force 5 covers yet, but maybe some day.
ToddGates 2 years ago
life on earth isn't important! it's only the begining!
hawknelsonchik 2 years ago
> life on earth isn't important!
As far as anyone can demonstrate, this is all there is, so I think life here on earth is VITALLY important!
> it's only the beginning!
It's natural for humans—scared of death as we are—to invent stories about life after death: and such tales long pre-date the Bible. But I see no reason to believe that such tales are anything other than wishful thinking.
But if belief in an afterlife offers you comfort, I'll say no more on the subject.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
hawknelsonchik 2 years ago
> blessed are those who have not seen yet have believed.
So you consider it a virtue to believe something with no evidence?
If so, what about the suicide bombers who "know by their faith" that Allah will reward them in heaven?
If faith—belief without evidence—is a virtue, then what's wrong with the suicide bombers' reasoning?
I maintain that holding convictions that are based on zero evidence (faith in Allah, faith in the Hindu god Kali, faith in Jesus) can be quite dangerous.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
you never answered the question
hawknelsonchik 2 years ago
> you never answered the question
I said I don't worship any supernatural being. And as for my pursuit of happiness, I seek a satisfactory balance between time for my day job, exercise, my wife, kids, family, friends, reading, writing, and music. That's my answer to your question.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
at least i know what the truth is.
hawknelsonchik 2 years ago
i'm sorry you don't belive me. but i have all the evidence and more. but why don't you think about this. What if your wrong.
hawknelsonchik 2 years ago
1 of 2:
> but why don't you think about this. What if your wrong.
Your position is that there are only two choices: Christianity or atheism. But historically there have been THOUSANDS of religions—and any one of them *could* be right. So if it turns out that one of those non-Christians religion is THE one, that means we both would be wrong.
Maybe Islam is the right religion, and we should be praying toward Mecca 5 times a day.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 2:
A Muslim could ask you why you don't pray to Allah as directed in the Koran: the Divine Word of the Creator. If you say you see no reason to believe that the Koran is God's Word, the Muslim could reply "What if you're wrong? It means you will go to hell! You should believe in Allah and pray to Him just in case!"
Yet if you can understand why you find the Muslim's threat to be meaningless, you'll understand why I find the Christian's threat to be meaningless.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
have you ever read the bible?
hawknelsonchik 2 years ago
1 of 2:
> have you ever read the bible?
It took me three months to finish it, but yes. And I've studied the interpretations of Christian apologists and philosophers: Saint Augustine, C.S. Lewis, Alvin Plantinga, J. P. Moreland, Lee Strobel, Lynn Anderson, Norman Geisler, Peter Kreeft, Ravi Zacharias, William Lane Craig, etc.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 2:
For me, studying the bible only confirms that it's the effort of none other than ancient humans: its ignorance of the age of the earth and ignorance of dinosaurs and people outside the Middle East; its rationalizations for slavery and wholesale slaughter of enemy tribes, etc.
But if it makes you happy, never mind!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
I love your style, Todd - so calm, cool, rational - and relevant! You don't waste words, so you never waste my time. Thanks for this 3-parter (and a 5-star 'tip' to the waiter)!
DefenderOfReason 2 years ago 3
> You don't waste words, so you never waste my time. Thanks for this 3-parter
Thanks Linda! As I mentioned earlier to another commenter, I actually wanted to limit this to 10 minutes, but I just didn't have the time to condense it. It's like the saying, "Sorry this letter is so long; I didn't have the time to make it short." (But I'm glad to hear that you felt all 30 minutes qualified as a non-time waster!)
> and a 5-star 'tip' to the waiter!
*Much* appreciated!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
no videos. bummer. :)
styrofoamheart 2 years ago
> no videos. bummer
Ha-ha ... sorry -- but I *will* be back! (Sometime in fall 2009.)
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
great video.
TheEarthAbides 2 years ago
> great video
Thanks EarthAbides!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Good vid :-)
Mozza314 2 years ago
> Good vid
Thanks Mozza!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Todd I'm glad you didn't have time to distill the video down to a 10 minute video. I like it just the way it is.
Great job.
justintempler 2 years ago
> Todd I'm glad you didn't have time to distill the video down to a 10 minute video. I like it just the way it is.
Thanks! I'm still surprised this half-hour response to a well-worn topic has gotten as many views & comments as it has (although much of the attention is thanks to ProfMTH's shout-out).
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
todd you rock man, i cant wiat to see what you are going to do next
smashbeans 2 years ago
> todd you rock man,
Thanks!
> i can't wait to see what you are going to do next
I'm sorry that you'll have to wait a few months!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
gonna miss you man, you haev great videos and arguments. Good luck, and godspeed, LOL.
Peace!
fiusux12 2 years ago
> godspeed, LOL..
The Lord may not be concerned with the suffering of billions of creatures in the wild, but I trust on His Care to guide me through my workday!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
It was my pleasure to "suffer" through this excellent and articulate video series. Thank you for taking the time to make it.
ILYIAB 2 years ago 3
> It was my pleasure to "suffer" through this excellent and articulate video series. Thank you for taking the time to make it.
Ha-ha thanks—if I had the time to put a few days more into preparing for it, I might have been able to cut the suffering down to a single vid!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Great videos, thanks.
216trixie 2 years ago
> Great videos
Thanks Trixie!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
There is a little irony in the title of the series "The problem with suffering".
Religions have no problem with suffering, in fact they almost invariably exploit our fears of suffering. They develope an imagined fear of the consequences of disbelief as an imaginary hell of eternal suffering. It will make the less informed, as well as the superstitious afraid to not believe. Fear of suffering is our most evolved emotion, and pillar of survival in a lion-eat-human world.
CHAS1422 2 years ago
> Fear of suffering is our most evolved emotion, and pillar of survival in a lion-eat-human world.
Very well said!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Hey Todd, ProfMTH recommended your series...and once again he was right.
You do a masterful job of addressing very delicate issues in a thoughtful and engaging manner.
I'm sorry I found you only now...long story short: you have a new subscriber.
buzzausa 2 years ago
> Hey Todd, ProfMTH recommended your series...and once again he was right.
Thank you! Thanks to the Good Prof's shout-out, I've gotten over 150 new subs in the last 36 hours.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Excellent points throughout, Todd. I wish I had found you and subbed sooner! I look forward to watching you this fall...
InModiasWeTrust 2 years ago
> Excellent points throughout, Todd. I wish I had found you and subbed sooner! I look forward to watching you this fall...
Thanks! Also, if you want to check out any of my other videos in the meantime, my "main" series is "Using the Socratic Method with Christian Proselytizers." Five of my other video series (which start with the numbers 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5) are all built off that one.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Amazing series! I throughly enjoyed it. Good luck at your job.
KT45 2 years ago
> Amazing series!
Thanks KT!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Months? Really? Damn.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
> Months? Really? Damn.
Your disappointment is very flattering!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Ha! I just reviewed The Case for Faith (in video form) on my channel. The logic was dizzying . . . since at least 80% of it was circular. The other 20% appeal to emotion.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
> I just reviewed The Case for Faith (in video form) on my channel.
I'll check it out when I get a chance! Hope to find time this weekend.
> The logic was dizzying
Yes—truly stunning!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
When I was young I found the problem of evil (suffering, pain, etc.) convincing enough to say there was a contradiction in a benevolent Creator and the world as we currently observe it. However, at the present time, I think that position is faulty because it does not account for God's promise to right all wrongs in the future.
Consequently, I don't think Epydemic2020 will follow the path of skepticism. I think he will live in faith of those things that are yet unseen (God's promises).
StormTrek 2 years ago
In the last sentence I paraphrased the book of Hebrews.
Hebrews 11:1-2 "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for."
Faith is not so much believing in an invisible God (Jesus was visible), but believing in the hope promised by God.
StormTrek 2 years ago
1 of 5:
> When I was young I found the problem of evil . . . convincing enough to say there was a contradiction in a benevolent Creator and the world . . .
I think that's the natural response. In Lee Strobel's "The Case for Faith," he says it's the single biggest obstacle for those who want to believe in a Loving Omnipotent God. He quotes novelist Peter De Vries, who says the question of suffering is "the question mark turned like a fishhook in the human heart."
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 5:
> that position is faulty because it does not account for God's promise to right all wrongs in the future.
*If* you "know" the Christian concept of God is true (for other reasons, such as you felt some personal communication with him), then yes, that would make sense. Based on observable evidence, I see no reason to hold such a belief—but that's a discussion for a separate video series!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
3 of 5:
Anyway, that's why I call this series "stalemating with Epydemic," not something like "destroying Epydemic's argument."
An analogy I stumbled upon the other day: if you open a crate of oranges and discover that every single orange you see on top is rotten, would you conclude that because the top ones are so rotten, the remaining oranges on the bottom must be good? You'd probably be more likely to conclude that the rotten oranges on top are representative of the box as a whole.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
4 of 5:
Yet I've heard theists argue that the suffering here on earth is somehow proof that greater rewards and pleasure must be awaiting us in heaven. (This was from a Jewish site defending belief in heaven—the writer acknowledged that the Hebrew Bible mentions little about the afterlife, but said " there is so much injustice here on earth that there MUST be an afterlife where all wrongs will be righted.)
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
5 of 5:
> Consequently, I don't think Epydemic2020 will follow the path of skepticism. I think he will live in faith of those things that are yet unseen (God's promises).
His faith in God (for reasons outside of the problem of suffering) seems very strong, so yes, I agree.
But if he someday concludes that "things unseen" are unseen because they exist only as wishful thinking—then I think his "insider knowledge" and argumentative skills will make him an excellent skeptic!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Hi Todd, in regard to the Jewish site, it depends on how the person was structuring his argument. He may not have used that argument to build a case from the ground up. Maybe he was arguing a case presupposing the Jewish God. In which case, his argument isn't that bad depending on how he framed it. For example, he may have made an afterlife consistent with the Jewish scriptures and the suffering we see here today.
It depends. If you have a link I can check out exactly what he was arguing.
StormTrek 2 years ago
1 of 2:
> If you have a link I can check out exactly what he was arguing.
Most of the Jewish sites I've looked at agree that the Old Testament's passages on the afterlife can be interpreted in a number of ways: that no one view has ever been deemed "official," and there is much room for speculation.
One guy's defense of heaven and hell was based not on Jewish scripture, but the following "logic" (or what a skeptic would deem wishful thinking!):
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 2:
"For anyone who believes in a just and caring G-d, the existence of an afterlife makes logical sense. Could it be this world is just a playground without consequences? Did Hitler get away with killing 6,000,000 Jews? No. There is obviously a place where good people receive reward and bad people get punished."
I'll send you a pm for the links to some of the Jewish sites I was reading from.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Hi Todd,
OK, I'll check them out. Thanks
StormTrek 2 years ago
hi stormtrek
I will be making a video (probably my a couple videos after my response to todd, in which I examine that verse in Hebrews you quote from. You might find it interesting.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
OK, I'll watch for it.
StormTrek 2 years ago
Once again you have made me insanely jealous by the way you put into clear and logical words what I have been trying to convey to various theists I have exchanges with.
Joshua040103 says god made pain
1. To mete out just punishment
2. To bring about a greater good
3. To glorify Himself
Of the 3, I find 3 the most odd,
He actually says that god made the whole of creation is fot the glorification of er.... Himself.
Cosmic god ergo cosmic ego???
wordavee 2 years ago
1 of 2:
> Once again you have made me insanely jealous by the way you put into clear and logical words what I have been trying to convey to various theists I have exchanges with.
Sorry! (If it makes you feel any better, it probably took me over 12 hours of writing and re-writes to put this half-hour speech together . . . and I wish I had had the time to put a few days more work into it so that I could have cut it down to 10 minutes!)
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
2 of 2:
> Joshua040103 says god made pain . . . 3. To glorify Himself . . .
When it comes to the "glory" of inflicting suffering, one truly has to turn logic on its head to ascribe it all to a Loving Omnipotent God.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
The Christian equivalent to a hypothesis and scientific theory is a "belief" and "mega-belief?" So much for humility...
ChozoBoy 2 years ago
> The Christian equivalent to a hypothesis and scientific theory is a "belief" and "mega-belief?"
YouTuber "Evid3nc3" described his belief in God as a "mega-belief" because it was held together by lots of separate beliefs: that God answered prayers, God was the First Cause, God was the Master Designer, God wrote the Bible, God talked to him, etc. So when he started to have doubts about just 1 or 2 of those separate beliefs, his "mega-belief" still stayed intact.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Cognitive Dissonance is also a fuzz pedal for guitar made by Skreddy Pedals. Just an fyi! :)
Stringprodigy 2 years ago
> Cognitive Dissonance is also a fuzz pedal
*Great* name for a product that generates distortion!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
good luck with work, and we'll be waiting for new videos this fall. :-)
roentgen571 2 years ago
> we'll be waiting for new videos this fall
Your patience is appreciated!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
sounds like we should go around help christians to get to heaven earlier by killing them.
we would be doing god a favor right?
ZhangyXD 2 years ago
> sounds like we should go around help christians to get to heaven earlier by killing them.
Luckily we lack the "faith" to do so.
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
congratulations on having employment, todd.these days that is not a given, so till you come back i will play 'catch up' with your extensive and informative list on your sites!
practicalmagic9 2 years ago
> congratulations on having employment, todd. These days that is not a given
I have to remind myself of that after every 14-hour workday! (I really can't complain: for the most part, my company treats me well, and this is an unusual time period—one that will be over in a few months.)
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
bravo todd.cognitive dissonance was the constant dripping of sanity on the rock of my salvation, eventually wearing a crevice that my screaming mind shattered with a cleaving blow.thank you for this small series of three videos!your time is appreciated.peace
practicalmagic9 2 years ago 2
> cognitive dissonance was the constant dripping of sanity on the rock of my salvation, eventually wearing a crevice that my screaming mind shattered with a cleaving blow.
Amazing sentence: I'm going to have to commit it to memory!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
This reminds me of some theists I've heard talking about how they "deal with doubt" and how it's always kinda there in the background.
Interestingly, I (as an atheist) *never* have this problem. I do have times when I'm unsure about something, but I never feel like I have to "reinforce" my atheism. It's totally different, and I think you do a good job of pointing out why.
ManicEightBall 2 years ago
> This reminds me of some theists I've heard talking about how they "deal with doubt" and how it's always kinda there in the background. Interestingly, I (as an atheist) *never* have this problem.
I suppose that's the difference between a worldview that can rely on facts & logic, and one that can't!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Bloody computers... Always annoying when work get's in the way of fun isn't it....?
Great little series man... Very much enjoyed it... Hurry back :)
RodHullIOnceWasHim 2 years ago
> Bloody computers... Always annoying when work get's in the way of fun isn't it....?
I hate it when they expect me to work the whole time I'm being paid!
> Great little series man... Very much enjoyed it...
Thanks!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Spectacular TAG! Keep up the good fight.
cyxgun 2 years ago
> Spectacular TAG! Keep up the good fight.
Thank you!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Great work, Todd, from start to finish.
ProfMTH 2 years ago 2
> Great work, Todd, from start to finish.
Thanks Prof—much appreciated!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Great rebuttal but here is my question however simplistic it may be.
If the finite cannot comprehend the infinite how can the finite know that the infinite exists in the first place therefore if god is infinite how do we ever know a god exists?
SuperFlyNB 2 years ago
Recognizing the existence of a thing does not require comprehension. I don't understand the complex mathematics behind quantum physics, but I accept it's existence regardless.
A better way to use this might be: If you cannot comprehend your infinite god, what makes you think you've got it right when you claim to know what he wants from us? How do you know he's even benevolent in the first place?
cyxgun 2 years ago
Although I agree with your second statement the question is not if you or I can understand a specific subject(such as quantum mechanics) as there are those who do understand these subjects to some level (and though their work extending our knowledge) but if the human mind can confirm the existence of god as the human mind cannot comprehend the infinite (as per the presented argument). Again how can you verify something that cannot be comprehended in the first place?
1 of 3
SuperFlyNB 2 years ago
How do you distinguish that from wishful thinking?
If the human mind can comprehend quantum mechanics (which it apparently can because it is a specific field of study at least comprehend mathematically) wouldnt it be reasonable to say quantum mechanics is not an infinite as per the presented argument? I of course reject the idea that the human mind cannot comprehend an infinite but I am attempting to look at this through the eyes of the presented argument as though it was true.
2 of 3
SuperFlyNB 2 years ago
Saying we cannot comprehend and an infinite then saying god is infinite is about a poor and useless of an argument as saying god lives outside of space/time.
3 of 3
SuperFlyNB 2 years ago
I don't think we actually disagree, we are just looking at two different aspects of the same argument. On the subject of that very argument: It's like I've been trying to tell this guy Smokisounds in the comments section of this video: /watch?v=UGYQyWKCeDs
He keeps insisting the first cause argument is 'unbeatable' but refuses to see that asserting the necessity of causation while denying it for god by default is contradictory.
cyxgun 2 years ago
That is of course assuming there is a first cause which we have no way of knowing. Do we live in an infinite number of universes? Does our universe have an infinite number of Big Bangs followed by big crunches? Was there an actual start where we can say "that's the beginning" but then again we are getting into infinites (which we apparently cant understand) but I am (pardon the expression) preaching to the choir so to speak.
Theist Argument? Confuse the fuck out of them.
SuperFlyNB 2 years ago
> Great rebuttal but here is my question however simplistic it may be. If the finite cannot comprehend the infinite how can the finite know that the infinite exists in the first place therefore if god is infinite how do we ever know a god exists
I suppose the Infinite blesses us with *just enough* knowledge to be aware of His Infiniteness ... and then stops there!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Well then with all the interpretations of what/who god is it is fair to say most have gotten it wrong if god exists. The next step is why is he right and so many others wrong?
I know you already know this so this is mostly rhetorical as you are obviously much better spoken on this than I could hope to be.
SuperFlyNB 2 years ago
> you are obviously much better spoken on this than I could hope to be
TOO kind! (I would actually be much more impressed with myself if I could make a video without having to type out almost every word! I've tried to make videos where I just speak spontaneously . . . but I end up repeating myself, or forgetting too many things, losing my place, etc. They're so bad that I just live with the lesser evil of having to constantly look down to my notes.)
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Nothing wrong with referring to notes. A lot of speakers do that.
SuperFlyNB 2 years ago
> Nothing wrong with referring to notes.
Still, I wish I could look straight in the camera the whole time. Gotta get me a teleprompter!
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
Hey superfly. I have been watching your stuff for a while now.
I never said "the finite can't know the infinite".
Originally I argued that an action is moral or immoral given the circumstances. Humans are not in a position to truly assess the morality of God because of our limited perspective. We do not know the circumstances or intentions of God, so making a claim that God is immoral, would be like saying "Killing is immoral" without knowing whether it was killing for fun or for self defense.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
I would agree that what is deemed moral or immoral is dependent on circumstance but I again refer back to the point that if our perception (as you put it) is limited how can we know that something exists that is beyond our perspective assuming god is beyond our perspective? If some aspect(s) of god is someone way within our perspective then how do we perceive that aspect(s) of god?
SuperFlyNB 2 years ago
Pardon the typos. Its past my bed time lol but up late as I am busy with other things
SuperFlyNB 2 years ago
Superfly
Some knowledge is attainable, some knowledge is not. I can not think of a way to determine God's circumstances or intentions with certainty.
As to God's existence, that would be attainable knowledge. A sound argument which makes God either logically necessary or the most probable of alternatives would suffice to prove the existence of God, whereas an argument which makes Him logically contradictory or sufficiently improbable would do the opposite.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
Again I would agree that some knowledge is obtainable and some is not but nothing could be ever determined with 100% certainty. As you adequately put it, it is due to our limitations.
The problem with the position you just took (via your own admittance that we do not know the circumstances or intentions of God) is we could not know if the argument was logically valid or not as we do not understand intent or circumstance of God.
SuperFlyNB 2 years ago
Superfly
That is one of the reasons I argue the problem of evil cannot be an effective argument for atheism. If the fact of the matter is "we don't know what this argument proves" the only logical position is to admit "we dont know" not claim God is improbable.
My argument (in this instance) is not to prove the existence of God, but merely to disprove the evidential problem of evil.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
If a gods definition of love (therefore evil) is interoperated differently from mans then what is considered love (and evil) is subjective. This would make evil nothing more than a concept (which it actually is). If evil (therefore love) is a concept then evil (and love) are constructs of the individual(s) and not actualities that can be truly definable. If we do not know the circumstances or intentions of God (your words again) then how do we know how a god defines love and evil?
1 of 2
SuperFlyNB 2 years ago
Typos
SuperFlyNB 2 years ago
Superfly
Apparently you hold to subjective morality, but I do not (I have 2 videos on that topic). If man defines love in a way that is different from God, I would say that man would be wrong. If a human deemed torturing innocent babies for fun was acceptable, I would say that is is objectively wrong, regardless of human opinion. We do have some innate morality.
The only reason the problem of evil even has the possibility of disproving God is because God is defined as all loving and all good.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
Morality IS subjective. The perceptions of the moral thing to do has most certainly changed, this is an undeniable fact.
It used to be moral to stone people to death and this is no longer the case. Regardless if that was changed by a god or by man the whole idea that it HAS changed MAKES it subjective by default. It used to be that a man could not be found guilty of raping his wife (of one flesh - you cannot rape yourself), it is now a crime and unacceptable.
1 of 2
1 of 2
SuperFlyNB 2 years ago
In the bible and eye for an eye changed to turn the other cheek. Why the change? If it was objective then no need for change and it was Jesus himself that change that. Can you say subjective?
Morality is within all of us as it is detrimental to our species to start killing and destroying each other. This is obvious in many of the primates that have tendencies to ostracize the destructive members of society. Humans are not an exception here, we are part of the rule when it comes to primates.
2
SuperFlyNB 2 years ago
Superfly
You are citing changes in law not changes in morality. What is legal and what is immoral are not equivalent. (although in most cases the act of breaking law is immoral)
Matthew 19:8 provides one reason the law (not to be confused with morality) changed.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
I thought gods law was perfect. Why change something that is perfect? Laws are deemed by what is considered moral. The two are inseparable. Law determines punishment for committing what is considered immoral acts. If the law has changed so have the perceptions of morality.
SuperFlyNB 2 years ago
Superfly
I definitely disagree on that point. What is immoral is not always illegal. It is legal to commit adultery with another mans wife for instance.
Again Matthew 19:8 provides one possible explanation to why the law would change.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
Hence subjectivity. I also find the concept of adultery immoral but swingers don't, they enjoy the idea of sharing their spouses and they are not hurting anyone else, so whats the problem in a case like this? Why would this be considered immoral if all parties are consenting? The idea of being immoral is when the action actually in some way hurts another person. Adultery is however a grounds for divorce and used to be considered a crime even if it was consensual as in the actions of swingers.
SuperFlyNB 2 years ago
So is adultery immoral? Well that depends, if no one is getting hurt and it is consensual. no. Murder however it would be safe to say is accepted as being immoral by most as someone is getting killed. The are criminal laws about murder.
SuperFlyNB 2 years ago
You have thus far not produced any valid points. They are easily refuted. You are so far gone in your belief I dont think you understand what it means to rationalize. As mentioned in the adultery and murder examples what would be consider moral or immoral is dependent on if someone is getting hurt. In the case of adultery there are certainly cases where no one will get hurt. In the case of murder there is ALWASYS someone who gets hurt..
SuperFlyNB 2 years ago
Super
Can adultery hurt people and is that illegal? if no, what is immoral is not always illegal.
Not all "killing" is bad. "Murder" simply means illegal killing. Kinda begs the question to say there are criminal laws about murder dont you think?
"You are so far gone I don't understand what it is like to be rational"
That is disappointing to hear you say something like that. Comments like that take away any desire I have to engage in discourse with you. I expected better of you.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
You didn't read my post did you. I specifically used the word Murder many times and not kill (except once) as kill is vague (that was deliberate) and the definition of Murder is "premeditated killing".
Can adultery hurt people? Yes it can hurt their feelings but is there any real harm other than that (other than your personal reaction) but again it is dependent on the situation and circumstance as there could be good reason for it.
1 of 2
SuperFlyNB 2 years ago
Superfly
The american heritage dictionary defines murder as "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."
Dictionary . com defines it as "the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law."
Ect.
To claim murder has criminal punishments is redundant at best.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
Fine I will user Websters Encyclopedic Dictionary I have sitting on my lap as I am typing this
The unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought
aforethought is defined as premeditation.
But why don't you try a legal definition which defines it as Intentional homicide (Intentional is premeditation). I can play bingo too. Don't insult my intelligence and don't play semantics with me.
SuperFlyNB 2 years ago
Finally.. Most primates (including ourselves) take issue with behaviors destructive to the whole (as I mentioned before to you). This is sociological and inherent in all primates. It is not give to us by gods.
SuperFlyNB 2 years ago
Superfly
I realize primates and use have innate morality developed by sociobiological evolution. This is not contradictory to my viewpoint (and actually supports it). You should watch my upcoming video on objective morality. I should finish it up after I respond to Todd.
Morally you seem to adopt a form of consequentialism. I don't agree with that viewpoint and I hope to address it in the upcoming video.
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
Would all adultery be immoral then? No. Is all murder immoral. Yes. Hence the laws. Same goes with stealing. Is it immoral? Dependent on the situation (what if you are stealing food and you are starving). IN this ca ether are laws but in the case of steeling there is always someone with a definable loss.
Morality is based on the circumstances. FOr example if I was trying to kill you then that would be considered immoral, wouldn't it unless you attacked my kid with a knife then is it immoral?
SuperFlyNB 2 years ago