> I think that GOD would know how to circumvent the legal system.
It would be bizarre to think that He couldn't. I like the saying "With monotheism, anything that goes *against* God is ultimately traced back to God Himself" (Carl Jung).
There are more problems with these arguments. If God's word is for everyone,why would he write it in a way that's tailored specifically to one particular group at one time and confounds understanding for everyone else? This is related to the problem of why God is obscure. he didn't seem to have any problem appearing to people in Biblical times and doing miracles. If the Truth is universal, God seems prone to weird favoritism in how he gives it out.
Todd, have you had feedback from people who left Christianity after seeing your videos or reading your book? I would imagine so. Of course the pentecostals are a group that believes 'signs and wonders' are manifest - how would you respond to the proszs. who tells you that 'speaking in tongues' is evidence for the truth of the bible?
> feedback from people who left Christianity after ..your book?
Not a whole lot, and those who did were already halfway out the door--I just helped supply the final nudge. Still, it's great to hear from them.
> how would you respond to the proszs. who tells you that 'speaking in tongues' is evidence?
None have tried this one ... I guess I would want to see what the Divine Input from "tongues" was--what's the difference between "tongues" and jibberish?
Hey Todd! You say you will follow God if He can be proven to exist? That is wonderful. There are at least three different forms of the cosmological argument. A couple of the teleological. And at least two for the ontological. Then there is the axiological, psychological, and mathematical arguments as well. There are more deductive proofs for the existence of God as well. Individually and collectively they make the existence of God at least more plausible than not.
> You say you will follow God if He can be proven to exist?
Except for the mentally ill, I think just about *everyone* would! Especially if He did something like pop out of the clouds and introduce Himself. If there were a Creator of the Universe and He wanted us to behave a certain way, one would be foolish to disobey.
And yes, I've heard the cosmological, teleological, ontological etc. arguments. But it's not about 'stubbornness' -- I just find them unconvincing.
@ToddAllenGates May I ask what you find unconvincing with the modal ontological argument? More specifically, which premise of it do you deny or which inference is formally invalid?
Just because we can "imagine" a Being greater than any other is hardly evidence that one really exists. The ontological argument uses word games to define god into existence.
But "god's existence" has nothing to do with this video series, which actually rests on the premise that a Higher Power *does* exist. To me, the more interesting issue is "If one religion is from God and the rest from man, how do you distinguish between Omniscience and man's guesswork?"
@ToddAllenGates It is easy to tell the difference between Omniscience and man's guesswork. If the Bible does not mention something, that does not mean that God does not know about it. If it mentions something which is known to be false, that would count against it being written by an omniscient being but there aren't any mistakes in it I'm aware of and I've been intensely studying it for years. And what about scientific foreknowledge? The Bible is supposed to rampantly steal from...
> there aren't any mistakes in it I'm aware of and I've been intensely studying it for years
I don't think this will be a productive discussion for either of us ... but against my better judgment ... I'll just ask "What about dinosaurs? Modern knowledge tells us they ruled for 160 million years, and there was some 65 million years between the last dinosaur and the first human. How do you reconcile that with Genesis?
@ToddAllenGates ...everyone else on your view. If that is so then why is it unique in explaining the universe as beginning a finite time ago? This is perfectly in line with relatively recent science. One could then say that it got the beginning date wrong, but that is a separate question. If we think the Bible teaches 4004 BC that can count on your side but the advanced knowledge of the big bang counts on my side. If its just guesswork then why didn't more ancient men guess it, btw?
@ToddAllenGates You are misrepresenting the modal ontological argument (note "modal" too). But imagining the greatest possible being certainly is evidence for His existence. For the greatest being imaginable is obviously possible. If possible, such a being exists in some logically possible world. But then by definition of 'necessary' in modal logic, such a being has to exist in every logically possible world including the actual world so God exists. Its logically irrisistable.
@evangelical1 Now, while you concede that God exists at the beginning of your series, it is only for the sake of argument. For you conclude that God probably does not exist. So the existence of God is totally relevant to the series. That is the whole point-whether God (probably) exists or not-of the series isn't it?
> the whole point-whether God (probably) exists or not-of the series isn't it?
No. The whole point is *if* a god exists and *if* we know that humans make up religions on their own (as every fundamentalist agrees that humans do, at least when looking at religions other than their own), then how do we recognize signs that a religion is made up by fallible people?
I have a separate video on the practical advantages of not arguing about God's existence: watch?v=l3lye16mJvQ
@ToddAllenGates Well, I guess I missed the entire point. Oops! I thought you were saying something like, Christianity resembles other religions which are known to be false, so Christianity is too. So how do you go from "Christianity is made up by fallible people" to "probably there is no God of any kind"? I now see this is a separate question from the book. Do you answer in the video you refer me to?
@evangelical1 > If possible, such a being exists in some logically possible world.
I don't see it that way at all. It's all just remote possibilities.
> But then by definition of 'necessary' in modal logic, such a being has to exist in every logically possible world including the actual world so God exists
All just remote possibilities ... you might as well be talking about All-Powerful unicorns. Sorry if I sound closed-minded and am not giving this proper consideration.
@ToddAllenGates No the problem is definitely with my computer, not your settings. It allows me to upload video responses but sometimes it "freezes" after I hit the record button.
Its like deja vu all over again! For some reason I'm not able to add a vid response so text will have to do. I actually agree with much you have to say in this video though I'm not sure these are the best responses as you say in part 6. I hope to do a video response to part 5 in the near future. That seems to be the heart of your presentation.
Great series. My position hasn't changed (an empty glass cannot become emptier), but you have definitely provided a good supply of counter-arguments for me to use.
LONG-distance horizon, but yes. Although at the rate I'm going (trying to balance writing & work & family & music & of course YouTube) ... well, it'll be a few years.
It's almost too bad I don't meet Christian or other proselytizers very often. They are very scarce around here. But you never know; Things may change...
> It's almost too bad I don't meet Christian or other proselytizers very often.
I can still find Jews For Jesus in the subways often enough, but for some reason, the Mormons & Jehovah's Witness who *used* to come to my door started skipping my house for the last few years ....
And when the people confused is ALL the people addressed in the text...then it may as well be random words thrown into the book for all the good it does? no?
What I'm saying is that if the audience the book is aimed at need to use reason and interpretation then it has failed in telling them the reason ad interpretation....
An apologigist who claims then that we can't know fully the mind of god is talking bullshit... for they too cannot know this is true by their own admission!
> What I'm saying is that if the audience the book is aimed at need to use reason and interpretation then it has failed in telling them the reason ad interpretation....
One would think Omnipotence would do a tad better job!
very good, although you seem to have missed a point... If holy scripture are actually allegorical and need to be interpreted and most people have hitherto read them wrongly and interpret them wrongly until science told them otherwise... then they may as well not exist at all.
After all if you bought a book on how to make a car...and it gave you misleading, inaccurate and incorrect information...then you'd be far better to fling it in the bin and try work out how to do the task yourself.
> very good, although you seem to have missed a point...
I agree with everything you say -- but for this series, I try to stick to arguments that Christians themselves embrace when it comes to reasons for rejecting foreign faiths. I talk more about the problems with "reading things wrong until science offers correct understanding of god's word" in my video "When Science Contradicts Scripture: How Theists Cope."
@ToddAllenGates The problem with you Todd (if it can be seen as a problem) is that you are have a prolific output on youtube...its hard to keep up..
Although I do find you are one of the more coherent types...easy to understand and its difficult to misinterpret what you say...did you ever consider rewriting the bible.
I think your just the man for the job! That way it might end up making sense!
hehehe
So I'm sure eventually I will get around to viewing ALL of your vids.
If I were to ... theists might get upset with the "All characters appearing in this work are fictitious: any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental" disclaimer I would put in the intro.
> I'm sure eventually I will get around to viewing ALL of your vids.
Well reasoned and very informative. It is a shame the Christians won't believe a word of it because they have their so called unchangeable truth in their Bible.
> It is a shame the Christians won't believe a word of it
Well, the main people I'm targeting are those who have trouble *responding* to Christian proselytizers (as did I before I wrote my book). I agree that hardcore Christians won't listen to my approach ... but I've found that those who already have some cracks in their faith sometimes *do* listen (whereas they might get more defensive with aggressive atheism).
@ToddAllenGates You may be right, Todd. I have not seen such and all encompassing approach before and it very well could be helpful to those with cracks in their faith.
> I seriously do not understand how I would lose my free will if god gave evidence of his existence...
Another reason that this is a weak argument is that it's not even biblical--look at all the people who, according to the stories, had *direct evidence* of Divinity but still had enough Free Will to disobey Divinity: Adam, the Hebrews escaping from Egypt, the Hebrews while in Israel, those who turned their back on Jesus, etc.
Thank you! And the improvements weren't significant: mostly it's a bit shorter - I cut out some tangents that I feel interfered with the momentum of the argument.
The main reasons I redid it was to (1) introduce the series to new subs, and (2) make my upcoming re-make of the pagan influences of "Satan" easier to follow (my prior version credited Zoroastrianism, which I no longer feel is justifiable).
Your videos are very informative and present quite a unique approach to the debate. While your 6th video in this particular series does indeed show an almost "reasonable" method to their madness and breach in logic, your counter-arguments here are much better. It's one thing to consider the possibility of a creative entity behind the universe, but it's silly to jump to such a specific, caring, personal God offered by religion. More people on both sides really need to see these. Well done Todd!
> Your videos are very informative and present quite a unique approach to the debate.
I *like* to think I'm approaching this familiar territory from at least a slightly different angle . . . but self-assessment of course is highly susceptible to delusion—so it's great to hear this from others: thank you!
You should interpret words as you read them. If someone tells you that you have to interpret things in a certain way, then you have read a lie, and the believers are trying to get you to buy in to thier delusion.
> Much appreciated too that you made the 7 part series that we had to stick through.
Thanks for staying with me the whole time ... in real-life it's hard to find people who want to discuss religion at all, let alone listen to me go on for 45 minutes or so. I'm tempted to say "thank god" for youtube!
@ToddAllenGates It's really not a problem at all staying with you for 45 minutes or 45 hours. In terms of popularity, it seems that YouTubers who come across with somewhat antagonistic presentations gain the highest followings. I admit to following that particular genre myself. But, I'm more interested in the general advancement towards "truth", as illusive as that concept may be. You provide a well constructed and calm approach towards that goal and I appreciate your efforts very much.
@ToddAllenGates I find this to be incredibly true. It seems that when you're educated about this sort of stuff, all of a sudden people don't want to talk to you. I finally confronted a prolific proselytizer on Facebook with my atheism, and even he just kind of shrugged.
These were great videos though, and I certainly appreciate them!
> I finally confronted a prolific proselytizer on Facebook with my atheism, and even he just kind of shrugged.
Yes, I've had that reaction too ... sometimes they even make me feel guilty, like I'm being some kind of bully for trying to take away their magic candy.
> These were great videos though, and I certainly appreciate them!
Disregading all the history, just on plain logic, the fallacies of religions in general is self refuting.
All I say is this. Either ALL of them are right. Or none of them are.
Domzdream 1 year ago
@Domzdream
> Either ALL of them are right.
I have a video series on this subject too ... it's called
'Problems with the "all religions are One!" New Age spirituality approach' - /watch?v=YyLQ0q-3lLA
> Or none of them are.
I think the latter is the more probable!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
I think that GOD would know how to circumvent the legal system.
sumvlac 1 year ago
@sumvlac
> I think that GOD would know how to circumvent the legal system.
It would be bizarre to think that He couldn't. I like the saying "With monotheism, anything that goes *against* God is ultimately traced back to God Himself" (Carl Jung).
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
There are more problems with these arguments. If God's word is for everyone,why would he write it in a way that's tailored specifically to one particular group at one time and confounds understanding for everyone else? This is related to the problem of why God is obscure. he didn't seem to have any problem appearing to people in Biblical times and doing miracles. If the Truth is universal, God seems prone to weird favoritism in how he gives it out.
AceOfSevens 1 year ago
@AceOfSevens
> f the Truth is universal, God seems prone to weird favoritism in how he gives it out
Well said!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
Great series and a great book, read it a few months ago.
thekykling 1 year ago
@thekykling
> Great series and a great book, read it a few months ago.
Thanks!!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
Todd, have you had feedback from people who left Christianity after seeing your videos or reading your book? I would imagine so. Of course the pentecostals are a group that believes 'signs and wonders' are manifest - how would you respond to the proszs. who tells you that 'speaking in tongues' is evidence for the truth of the bible?
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian
> feedback from people who left Christianity after ..your book?
Not a whole lot, and those who did were already halfway out the door--I just helped supply the final nudge. Still, it's great to hear from them.
> how would you respond to the proszs. who tells you that 'speaking in tongues' is evidence?
None have tried this one ... I guess I would want to see what the Divine Input from "tongues" was--what's the difference between "tongues" and jibberish?
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
Hey Todd! You say you will follow God if He can be proven to exist? That is wonderful. There are at least three different forms of the cosmological argument. A couple of the teleological. And at least two for the ontological. Then there is the axiological, psychological, and mathematical arguments as well. There are more deductive proofs for the existence of God as well. Individually and collectively they make the existence of God at least more plausible than not.
evangelical1 1 year ago
@evangelical1
> You say you will follow God if He can be proven to exist?
Except for the mentally ill, I think just about *everyone* would! Especially if He did something like pop out of the clouds and introduce Himself. If there were a Creator of the Universe and He wanted us to behave a certain way, one would be foolish to disobey.
And yes, I've heard the cosmological, teleological, ontological etc. arguments. But it's not about 'stubbornness' -- I just find them unconvincing.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates May I ask what you find unconvincing with the modal ontological argument? More specifically, which premise of it do you deny or which inference is formally invalid?
evangelical1 1 year ago
1 of 2:
@evangelical1
Just because we can "imagine" a Being greater than any other is hardly evidence that one really exists. The ontological argument uses word games to define god into existence.
But "god's existence" has nothing to do with this video series, which actually rests on the premise that a Higher Power *does* exist. To me, the more interesting issue is "If one religion is from God and the rest from man, how do you distinguish between Omniscience and man's guesswork?"
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
2 of 2:
And shouldn't it be EASY to tell the difference between Omniscience and man's guesswork?
Yet apparently it isn't: there are thousands of religions, and thousands of variations within religions.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates It is easy to tell the difference between Omniscience and man's guesswork. If the Bible does not mention something, that does not mean that God does not know about it. If it mentions something which is known to be false, that would count against it being written by an omniscient being but there aren't any mistakes in it I'm aware of and I've been intensely studying it for years. And what about scientific foreknowledge? The Bible is supposed to rampantly steal from...
evangelical1 1 year ago
@evangelical1
> there aren't any mistakes in it I'm aware of and I've been intensely studying it for years
I don't think this will be a productive discussion for either of us ... but against my better judgment ... I'll just ask "What about dinosaurs? Modern knowledge tells us they ruled for 160 million years, and there was some 65 million years between the last dinosaur and the first human. How do you reconcile that with Genesis?
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates ...everyone else on your view. If that is so then why is it unique in explaining the universe as beginning a finite time ago? This is perfectly in line with relatively recent science. One could then say that it got the beginning date wrong, but that is a separate question. If we think the Bible teaches 4004 BC that can count on your side but the advanced knowledge of the big bang counts on my side. If its just guesswork then why didn't more ancient men guess it, btw?
evangelical1 1 year ago
@evangelical1
> why is it unique in explaining the universe as beginning a finite time ago?
The phrase "In the beginning" hardly spells out the Big Bang!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates You are misrepresenting the modal ontological argument (note "modal" too). But imagining the greatest possible being certainly is evidence for His existence. For the greatest being imaginable is obviously possible. If possible, such a being exists in some logically possible world. But then by definition of 'necessary' in modal logic, such a being has to exist in every logically possible world including the actual world so God exists. Its logically irrisistable.
evangelical1 1 year ago
@evangelical1 Now, while you concede that God exists at the beginning of your series, it is only for the sake of argument. For you conclude that God probably does not exist. So the existence of God is totally relevant to the series. That is the whole point-whether God (probably) exists or not-of the series isn't it?
evangelical1 1 year ago
@evangelical1
> the whole point-whether God (probably) exists or not-of the series isn't it?
No. The whole point is *if* a god exists and *if* we know that humans make up religions on their own (as every fundamentalist agrees that humans do, at least when looking at religions other than their own), then how do we recognize signs that a religion is made up by fallible people?
I have a separate video on the practical advantages of not arguing about God's existence: watch?v=l3lye16mJvQ
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates Well, I guess I missed the entire point. Oops! I thought you were saying something like, Christianity resembles other religions which are known to be false, so Christianity is too. So how do you go from "Christianity is made up by fallible people" to "probably there is no God of any kind"? I now see this is a separate question from the book. Do you answer in the video you refer me to?
evangelical1 1 year ago
@evangelical1
> I now see this is a separate question from the book.
Yes, I separate the two. When I question Christianity, I take the temporary stance of "let's say a Higher Power DOES exist."
> Do you answer in the video you refer me to?
In that video I only mention the practical advantages of questioning organized religion, but not "A Higher Power."
Only 1 of my videos covers why I think a Creator is more improbable than probable ... and you already responded to it in January.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@evangelical1 > If possible, such a being exists in some logically possible world.
I don't see it that way at all. It's all just remote possibilities.
> But then by definition of 'necessary' in modal logic, such a being has to exist in every logically possible world including the actual world so God exists
All just remote possibilities ... you might as well be talking about All-Powerful unicorns. Sorry if I sound closed-minded and am not giving this proper consideration.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates No the problem is definitely with my computer, not your settings. It allows me to upload video responses but sometimes it "freezes" after I hit the record button.
evangelical1 1 year ago
Its like deja vu all over again! For some reason I'm not able to add a vid response so text will have to do. I actually agree with much you have to say in this video though I'm not sure these are the best responses as you say in part 6. I hope to do a video response to part 5 in the near future. That seems to be the heart of your presentation.
evangelical1 1 year ago
@evangelical1
> For some reason I'm not able to add a vid response
I checked my settings ... I have them set up to automatically accept all responses. Odd ... (holy intervention?)
> I hope to do a video response to part 5 in the near future.
Looking forward to it!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
Great series. My position hasn't changed (an empty glass cannot become emptier), but you have definitely provided a good supply of counter-arguments for me to use.
gigantibyte 1 year ago
@gigantibyte
> Great series.
Thanks!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
good stuff
bdwilson1000 1 year ago
@bdwilson1000
> good stuff
Thank you.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
I am pretty new to your vids. I like this little series, though. I might have to put that book on a christmas list.
furtim1 1 year ago
@furtim1
> I like this little series
Thanks!
> I might have to put that book on a christmas list.
Thanks!!!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
Brilliant! ; )
Thanks for sharing this.
Bytheway, any new books on the horizon?
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny
> Brilliant! ; ) Thanks for sharing this.
TOO kind--thank you!
> Bytheway, any new books on the horizon?
LONG-distance horizon, but yes. Although at the rate I'm going (trying to balance writing & work & family & music & of course YouTube) ... well, it'll be a few years.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
It's almost too bad I don't meet Christian or other proselytizers very often. They are very scarce around here. But you never know; Things may change...
skinnyjohnsen 1 year ago
@skinnyjohnsen
> It's almost too bad I don't meet Christian or other proselytizers very often.
I can still find Jews For Jesus in the subways often enough, but for some reason, the Mormons & Jehovah's Witness who *used* to come to my door started skipping my house for the last few years ....
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
And when the people confused is ALL the people addressed in the text...then it may as well be random words thrown into the book for all the good it does? no?
What I'm saying is that if the audience the book is aimed at need to use reason and interpretation then it has failed in telling them the reason ad interpretation....
An apologigist who claims then that we can't know fully the mind of god is talking bullshit... for they too cannot know this is true by their own admission!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey
> What I'm saying is that if the audience the book is aimed at need to use reason and interpretation then it has failed in telling them the reason ad interpretation....
One would think Omnipotence would do a tad better job!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
very good, although you seem to have missed a point... If holy scripture are actually allegorical and need to be interpreted and most people have hitherto read them wrongly and interpret them wrongly until science told them otherwise... then they may as well not exist at all.
After all if you bought a book on how to make a car...and it gave you misleading, inaccurate and incorrect information...then you'd be far better to fling it in the bin and try work out how to do the task yourself.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey
> very good, although you seem to have missed a point...
I agree with everything you say -- but for this series, I try to stick to arguments that Christians themselves embrace when it comes to reasons for rejecting foreign faiths. I talk more about the problems with "reading things wrong until science offers correct understanding of god's word" in my video "When Science Contradicts Scripture: How Theists Cope."
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates The problem with you Todd (if it can be seen as a problem) is that you are have a prolific output on youtube...its hard to keep up..
Although I do find you are one of the more coherent types...easy to understand and its difficult to misinterpret what you say...did you ever consider rewriting the bible.
I think your just the man for the job! That way it might end up making sense!
hehehe
So I'm sure eventually I will get around to viewing ALL of your vids.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey
> did you ever consider rewriting the bible.
If I were to ... theists might get upset with the "All characters appearing in this work are fictitious: any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental" disclaimer I would put in the intro.
> I'm sure eventually I will get around to viewing ALL of your vids.
I am honored!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey
> After all if you bought a book on how to make a car...and it gave you misleading, inaccurate and incorrect information
I guess if you have to be inspired by the Holy Spirit (or a good How To video) to *really* understand the manual ... then yes, what good is it?
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
Well reasoned and very informative. It is a shame the Christians won't believe a word of it because they have their so called unchangeable truth in their Bible.
dtm52 1 year ago
@dtm52
> Well reasoned and very informative.
Thank you!
> It is a shame the Christians won't believe a word of it
Well, the main people I'm targeting are those who have trouble *responding* to Christian proselytizers (as did I before I wrote my book). I agree that hardcore Christians won't listen to my approach ... but I've found that those who already have some cracks in their faith sometimes *do* listen (whereas they might get more defensive with aggressive atheism).
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates You may be right, Todd. I have not seen such and all encompassing approach before and it very well could be helpful to those with cracks in their faith.
dtm52 1 year ago
Excellent video series!! Thank you!
wdgeo 1 year ago
@wdgeo
> Excellent video series!! Thank you!
Thank *you*!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
Great videos
TheoKluges 1 year ago
@TheoKluges
> Great videos
Thanks!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@caseagainstfaith
> Looking forward to your second edition of your book.
Thanks!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@dontOVERREACT
> I seriously do not understand how I would lose my free will if god gave evidence of his existence...
Another reason that this is a weak argument is that it's not even biblical--look at all the people who, according to the stories, had *direct evidence* of Divinity but still had enough Free Will to disobey Divinity: Adam, the Hebrews escaping from Egypt, the Hebrews while in Israel, those who turned their back on Jesus, etc.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
I'm really happy you remade these. This series has long been one of my favorites on YT. And it has been way too long since I've watched it. :-)
Too bad I can't look at both the old and the new version to compare the two. What were some of the improvements you made?
defcore108 1 year ago
@defcore108
> This series has long been one of my favorites
Thank you! And the improvements weren't significant: mostly it's a bit shorter - I cut out some tangents that I feel interfered with the momentum of the argument.
The main reasons I redid it was to (1) introduce the series to new subs, and (2) make my upcoming re-make of the pagan influences of "Satan" easier to follow (my prior version credited Zoroastrianism, which I no longer feel is justifiable).
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
Your videos are very informative and present quite a unique approach to the debate. While your 6th video in this particular series does indeed show an almost "reasonable" method to their madness and breach in logic, your counter-arguments here are much better. It's one thing to consider the possibility of a creative entity behind the universe, but it's silly to jump to such a specific, caring, personal God offered by religion. More people on both sides really need to see these. Well done Todd!
Cyraside 1 year ago
@Cyraside
> Your videos are very informative and present quite a unique approach to the debate.
I *like* to think I'm approaching this familiar territory from at least a slightly different angle . . . but self-assessment of course is highly susceptible to delusion—so it's great to hear this from others: thank you!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
You should interpret words as you read them. If someone tells you that you have to interpret things in a certain way, then you have read a lie, and the believers are trying to get you to buy in to thier delusion.
I like the series. Keep up the good work Todd!!!
sumvlac 1 year ago
@sumvlac
> You should interpret words as you read them
Yes, once a word doesn't mean what is says, it could mean anything ... "slave" could mean "friend," and "stab" could mean "pat"!
> I like the series. Keep up the good work Todd!!!
Thank you!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
Much appreciated too that you made the 7 part series that we had to stick through.
1140Cecile 1 year ago
@1140Cecile
> Much appreciated too that you made the 7 part series that we had to stick through.
Thanks for staying with me the whole time ... in real-life it's hard to find people who want to discuss religion at all, let alone listen to me go on for 45 minutes or so. I'm tempted to say "thank god" for youtube!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates It's really not a problem at all staying with you for 45 minutes or 45 hours. In terms of popularity, it seems that YouTubers who come across with somewhat antagonistic presentations gain the highest followings. I admit to following that particular genre myself. But, I'm more interested in the general advancement towards "truth", as illusive as that concept may be. You provide a well constructed and calm approach towards that goal and I appreciate your efforts very much.
1140Cecile 1 year ago
@1140Cecile
> It's really not a problem at all staying with you for 45 minutes or 45 hours
I'm very flattered!
> YouTubers who come across with somewhat antagonistic presentations gain the highest followings
I watch many such YouTubers myself! (Although my favorites, such as ProfMTH, Evid3nc3, QualiaSoup, are not particularly antagonistic.)
> You provide a well constructed and calm approach towards that goal and I appreciate your efforts very much
Thank you!!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates I find this to be incredibly true. It seems that when you're educated about this sort of stuff, all of a sudden people don't want to talk to you. I finally confronted a prolific proselytizer on Facebook with my atheism, and even he just kind of shrugged.
These were great videos though, and I certainly appreciate them!
STFUNOWlol 1 year ago
@STFUNOWlol
> I finally confronted a prolific proselytizer on Facebook with my atheism, and even he just kind of shrugged.
Yes, I've had that reaction too ... sometimes they even make me feel guilty, like I'm being some kind of bully for trying to take away their magic candy.
> These were great videos though, and I certainly appreciate them!
Appreciation appreciated!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago