Well done, Hope you will continue the good work. I really enjoy all of the videos you have made that I have watched so far. I have been a fan of your brother Qualia Soup for some time and sort of stumbled across your work :) Anyhow excellent stuff, I look forward to more good reasoning from you and your brother. Thanks.
"Omnipotence goes from being the ability to do anything, to the ability to anything that doesn't conflict with the beings other properties. By that definition, I'm omnipotent." Flawless victory.
Typically the counter argument(If you call it that) in the characteristics of god are just to accept a limited number of these claims as true. So, God goes from being benevolent to actually having an ego and being a vengeful being.
What do you say to someone who accepts some claims and argues that god does have some boundaries? I know you say that it contradicts the supporting text, but that usually leads back into "you read it wrong" and "its from man not god"
I tried to explain the incompatibility of anger and omniscience to a Christian and he simply couldn't get his head around the notion of knowing all outcomes nullifying the capacity for anger and wrath. This was before I'd even seen this excellent video of yours so I'm pleased to hear someone expressing this view as I was, even though my attempt was sadly in vain
@TheraminTrees always felt atheistic but in the last couple of years felt pantheistic but still adhere to humanism, some athiests are annoyed we refer to the universe as 'god' or that when someone is angry or stressed we feel negative 'energy' or happy and joyful positive 'energy' do the semantics matter?
@Tygabone I certainly don't see the point of getting annoyed about it. But wouldn't you say that the fact you're even asking that question shows that semantics do matter? I'd say it's an issue of communication. On the universe as 'god' issue — why use the word 'god' instead of 'universe'. If they were proposed as meaning the same, why not stick with universe — clearly something's being added. If something's is being added, I would say: let it be defined and discussed.
A fantastic video. I should have seen these in order but I saw the first minute and got stuck watching the rest. You have a way with words and you've managed to explain everything wonderfully clearly. It is mind-boggling that some people in these comments still fail to understand these basic concepts of reason.
So I am interested to hear your thoughts. Do you condemn christians like me? Or just the idiots that you see on TV sometimes that are picking apart the bible and saying "LOOK, everybody! This line right here in the bible, the bible that was written by humans and has hundreds of different versions, that has been changed hundreds of times, suggests the world will end tomorrow!"
Its kinda like a mozaic painting. Looking at 1 dot is not going to help you see the whole picture much clearer
@ScopedPewPew This isn’t about condemning anyone — it’s simply acknowledging there’s no evidence for the existence of any gods. We can all claim all sorts of imaginary creatures exist. But the burden of proof is on the person making the claim — the other party has no burden. Saying ‘you can’t prove or disprove them’ is no answer. The ground is not even.
Most atheists are well aware of the range of different beliefs about how to interpret the bible. Literal or not, no evidence is no evidence.
@TheraminTrees I see. That's why I stay away from the arguments hehe you can't prove or disprove so its sorta futile to get into a long argument about it :/
@TheraminTrees No I will agree you are right that there is no evidence of God. It would be like you saying to me to prove that God exists (Which I am not even confident in saying he is, because I can't prove it) So it would be unfair for me to say "Why don't you prove he doesn't exist?"
The burden of proof would lie on the person claiming he does exist, because there is no evidence that he does exist. Lack of evidence of something not existing doesn't mean something does exist
@ScopedPewPew Thanks — I appreciate you saying that. That's what these videos are pointing out: there's no evidence for the existence of gods; and for those who claim gods exist, they own the burden of proof. Of course many folks simply don't care about evidence. To them, it's good enough to say 'it's true for me' — ie 'I'm going to redefine the word "true" according to what I want to be true.' Those folks are not my target audience — I seek folks who care about whether their beliefs are true.
@ScopedPewPew My sister is the same way! Of course when I ask her what the 10 commandments are or mention the sections of the bible dealing with the way you should treat your slave, or when it's ok to kill children she has no clue. Hasn't read the bible but just likes the general gist of it all; even though that gist is not really there.
@B0ombastix Hm yeah but you have to remember the bible was written a long time ago in a different time. And usually when they talk about slaves its more like a servant, than the kind of african slave working on a plantation picking cotton that you and I think of. As for the verses permissing killing of children I don't have anything to say about that, heh.
In my opinion, Christianity would be a lot better if they cut out the old testament.
@B0ombastix As for the commandments you can remember them all with 1 rule... Love everyone. If you're not sure if something goes against the 10 commandments, ask yourself.. Is it a loving act? If not, then its probably not part of the 10 commandments
But do not feel I am chastising you I'm just speaking for the few christians who actually get it. In my opinion the world would be better off without religion, yes, because people wouldn't be arguing and blowing each other up because they think their god is real and another god is not. I actually like how other religions are similar to christianity. Islam's #1 rule of "Do another man no harm" is similar to our rule of "Love one another as yourself"
PS yes I am a christian but I am one of the few people who sort of "gets it" if you will. They could pretty much throw every last page of the bible out except for the gospels and christianity would still have its core values.
The #1 rule of christianity? Love everyone. That's it. So Rule #1. Love everybody, be fair and kind. Rule #2, when in doubt look to rule #1. Your entire life can be lived off of just this rule. The rest is extra / not needed. Most PRIESTS will agree.
So to find a paradox in the Adam and Eve story is not exactly the most justifiable story. The main point of the adam and eve story? God created everything, in his image. That's it. It doesn't matter what order he made it, what words were supposedly said, as for Eve tempting adam, it shows that humans are imperfect and susceptible to temptation and other sin.
You can neither prove nor disprove god... The bible is a spiritual book, not a factual book. It was written by humans anyways, so its not gonna be perfect.
Although I like your presentation and it does make sense in a logical sense, I really think that arguments like this are stupid because can you prove god exists? No. can you prove 100% god doesnt exist? no.
ALSO, most catholic PRIESTS dont even take stories like adam and eve as literal truth. *Read next
@Alenandme Nope. I found contradictions as a christian who sought harmony, so the idea that finding contradictions implies 'hostile witness', and harmony implies 'loving witness' is false. Implying that I'm hostile, therefore my arguments are distorted, is an ad hominem fallacy. Also, I explicitly noted Mavrodes' description of tasks like lifting an unliftable rock as 'pseudo-tasks' — and didn't use them. If you have an argument against anything I've actually said, by all means share it.
@TheraminTrees Changing minds by force of logic is illusory. The choice of an individual determines the meanings of initial concepts etc., so even logic can't escape individual choices (a 'hominem' component).
What I said gives a good idea of what I would say; so, if you find nothing of merit in what I said, you won't find anything of merit in what else I would say.
All of us have the need to find the real truth about our lives. Seeking victories over one another only hinders this aim
@Alenandme '.... if you find nothing of merit in what I said, you won't find anything of merit in what else I would say.'
—This approach seems very all-or-nothing. You might instead entertain that there'll be some things people will agree with you about — and other things they'll disagree with you about. I pointed out to you where your reasoning — about why I find contradictions — was in fact fallacious. If you don't wish to hear your flaws, then I don't hold much hope for your search for truth.
If god is perfect then why would he create an angel that would betray him? If god is perfect hoe would he make the "mistake" of giving Lucifer almost god like powers?
Another contradiction I came across was the idea of omnipotence and perfection in the same being that has specific traits attributed to it. If it's omnipotent and perfect, it should be able to do anything perfectly, therefore, giving it a specific trait like being perfectly loving would also imply that it's perfectly hateful. This means it would be neutral not only in that aspect but in all aspects. It's weird to me that people would trust a perfectly neutral being to mold their lives for them.
@f00tstep You highlight the problem facing those who allude to a perfect being — how is that perfection manifested? This is no small question, because folks like Descartes underpin their ontological ideas with the claim that they can 'clearly and distinctly' conceive of a perfect being — unsubstantiated claim. As soon as we ask for details, we see it's not anywhere near clear, distinct — or coherent.
Living with you is OK. But I want to tell you something about this flat that I've noticed. This place has become spooky. I don't know if you've noticed it, too. I want to talk to you about it.
It started at about the same time you bought that theramin.
I also thought about the fact that no Gods show anyone the "right religion" how can you punish someone because they didnt know any better? Also for the Adam and eve story, I always wondered how a God could justify, not only knowing what was going to happen, but not stopping it and then punishing every human on the earth? Does that make any sense ??
@eskrod1 So you're saying that it makes sense to say "I don't have a belief in gods and that NO one has a knowledge whether god exist or not" or
" I have a belief in gods and that NO one has a knowledge whether god exist or not".
My understanding is that if you dont believe in gods, it means you reject any possible knowledge that any god exists...because if you dont think this way, then you're not an atheist, or theist (in a similar case).
@MrBigEnchilada What is your definition of atheist? "agnostic" is a recent term coined by Thomas Huxley to define a position of suspended belief due to lack of knowledge or "evidence". It still LACKS belief. It is therefore irrelevant when discussing the issue of what you BELIEVE. Knowledge is a different thing. Someone can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
@chuckwagon1645 my definition of atheist would be a person who lacks belief in gods. You say that agnostic cannot be categorized the same way as athiest or theist, and that you can be an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist. If that's the case what's the difference between an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist then?
@MrBigEnchilada Simple. The atheist lacks belief in a deity. The theist holds a belief in a deity. The similarity they share is both do not claim to absolutely know for sure. This difference in gnosticim and theism is poorly pointed out in common public discourse. That is why so many still think atheism is strictly "there are no gods".
@chuckwagon1645 "The similarity they share is both do not claim to absolutely know for sure". You show me a theist who says he's not sure that HIS god exists, and that everything he knows is only based on faith and miracles.
Then you show me an atheist who says rationality/science is preferable to faith, but then tell you he's not sure if rationality can be applied in understanding gods.
@MrBigEnchilada I said an AGNOSTIC theist is defined as such. Not that there are many of them out there. Because most theists claim absolute certainty when speaking of their god(s). Majority of Christians are GNOSTIC theists.
@chuckwagon1645 The very concept of gods makes them unknowable and unexplainable. That is why the god hypothesis fails as an explanation for how everything exists. I can make up any number of "magic" beings and assign them characteristics similar to that of the christian god and already my new "god" is equally valid a belief as a christian's is.
@chuckwagon1645 i think its safe to say that the theist and the atheist are equally eager and convinced themselves that they want others to support their own viewpoints, They believe what they have is the truth. They also feel that the other sides (perhaps other religions) should just accept their truths even though none of them have very convincing evidence. Thus they come up with their own evidence.
@MrBigEnchilada See your trying to take this peaceful "middle ground" position and your somehow seeing your position as more intelligent because your imagining this as a two sided battle type scenario. When actually your on the atheist side because you lack belief in a deity but somehow respect religious beliefs because why? Because they are "possibly" true? This is not about possibilities. This is about probabilities. What is "probably" true.
@chuckwagon1645 In addition to what people DO with these beliefs. These beliefs form the basis for things like banning (stem cell research, discrimination against homosexuals, etc).
@chuckwagon1645 the interesting thing is you can be a scientist and a religious person. One might think that is an agnostic theist, who thinks god exist, but cant seem to prove it. What one should realize is that the "scientific method" is also a form of faith. One has doubted stories like chemosynthesis, buckministerfullerene, and expansion of newton's theory of universal gravitation. It's just that we accept this form of faith better because it's actually USEFUL :\
@MrBigEnchilada That my good sir is NOT faith. The usefulness of the said belief is itself the reason to hold the belief. Belief in the supernatural is much different than belief in physical, demonstrable processes like described by science. The fact that there are multiple theories does not negate the fact that some are more right than others due to their consistency with current data. The scientific method has proven itself to be the best current method to determine fact from fantasy.
@chuckwagon1645 but science is not intended to prove religion, so that if a god exists, it does not diminish or support any of our scientific knowledge. One of the notable example of scientific disputes was when einstein said that the universe had been the same size as it was when it formed or else the planets will crash into each other due to gravity. Of course better telescopes allowed us to see redshifts and conclude the universe was expanding.
@MrBigEnchilada Of course science is not intended to prove religion. I agree. The very nature of religious claims makes them unverifiable and unjustified to hold as a worldview. Science is the BEST method for determining the truth value of things. Religion fails to meet its burden of proof on many fronts. Not saying religious claims are wrong as an absolute statement but given what we know of them, it sure seems that is the most likely conclusion.
@chuckwagon1645 Similarly, biologists had long held certain characteristics of life to be essential for all organisms, this was fundamentally changed when they discovered organisms that didnt need sunlight or noticeable food to survive but rather chemosynthesis. Biochemists thought water traveled through cells freely, then found new proteins that regulate water flow. Many of these scientists are nobel prize winners, but they were initially heavily criticized for their works.
@MrBigEnchilada The criticism they received was what determined that they were in fact worthy of the nobel prize to begin with. Criticism is not necessarily a negative thing. Criticism is the strength of science. The scientific method is a self correcting method. You say "im not saying science is just faith, but alot of it is". What do you mean by that? Science is not faith whatsoever. If there is not enough evidence to reach a reasonable conclusion then belief is withheld.
@chuckwagon1645 im not saying science is just faith, but alot of it is, when you consider what we know and then what we might know. A physicist who discover something new, say, a new form of carbon, might find the courage to publish it, then his peers will tell him to re-read the general chemistry textbook and come back explain what lab errors he made during the experiment.
@MrBigEnchilada Saying "we don't know" to certain details of our knowledge is the honest answer. Just because science may get it wrong at times does not mean they are faith based beliefs. It just means they were wrong. But the beliefs were consistent TO THE KNOWLEDGE we had at the time. I fail to see how any of that constitutes faith.
@MrBigEnchilada And yes you CAN be a scientist and a theist simultaneously, however the truth is those types of scientists are a vast minority within the scientific community. That is a fact. I hate to appeal to majority but that does speak for itself on this matter.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
For in the case that your agenda/beliefs were to be true, one whose whole life was on a foundation of a love and dedication to God, would be completely distraught, confused and lost. There is no comfort in that. I must question how devout you once were, to be so unsympathetic to the faithful believer.
@pmickel7 'in the case that your agenda/beliefs were to be true, one whose whole life was on a foundation of a love and dedication to God, would be completely distraught, confused and lost.'
—Yup — that's what I went through when I realised there was absolutely no evidence for any gods. It sucked. What sucks more though is a comforting illusion.
'I must question how devout you once were, to be so unsympathetic to the faithful believer.'
—I'm sympathetic to the believer — but not their beliefs.
@TheraminTrees also Is it sympathetic to not cure a blind man when you can because he might be dissapointed? To never let the faithful beleiver to see all sides would be "unsympathetic", to let his mind only ever hear from one veiw point is to lie. May I make the point that if the statement "one whose whole life was on a foundation of a love and dedication to God, would be completely distraught, confused and lost" is true, then would it be our fault for liberateing them from lies?
@pmickel7 It is a sad thing to say that without a belief in a divine creator to give you a sense of purpose then you would feel "distraught, confused and lost". If you had never been indoctrinated with or formed these beliefs about the world then you would most likely have found other things to give you this sense of purpose. (Science, Humanity, etc)
@TheraminTrees for you to say that by one reading the bible in its etirety and coming to an accurate understanding will prove that God is an immoral tyrant is wrong. It would seem that you too are pushing a radical agenda/belief upon those that have lack of or no knowledge of Christianity. Finding comfort in there being no God is a selfish and non compassionate thing for you to say.
@pmickel7 Nope, I'm not pushing my beliefs on anyone — I'm inviting people to look and think for themselves. If you have a counter-argument to any arguments I've made in the video, let's hear them. I notice you're not doing that though, are you — instead you're going the same old way I see time after time: personal insinuation, unsubstantiated assertions and empty rhetoric — eg 'Read the bible yourself to find the true God'. Funny that when I then say read the bible, I have an 'agenda'.
When the religious proselytize to the corners of the globe it is just "spreading the good word" yet let an Atheist simply state "I don't believe in your god" and we are accused of "shoving our beliefs down peoples throats." It is a clear statement on just how weak they understand their argument to be, that they do not want it to face even the slightest scrutiny.
@pmickel7 If the book was not called the Holy Bible the character of god would be the villain and the character of Satan would be, well, just a character.....or maybe middle of the road revolutionary of sorts. But Satan was certainly not the villain in the Bible- no more than the United States in the late 1700’s was the villain.
Those with opinions and misguided reasonings on God and Christianity and HAVE NOT read the bible and had an accurate understanding, are speaking on a topic that they know nothing of and are only going based on their own understanding and hear say. Read the bible yourself to find the true God. Not what others have misinterpreted.
@pmickel7 Whereas those with clear reasoning, who have read the bible — like me, a former devout christian — are speaking on a topic they do know about. I encourage folks emphatically: please do read the bible — seriously, read it. And learn just what an immoral tyrrant you're being asked to submit yourself to. Then perhaps find comfort in the fact there's no evidence of that proposed being — no more than all the 1000s upon 1000s of other proposed gods and supernatural beings.
"Read the bible yourself." Absolutely! Most atheists encourage such exploration. We only ask that people (1) look at the bible as objectively as they can, and not start with any presuppositions about it (e.g., don't ASSUME that it's the "word of God"), and (2) read the ENTIRE bible--not just the "good bits" their pastors share with them in church.
It's no coincidence that the average atheist knows more about the bible than the average Christian.
@pmickel7 It's quite likely that many people have interpreted the bible with their own agenda of showboating it as moral simply because they believe it "MUST" be good if it supposedly comes from god. The poor interpretation can go either way. Your making the same mistake your accusing TheraminTrees of making by insisting that if someone interprets it to be immoral then they somehow got it wrong.
you're logic is flawless and beautiful, making people trip over themselves in their own definitions. cudos my friend, you have shown great logical capability, you have earned 1 internets :P
also; dont forget the saying "science can tell you the fruit a seed will bare, but only god can tell you how many fruits it will bare." for your timeless god decapitation :)
@theramintrees. Well done! I think of this as spreading sanity. You've articulated what I've thought about this for my entire adult life. I just read a page or two of the comments but it didn't see any theists challenging you here. Good show!
@prophetofdoom Thanks. It's amusing how quickly some people get carried away, inventing all manner of ad hoc details about their deities — so concerned with their rhetorical aims, they forget the fact with each claim they're shovelling more and more burden of proof upon themselves.
@hybridamerica Ads are based on where you live and what you tend to view on Youtube and around the net. It sure confused the hell outta me when I got here to Prague and all the Youtube ads were about Czech food products...
@hybridamerica I thougt that the adds are personolized for each, based on their browser histories or something like that. The add that I am getting is for pizza, looks delicius.
I think that the "right-wing political propaganda ads" might just be for you hybridamerica.
This is a decent effort. But, a lot of the supposedly contradictory traits can function in theoretical models that are not constrained to newtonian concepts and metaphysical loops. This video is no more valid logically than many other videos theist or not here on Youtube. Shame really I heard good things about these vids. Just my opinion though, if you disagree that is fine by me, as your opinion is likely just as valid as mine. Good day!
@WOAHyourBoat Your comment is just an assertion, thus, of no use to anyone. Can you actually support what your are saying? If you can plz do it! It should be interesting and enlightening! (I’m not being sarcastic)
@COEXISTential I dunno, but Dan Barker suggests that as John 7:38 states: "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.", it indicates to him that those that believe in an omnipresent, totally free, all-knowing, all-good and all-powerful god are omni-aqueous: all wet.
Christians, don't forget, God holds us accountable for sins he knew we would commit before the foundation of the world. His "grace" gives us an opportunity to be saved (saved from his invented punishment) by begging for forgiveness, admitting it's our fault, and believing in his sacrificed son by faith alone.
God loves and believes in you, but if you don't return the favor you will be tortured forever. P.S.- God knew that before he created you!
I sometimes pose your "good tree, bad fruit" logic in the form of a first cause argument, just for the irony. If you start from Eve chomping on that fruit and keep asking "Why did that happen?", you cannot help but end up at the statement "Because God made him/her/it flawed."
I would consider not having knowledge of good and evil a flaw.
I would wonder how a moral entity can hold morally responsible a being he knows did not have knowledge of good and evil at the time of its "crime".
I would wonder how a moral entity (who knew a being had no knowledge of good and evil) would expect that being to respond when presented with another being telling a "lie" (that was the truth), when the entity had told that being a "truth" (that was a lie) and forced to choose.
@rkyeun Right on man. A being without the concept of morality would be extremely gullible and quite possibly dangerous, as they would never figure anything they were doing was wrong since they wouldn't have the concept of wrongness/evil. DuhIdiot1 really said that being without morality would be an improvement?
I don't believe so. I think he was applying the "good tree cannot bear bad fruit" line to Eve's actions with the apple to show that disobedience proves she was already bad, and by extension so was God. I went a step further back and proposed that being without morality was already flawed on its own (though not in a way that could be its fault) and put it directly on god without a middle step.
Theramin, these first two vids in this series are the first of yours that I've watched, but I'm going to go ahead and throw in with those praising you as perhaps the clearest and most lucid of the YouTube atheists. This vid touched on what could have been a bewildering array of topics and subtopics, but presented substantive arguments quickly, clearly, and without wandering off-subject. Textbook performance, man.
Link, you never cease to amaze me. Your clear thinking and concise explanations are simply dazzling. It seems to me the only way anyone could watch your videos and remain Christian (or any other religion) is by simply refusing to see and hear what you present with such devastating clarity.
@Largo64 Hey Larry, thanks muchly, and hope you're doing well ;8) I've not forgotten the tag you sent about death — circumstances have led to quite a bottleneck in regards to my available time for YT — hence this response series being about eleven months late. But I'm doing an amalgam video, which should be next up, with three tags that seem to tesselate, if somewhat perversely — including yours.
@Largo64 "it seens to me..." I think it makes them feel better because it would then take more faith to believe which has them clapping their hands three times and saying "Wow, my faith is stronger than I thought"
This is just another big case of miss interpretations. If you're gonna quote the Bible then do it right. Explain each verse, don't just say one then go off on some lead. No offense of course but I dislike it when people explain verses to people that maybe haven't ever seen them so they have no say in what they mean.
wether or not you belive in god, it will always be like this.
if you only believe in god, your ignorant.
if you only belive in scientific facts, your ignorant.
in order for you to not be ignorant you must be able to accept things from both sides. One thing that both of these have in common is that they both have things that cannot be explained.
@globalchaos1984 It was planned for this week. There are some horrendous things going on in the UK at the moment, that we're all trying to get to grips with, so part three might be slightly delayed.
What this means is that everybody who doesn't have a complete understanding of God's purpose will get a second chance (possibly) when they die. In the end it's all about our morals. I think that by following God's rules you can make your and other lives more valuable, and that is reason enough to follow his principals. I never ask myself "What if God really doesn't exist?" because I know that this wouldn't change my behaviour.
@pite9 'Don't fear God, instead look at him for guidance.'
—You can't fear what you don't believe in, so there's no fear here. And you seem to have a very detailed idea of what 'hell' is — it's a pity that everything you've said about it is utterly meaningless because there's neither evidence for any such phenomenon, nor any means of gaining it. All you've written amounts to nothing more than a brief spot of creative writing.
@TheraminTrees Yeah, I can't prove the validity of my interpretations, but my point is that you tried to prove that he doesn't exist by looking into minor details of human interpretations, and I showed that you can interpret the Bible differently. If someone of God's power exists, he's way too intelligent and complex for a simple human to understand, so trying to logically find out if he exists is a impossible task.
@pite9 Nope, I didn't try to prove gods don't exist — I don't need to: the burden is on those making the positive claim. You're free to interpret whatever holy book however you like — and choose your own interpretation. But, like I say, there's no difference between doing that and any other piece of creative writing.
@TheraminTrees Well, in this video you've discussed the validity of certain specific interpretations, and you have assumed that these interpretations are 100% valid. Someone of your intelligence should know better.
I'm not interested in discussing religion, I just want to show you that you can't look at religion with a logical mindset, because since noone knows exactly who God is and how he operates, your conclusion are entirely in the hands of your interpretations and how valid they are.
@pite9 ''you have assumed that these interpretations are 100% valid'
—Nope — I've actually done the reverse — I've shown these particular interpretations have no validity. And this is by no means an exhaustive list — I'll be dealing with further unworkable interpretations in the third video.
'.... since noone knows exactly who God is ....'
—No one knows 'exactly'? No one's presented anything approaching a credible case that they know gods in any sense whatsoever, nevermind 'exactly'.
@TheraminTrees You misunderstood my point. Yes, you have shown that particular interpretations are invalid, and my point is that these interpretations that you were analyzing might have been invalid representations of the Bible in the first place. This is not very far-fetched, since the Bible was written and translated by humans, plus most things are also open to interpretation.
You can't analyze the validity of religion based on mainstream ideas.
@pite9 you cant "analyze" religion in a scientific concept of any scale.....it just doesnt hold up, its ultimate only point is..."we dont know"...and you can not make "belief's" valid...
@pite9 '... these interpretations ... might have been invalid representations of the Bible in the first place.'
—er, that's kind of implicit in the whole notion of 'interpretations'. Biblical interpretations differ — answering an interpretation doesn't mean I'm assuming that it's the valid representation of the bible — I'm addressing their argument. I tend to give viewers credit for knowing this obvious stuff. I analyse religious claims on the grounds they're given, mainstream or idiosyncratic.
@pite9 'I just want to show you that you can't look at religion with a logical mindset'
—Of course you can. If someone makes claims about something's existence, then they need to give justifications for those claims. Religions makes those claims — so they need to provide the justifications. If they can't, then their claims can be dismissed.
@pite9 I see. So you're that "one true christian" that simply everyone claims to be. Easy enough for you to dismantle other's interpretations of gospel, but yours is where the rubber meets the road, eh? You claim "that by following god's rules you can make your and other lives more valuable". Have you looked over god's "rules" lately? It seems god is in the business of demeaning and devaluing as many lives as possible. Or is this just my erroneous interpretation?
@fdasherv That God wants to put us down is just a interpretation that is based on the behaviours of a few Christians who doesn't understand Christianity fully, but still thinks they have the right to speak in God's name. I think God gave us guidelines to help us, not to have control over us. He's in fact the opposite of that, since he wants us to choose from right and wrong ourselves. I'm sure I could find a lot of atheists with messed up beliefs. Does that make atheism invalid?
@pite9 You're obviously the "one true christian" in the world. Please refer us to the correct parts of the bible that so perfectly tells us what god wants of us. Which guidelines are correct? For every one you indicate, another "true christian" will point out twenty others. They will speak for god as easily as you do. Do you see where this leaves us? It leaves us at the point where a person's theology is tailored perfectly to that person's predetermined human foibles. Yours included.
@fdasherv The Bible is correct as a whole, but there are probably some things that are not accurate, since it was written and translated many times by ppl. Some ppl also take things out of context, or just plainly interpret it wrong. I've never said I'm the true Christian, I'm just saying you sceptists look too much into what a few loud Christians say. Me and many other Christians don't stand for these specific views and interpretations, so why do you take it for granted that God does?
@pite9 Ah, so the bible is correct. I suppose, then, you support slavery. I suppose we should stone unruly children to death. Say, when do you intend to sell your daughter? Genocide and rape squads are a good thing, I see. And let's remember to kill homosexuals. Have you rewarded a rapist today? That's what god would have you do. Have you sold your belongings and abandoned your family yet? Do you willfully lie to satisfy a biblical imperative? If not, you violate the bible's instruction.
@fdasherv You can't discuss with someone who will do anything to interpret things wrong. You pick up opinions that is comfortable to your intellect, and only accept ideas that have been proven, and you reject everything else. There's nothing I can say that would change your mind, because I can't prove the validity of God or the Bible. If I could prove it, God's plan would be obsolete, because then everybody would follow him because they had to, not because they wanted to.
@pite9 why did god prove himself to other people in the stories? was it necessary back then but isn't now? are modern people supposed to accept the assertions from other humans about what the creator of the universe wants?
@georgek19 accepting God isn't about accepting other ppl's stories, it's about asking God yourself if they are true and what they mean. The Bible just introduces us to God.
Accepting God is like educating yourself and getting a job. It can seem like a drag to some ppl, but you're doing it for a purpose, to help yourself have a more meaningful life. Some ppl are lazy, or think they know better than God, so they reject God for their own set of rules.
@pite9 how do you know for certain the bible introduces anyone to god? how is anyone supposed to know for sure they are talking to yahweh?
how would you respond if someone said the same thing you just said but concerning a different god?
also, some people are raised with nothing but the bible in their lives, through no choice of their own. are there approaches to Christianity that are better or worse than others?
Comment removed
andygray 12 hours ago
Just found your videos via comments on Xoroaster's latest. Subbed immediately. Great work.
JUSTHELLBENT 3 weeks ago in playlist there are no gods
Perfectly said/done TheraminTrees ★★★★★
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 3 weeks ago in playlist there are no gods
I consider myself the eternal agnostic, that is, unless irrefutable evidence shows up...;-)
BloodTar 3 weeks ago in playlist there are no gods
Well done, Hope you will continue the good work. I really enjoy all of the videos you have made that I have watched so far. I have been a fan of your brother Qualia Soup for some time and sort of stumbled across your work :) Anyhow excellent stuff, I look forward to more good reasoning from you and your brother. Thanks.
andygray 4 weeks ago
"Omnipotence goes from being the ability to do anything, to the ability to anything that doesn't conflict with the beings other properties. By that definition, I'm omnipotent." Flawless victory.
icntsywhtiwnt2 1 month ago
Typically the counter argument(If you call it that) in the characteristics of god are just to accept a limited number of these claims as true. So, God goes from being benevolent to actually having an ego and being a vengeful being.
What do you say to someone who accepts some claims and argues that god does have some boundaries? I know you say that it contradicts the supporting text, but that usually leads back into "you read it wrong" and "its from man not god"
Luigitakesover 1 month ago
I tried to explain the incompatibility of anger and omniscience to a Christian and he simply couldn't get his head around the notion of knowing all outcomes nullifying the capacity for anger and wrath. This was before I'd even seen this excellent video of yours so I'm pleased to hear someone expressing this view as I was, even though my attempt was sadly in vain
AmazingSpiderDan 1 month ago
did anyone else get a single muslims add before this video? yay for irony
judoisoww 1 month ago
@TheraminTrees always felt atheistic but in the last couple of years felt pantheistic but still adhere to humanism, some athiests are annoyed we refer to the universe as 'god' or that when someone is angry or stressed we feel negative 'energy' or happy and joyful positive 'energy' do the semantics matter?
Tygabone 1 month ago
@Tygabone I certainly don't see the point of getting annoyed about it. But wouldn't you say that the fact you're even asking that question shows that semantics do matter? I'd say it's an issue of communication. On the universe as 'god' issue — why use the word 'god' instead of 'universe'. If they were proposed as meaning the same, why not stick with universe — clearly something's being added. If something's is being added, I would say: let it be defined and discussed.
TheraminTrees 1 month ago 13
@Tygabone My view of energy is this: Energy = Magic. Good thoughts = Prayers, Negative thoughts = Curses
Ultimape 3 weeks ago
A fantastic video. I should have seen these in order but I saw the first minute and got stuck watching the rest. You have a way with words and you've managed to explain everything wonderfully clearly. It is mind-boggling that some people in these comments still fail to understand these basic concepts of reason.
B1ackmagic 1 month ago 11
@B1ackmagic Thanks! ;8)
TheraminTrees 1 month ago 2
So I am interested to hear your thoughts. Do you condemn christians like me? Or just the idiots that you see on TV sometimes that are picking apart the bible and saying "LOOK, everybody! This line right here in the bible, the bible that was written by humans and has hundreds of different versions, that has been changed hundreds of times, suggests the world will end tomorrow!"
Its kinda like a mozaic painting. Looking at 1 dot is not going to help you see the whole picture much clearer
ScopedPewPew 1 month ago
@ScopedPewPew This isn’t about condemning anyone — it’s simply acknowledging there’s no evidence for the existence of any gods. We can all claim all sorts of imaginary creatures exist. But the burden of proof is on the person making the claim — the other party has no burden. Saying ‘you can’t prove or disprove them’ is no answer. The ground is not even.
Most atheists are well aware of the range of different beliefs about how to interpret the bible. Literal or not, no evidence is no evidence.
TheraminTrees 1 month ago 6
@TheraminTrees I see. That's why I stay away from the arguments hehe you can't prove or disprove so its sorta futile to get into a long argument about it :/
ScopedPewPew 1 month ago
@ScopedPewPew 'you can't prove or disprove so its sorta futile to get into a long argument about it'
—It appears you've completely missed what I've just said about the burden of proof. No wonder it all seems so futile to you.
TheraminTrees 1 month ago 5
@TheraminTrees No I will agree you are right that there is no evidence of God. It would be like you saying to me to prove that God exists (Which I am not even confident in saying he is, because I can't prove it) So it would be unfair for me to say "Why don't you prove he doesn't exist?"
The burden of proof would lie on the person claiming he does exist, because there is no evidence that he does exist. Lack of evidence of something not existing doesn't mean something does exist
ScopedPewPew 1 month ago
@ScopedPewPew Thanks — I appreciate you saying that. That's what these videos are pointing out: there's no evidence for the existence of gods; and for those who claim gods exist, they own the burden of proof. Of course many folks simply don't care about evidence. To them, it's good enough to say 'it's true for me' — ie 'I'm going to redefine the word "true" according to what I want to be true.' Those folks are not my target audience — I seek folks who care about whether their beliefs are true.
TheraminTrees 1 month ago
@TheraminTrees Mhm to be honest im a christian but im more like an atheist christian heh I have it just for the values not really the hocus pocus
ScopedPewPew 1 month ago
@ScopedPewPew My sister is the same way! Of course when I ask her what the 10 commandments are or mention the sections of the bible dealing with the way you should treat your slave, or when it's ok to kill children she has no clue. Hasn't read the bible but just likes the general gist of it all; even though that gist is not really there.
B0ombastix 1 month ago
@B0ombastix Hm yeah but you have to remember the bible was written a long time ago in a different time. And usually when they talk about slaves its more like a servant, than the kind of african slave working on a plantation picking cotton that you and I think of. As for the verses permissing killing of children I don't have anything to say about that, heh.
In my opinion, Christianity would be a lot better if they cut out the old testament.
ScopedPewPew 1 month ago
@B0ombastix As for the commandments you can remember them all with 1 rule... Love everyone. If you're not sure if something goes against the 10 commandments, ask yourself.. Is it a loving act? If not, then its probably not part of the 10 commandments
ScopedPewPew 1 month ago
But do not feel I am chastising you I'm just speaking for the few christians who actually get it. In my opinion the world would be better off without religion, yes, because people wouldn't be arguing and blowing each other up because they think their god is real and another god is not. I actually like how other religions are similar to christianity. Islam's #1 rule of "Do another man no harm" is similar to our rule of "Love one another as yourself"
ScopedPewPew 1 month ago
PS yes I am a christian but I am one of the few people who sort of "gets it" if you will. They could pretty much throw every last page of the bible out except for the gospels and christianity would still have its core values.
The #1 rule of christianity? Love everyone. That's it. So Rule #1. Love everybody, be fair and kind. Rule #2, when in doubt look to rule #1. Your entire life can be lived off of just this rule. The rest is extra / not needed. Most PRIESTS will agree.
ScopedPewPew 1 month ago
So to find a paradox in the Adam and Eve story is not exactly the most justifiable story. The main point of the adam and eve story? God created everything, in his image. That's it. It doesn't matter what order he made it, what words were supposedly said, as for Eve tempting adam, it shows that humans are imperfect and susceptible to temptation and other sin.
Hope this makes more sense.
ScopedPewPew 1 month ago
You can neither prove nor disprove god... The bible is a spiritual book, not a factual book. It was written by humans anyways, so its not gonna be perfect.
Although I like your presentation and it does make sense in a logical sense, I really think that arguments like this are stupid because can you prove god exists? No. can you prove 100% god doesnt exist? no.
ALSO, most catholic PRIESTS dont even take stories like adam and eve as literal truth. *Read next
ScopedPewPew 1 month ago
You find contradictions everywhere because you are a 'hostile witness'. To find harmony of concepts you have to be the opposite - a 'loving' witness.
e.g. God cannot make something so heavy he cannot lift it himself.
Hostile witness : therefore omnipotence is impossible
Loving witness; omnipotence can't mean that.
Hostile witness: then you are just manipulating the concepts to suit yourself
Loving witness: you are just exaggerating the concepts to suit yourself.
Alenandme 1 month ago
@Alenandme Nope. I found contradictions as a christian who sought harmony, so the idea that finding contradictions implies 'hostile witness', and harmony implies 'loving witness' is false. Implying that I'm hostile, therefore my arguments are distorted, is an ad hominem fallacy. Also, I explicitly noted Mavrodes' description of tasks like lifting an unliftable rock as 'pseudo-tasks' — and didn't use them. If you have an argument against anything I've actually said, by all means share it.
TheraminTrees 1 month ago 7
@TheraminTrees Changing minds by force of logic is illusory. The choice of an individual determines the meanings of initial concepts etc., so even logic can't escape individual choices (a 'hominem' component).
What I said gives a good idea of what I would say; so, if you find nothing of merit in what I said, you won't find anything of merit in what else I would say.
All of us have the need to find the real truth about our lives. Seeking victories over one another only hinders this aim
Alenandme 1 month ago
@Alenandme '.... if you find nothing of merit in what I said, you won't find anything of merit in what else I would say.'
—This approach seems very all-or-nothing. You might instead entertain that there'll be some things people will agree with you about — and other things they'll disagree with you about. I pointed out to you where your reasoning — about why I find contradictions — was in fact fallacious. If you don't wish to hear your flaws, then I don't hold much hope for your search for truth.
TheraminTrees 1 month ago 12
Great presentation!
fkreuz 2 months ago
Awesome vid! You KILLED IT, man!
palerider1775 2 months ago
@strangemanwalking especially feminists...
cr1m1nalspeed 2 months ago
@strangemanwalking because lucifer was his girlfriend thats why lucifer literally mirrors womens behaviors on earth
cr1m1nalspeed 2 months ago
If god is perfect then why would he create an angel that would betray him? If god is perfect hoe would he make the "mistake" of giving Lucifer almost god like powers?
strangemanwalking 2 months ago
Another contradiction I came across was the idea of omnipotence and perfection in the same being that has specific traits attributed to it. If it's omnipotent and perfect, it should be able to do anything perfectly, therefore, giving it a specific trait like being perfectly loving would also imply that it's perfectly hateful. This means it would be neutral not only in that aspect but in all aspects. It's weird to me that people would trust a perfectly neutral being to mold their lives for them.
f00tstep 2 months ago 3
@f00tstep You highlight the problem facing those who allude to a perfect being — how is that perfection manifested? This is no small question, because folks like Descartes underpin their ontological ideas with the claim that they can 'clearly and distinctly' conceive of a perfect being — unsubstantiated claim. As soon as we ask for details, we see it's not anywhere near clear, distinct — or coherent.
TheraminTrees 2 months ago
I absolutelly love this video, its probably the most powerfull well condensed argument about theism.
radelgratereaux 2 months ago
Dear Flatmate,
Living with you is OK. But I want to tell you something about this flat that I've noticed. This place has become spooky. I don't know if you've noticed it, too. I want to talk to you about it.
It started at about the same time you bought that theramin.
naganokumas 2 months ago
Another awesome video! Well done.
NateKirch 2 months ago
I also thought about the fact that no Gods show anyone the "right religion" how can you punish someone because they didnt know any better? Also for the Adam and eve story, I always wondered how a God could justify, not only knowing what was going to happen, but not stopping it and then punishing every human on the earth? Does that make any sense ??
musicfan315 2 months ago
a strange game... the only winning move is not to play
captainghey 2 months ago in playlist More videos from TheraminTrees
Absolutely love the analogy at 9:00.
eskrod1 2 months ago
i still remain an agnostic.
MrBigEnchilada 2 months ago
@MrBigEnchilada
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Atheism is about belief. Agnosticism is about knowledge.
eskrod1 2 months ago
@eskrod1 So you're saying that it makes sense to say "I don't have a belief in gods and that NO one has a knowledge whether god exist or not" or
" I have a belief in gods and that NO one has a knowledge whether god exist or not".
My understanding is that if you dont believe in gods, it means you reject any possible knowledge that any god exists...because if you dont think this way, then you're not an atheist, or theist (in a similar case).
MrBigEnchilada 2 months ago
@MrBigEnchilada What is your definition of atheist? "agnostic" is a recent term coined by Thomas Huxley to define a position of suspended belief due to lack of knowledge or "evidence". It still LACKS belief. It is therefore irrelevant when discussing the issue of what you BELIEVE. Knowledge is a different thing. Someone can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
chuckwagon1645 2 months ago
@chuckwagon1645 my definition of atheist would be a person who lacks belief in gods. You say that agnostic cannot be categorized the same way as athiest or theist, and that you can be an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist. If that's the case what's the difference between an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist then?
MrBigEnchilada 2 months ago
@MrBigEnchilada Simple. The atheist lacks belief in a deity. The theist holds a belief in a deity. The similarity they share is both do not claim to absolutely know for sure. This difference in gnosticim and theism is poorly pointed out in common public discourse. That is why so many still think atheism is strictly "there are no gods".
chuckwagon1645 2 months ago
@chuckwagon1645 "The similarity they share is both do not claim to absolutely know for sure". You show me a theist who says he's not sure that HIS god exists, and that everything he knows is only based on faith and miracles.
Then you show me an atheist who says rationality/science is preferable to faith, but then tell you he's not sure if rationality can be applied in understanding gods.
MrBigEnchilada 2 months ago
@MrBigEnchilada I said an AGNOSTIC theist is defined as such. Not that there are many of them out there. Because most theists claim absolute certainty when speaking of their god(s). Majority of Christians are GNOSTIC theists.
chuckwagon1645 2 months ago
@MrBigEnchilada An atheist would tell you that rationality/science should be applied to ALL areas of our lives if we truly want a better world.
chuckwagon1645 2 months ago
@chuckwagon1645 The very concept of gods makes them unknowable and unexplainable. That is why the god hypothesis fails as an explanation for how everything exists. I can make up any number of "magic" beings and assign them characteristics similar to that of the christian god and already my new "god" is equally valid a belief as a christian's is.
chuckwagon1645 2 months ago
@chuckwagon1645 i think its safe to say that the theist and the atheist are equally eager and convinced themselves that they want others to support their own viewpoints, They believe what they have is the truth. They also feel that the other sides (perhaps other religions) should just accept their truths even though none of them have very convincing evidence. Thus they come up with their own evidence.
MrBigEnchilada 2 months ago
@MrBigEnchilada See your trying to take this peaceful "middle ground" position and your somehow seeing your position as more intelligent because your imagining this as a two sided battle type scenario. When actually your on the atheist side because you lack belief in a deity but somehow respect religious beliefs because why? Because they are "possibly" true? This is not about possibilities. This is about probabilities. What is "probably" true.
chuckwagon1645 2 months ago
@chuckwagon1645 In addition to what people DO with these beliefs. These beliefs form the basis for things like banning (stem cell research, discrimination against homosexuals, etc).
chuckwagon1645 2 months ago
@chuckwagon1645 the interesting thing is you can be a scientist and a religious person. One might think that is an agnostic theist, who thinks god exist, but cant seem to prove it. What one should realize is that the "scientific method" is also a form of faith. One has doubted stories like chemosynthesis, buckministerfullerene, and expansion of newton's theory of universal gravitation. It's just that we accept this form of faith better because it's actually USEFUL :\
MrBigEnchilada 2 months ago
@MrBigEnchilada That my good sir is NOT faith. The usefulness of the said belief is itself the reason to hold the belief. Belief in the supernatural is much different than belief in physical, demonstrable processes like described by science. The fact that there are multiple theories does not negate the fact that some are more right than others due to their consistency with current data. The scientific method has proven itself to be the best current method to determine fact from fantasy.
chuckwagon1645 2 months ago
@chuckwagon1645 but science is not intended to prove religion, so that if a god exists, it does not diminish or support any of our scientific knowledge. One of the notable example of scientific disputes was when einstein said that the universe had been the same size as it was when it formed or else the planets will crash into each other due to gravity. Of course better telescopes allowed us to see redshifts and conclude the universe was expanding.
MrBigEnchilada 2 months ago
@MrBigEnchilada Of course science is not intended to prove religion. I agree. The very nature of religious claims makes them unverifiable and unjustified to hold as a worldview. Science is the BEST method for determining the truth value of things. Religion fails to meet its burden of proof on many fronts. Not saying religious claims are wrong as an absolute statement but given what we know of them, it sure seems that is the most likely conclusion.
chuckwagon1645 2 months ago
@chuckwagon1645 Similarly, biologists had long held certain characteristics of life to be essential for all organisms, this was fundamentally changed when they discovered organisms that didnt need sunlight or noticeable food to survive but rather chemosynthesis. Biochemists thought water traveled through cells freely, then found new proteins that regulate water flow. Many of these scientists are nobel prize winners, but they were initially heavily criticized for their works.
MrBigEnchilada 2 months ago
@MrBigEnchilada The criticism they received was what determined that they were in fact worthy of the nobel prize to begin with. Criticism is not necessarily a negative thing. Criticism is the strength of science. The scientific method is a self correcting method. You say "im not saying science is just faith, but alot of it is". What do you mean by that? Science is not faith whatsoever. If there is not enough evidence to reach a reasonable conclusion then belief is withheld.
chuckwagon1645 2 months ago
@MrBigEnchilada Remember faith is belief that is held without evidence.
chuckwagon1645 2 months ago
@chuckwagon1645 im not saying science is just faith, but alot of it is, when you consider what we know and then what we might know. A physicist who discover something new, say, a new form of carbon, might find the courage to publish it, then his peers will tell him to re-read the general chemistry textbook and come back explain what lab errors he made during the experiment.
MrBigEnchilada 2 months ago
@MrBigEnchilada Saying "we don't know" to certain details of our knowledge is the honest answer. Just because science may get it wrong at times does not mean they are faith based beliefs. It just means they were wrong. But the beliefs were consistent TO THE KNOWLEDGE we had at the time. I fail to see how any of that constitutes faith.
chuckwagon1645 2 months ago
@MrBigEnchilada And yes you CAN be a scientist and a theist simultaneously, however the truth is those types of scientists are a vast minority within the scientific community. That is a fact. I hate to appeal to majority but that does speak for itself on this matter.
chuckwagon1645 2 months ago
Very well said. Clear, concise, easy to understand, I'm interested to see what the apologists would have to say to this.
Y2KillerSPOOBLY 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
For in the case that your agenda/beliefs were to be true, one whose whole life was on a foundation of a love and dedication to God, would be completely distraught, confused and lost. There is no comfort in that. I must question how devout you once were, to be so unsympathetic to the faithful believer.
pmickel7 2 months ago
@pmickel7 'in the case that your agenda/beliefs were to be true, one whose whole life was on a foundation of a love and dedication to God, would be completely distraught, confused and lost.'
—Yup — that's what I went through when I realised there was absolutely no evidence for any gods. It sucked. What sucks more though is a comforting illusion.
'I must question how devout you once were, to be so unsympathetic to the faithful believer.'
—I'm sympathetic to the believer — but not their beliefs.
TheraminTrees 2 months ago 18
@TheraminTrees also Is it sympathetic to not cure a blind man when you can because he might be dissapointed? To never let the faithful beleiver to see all sides would be "unsympathetic", to let his mind only ever hear from one veiw point is to lie. May I make the point that if the statement "one whose whole life was on a foundation of a love and dedication to God, would be completely distraught, confused and lost" is true, then would it be our fault for liberateing them from lies?
yyflame 1 month ago in playlist there are no gods
@pmickel7 It is a sad thing to say that without a belief in a divine creator to give you a sense of purpose then you would feel "distraught, confused and lost". If you had never been indoctrinated with or formed these beliefs about the world then you would most likely have found other things to give you this sense of purpose. (Science, Humanity, etc)
chuckwagon1645 2 months ago
@TheraminTrees for you to say that by one reading the bible in its etirety and coming to an accurate understanding will prove that God is an immoral tyrant is wrong. It would seem that you too are pushing a radical agenda/belief upon those that have lack of or no knowledge of Christianity. Finding comfort in there being no God is a selfish and non compassionate thing for you to say.
pmickel7 2 months ago
@pmickel7 Nope, I'm not pushing my beliefs on anyone — I'm inviting people to look and think for themselves. If you have a counter-argument to any arguments I've made in the video, let's hear them. I notice you're not doing that though, are you — instead you're going the same old way I see time after time: personal insinuation, unsubstantiated assertions and empty rhetoric — eg 'Read the bible yourself to find the true God'. Funny that when I then say read the bible, I have an 'agenda'.
TheraminTrees 2 months ago 30
@TheraminTrees
When the religious proselytize to the corners of the globe it is just "spreading the good word" yet let an Atheist simply state "I don't believe in your god" and we are accused of "shoving our beliefs down peoples throats." It is a clear statement on just how weak they understand their argument to be, that they do not want it to face even the slightest scrutiny.
chrisose 2 months ago
@pmickel7 If the book was not called the Holy Bible the character of god would be the villain and the character of Satan would be, well, just a character.....or maybe middle of the road revolutionary of sorts. But Satan was certainly not the villain in the Bible- no more than the United States in the late 1700’s was the villain.
Jeffersonwazright 2 months ago
and i like your voice...it's so much fun.
burnhardship 2 months ago
I just like how the word 'suicide' written on those post-its looks like 'juicide'....death to all juice!
burnhardship 2 months ago
Those with opinions and misguided reasonings on God and Christianity and HAVE NOT read the bible and had an accurate understanding, are speaking on a topic that they know nothing of and are only going based on their own understanding and hear say. Read the bible yourself to find the true God. Not what others have misinterpreted.
pmickel7 2 months ago
@pmickel7 Whereas those with clear reasoning, who have read the bible — like me, a former devout christian — are speaking on a topic they do know about. I encourage folks emphatically: please do read the bible — seriously, read it. And learn just what an immoral tyrrant you're being asked to submit yourself to. Then perhaps find comfort in the fact there's no evidence of that proposed being — no more than all the 1000s upon 1000s of other proposed gods and supernatural beings.
TheraminTrees 2 months ago 33
Comment removed
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pmickel7
"Read the bible yourself." Absolutely! Most atheists encourage such exploration. We only ask that people (1) look at the bible as objectively as they can, and not start with any presuppositions about it (e.g., don't ASSUME that it's the "word of God"), and (2) read the ENTIRE bible--not just the "good bits" their pastors share with them in church.
It's no coincidence that the average atheist knows more about the bible than the average Christian.
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
@pmickel7 It's quite likely that many people have interpreted the bible with their own agenda of showboating it as moral simply because they believe it "MUST" be good if it supposedly comes from god. The poor interpretation can go either way. Your making the same mistake your accusing TheraminTrees of making by insisting that if someone interprets it to be immoral then they somehow got it wrong.
chuckwagon1645 2 months ago
@pmickel7 Imagine following dialogue:
-Do you believe in islam and the prothet muhammad?
-No.
-But how can you possibly dismiss it if you have not read the quaran yet?
I hope this shows you how futile your habit of dissmissing anyone "not reading and/or misinterpreting the bible" ultimatively is.
XmarkedSpot 1 month ago
- @ 09:58 - "You could say my Atheism is a refusal to play an impossible game" Bravo
shishilala 2 months ago
you're logic is flawless and beautiful, making people trip over themselves in their own definitions. cudos my friend, you have shown great logical capability, you have earned 1 internets :P
also; dont forget the saying "science can tell you the fruit a seed will bare, but only god can tell you how many fruits it will bare." for your timeless god decapitation :)
TheCrazyGameFreak 2 months ago
@theramintrees. Well done! I think of this as spreading sanity. You've articulated what I've thought about this for my entire adult life. I just read a page or two of the comments but it didn't see any theists challenging you here. Good show!
beautyinbreakdowns2 2 months ago
Well said! Well done! =D
Ital21 3 months ago
@Ital21 Thanks ;8)
TheraminTrees 3 months ago
12:32 - 12:43 best thing said the whole video.
prophetofdoom 3 months ago 2
@prophetofdoom Thanks. It's amusing how quickly some people get carried away, inventing all manner of ad hoc details about their deities — so concerned with their rhetorical aims, they forget the fact with each claim they're shovelling more and more burden of proof upon themselves.
TheraminTrees 3 months ago
You have an excellent flair for explaining yourself well.
Of course the accent doesn't hurt ;)
prophetofdoom 3 months ago
Wow, where has this video been all my life?! It's so concise and logical.
DantehMan 3 months ago
What's up with the right-wing political propaganda ads on your channel?
I guess you can't choose your sponsors?
hybridamerica 3 months ago
@hybridamerica 'right-wing political propaganda ads'
—Haven't seen them, but they're certainly not of my choosing.
TheraminTrees 3 months ago
@hybridamerica Ads are based on where you live and what you tend to view on Youtube and around the net. It sure confused the hell outta me when I got here to Prague and all the Youtube ads were about Czech food products...
DantehMan 3 months ago
@hybridamerica the ads are put there by google, not Thermain himself.
abbienarutogirl 3 months ago
@abbienarutogirl
It still sucks.
hybridamerica 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hybridamerica I thougt that the adds are personolized for each, based on their browser histories or something like that. The add that I am getting is for pizza, looks delicius.
I think that the "right-wing political propaganda ads" might just be for you hybridamerica.
myLastTears 2 months ago
What font do you use for the handwriting on the yellow strips?
rkyeun 4 months ago
@rkyeun It's one I designed based on one of my sisters' handwriting.
TheraminTrees 4 months ago
@TheraminTrees
Ah, proprietary then. ;)
rkyeun 4 months ago
This is a decent effort. But, a lot of the supposedly contradictory traits can function in theoretical models that are not constrained to newtonian concepts and metaphysical loops. This video is no more valid logically than many other videos theist or not here on Youtube. Shame really I heard good things about these vids. Just my opinion though, if you disagree that is fine by me, as your opinion is likely just as valid as mine. Good day!
WOAHyourBoat 4 months ago
@WOAHyourBoat
Your objection about increasingly metaphysical realms and unconstrained physics are directly addressed in this very video.
rkyeun 4 months ago
@rkyeun
I don't think you understood my comment well enough.
WOAHyourBoat 4 months ago
@WOAHyourBoat Your comment is just an assertion, thus, of no use to anyone. Can you actually support what your are saying? If you can plz do it! It should be interesting and enlightening! (I’m not being sarcastic)
rubentg1 4 months ago
@WOAHyourBoat Why would your opinion be as valid as his?
myLastTears 2 months ago
Is God maybe Omniridiculous?
COEXISTential 5 months ago 28
@COEXISTential I dunno, but Dan Barker suggests that as John 7:38 states: "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.", it indicates to him that those that believe in an omnipresent, totally free, all-knowing, all-good and all-powerful god are omni-aqueous: all wet.
steveb0503 5 months ago
@steveb0503 Ahh, I didn't know this, it ex-spleens a lot :D
It would be a good excuse to take the piss out of Christians, though, no?
COEXISTential 5 months ago
2nd best argument, right next to evidence
Desert713 5 months ago
Christians, don't forget, God holds us accountable for sins he knew we would commit before the foundation of the world. His "grace" gives us an opportunity to be saved (saved from his invented punishment) by begging for forgiveness, admitting it's our fault, and believing in his sacrificed son by faith alone.
God loves and believes in you, but if you don't return the favor you will be tortured forever. P.S.- God knew that before he created you!
metalsusa1 5 months ago 2
I sometimes pose your "good tree, bad fruit" logic in the form of a first cause argument, just for the irony. If you start from Eve chomping on that fruit and keep asking "Why did that happen?", you cannot help but end up at the statement "Because God made him/her/it flawed."
DuhIdiot1 5 months ago
@DuhIdiot1
I would consider not having knowledge of good and evil a flaw.
I would wonder how a moral entity can hold morally responsible a being he knows did not have knowledge of good and evil at the time of its "crime".
I would wonder how a moral entity (who knew a being had no knowledge of good and evil) would expect that being to respond when presented with another being telling a "lie" (that was the truth), when the entity had told that being a "truth" (that was a lie) and forced to choose.
rkyeun 4 months ago
@rkyeun Right on man. A being without the concept of morality would be extremely gullible and quite possibly dangerous, as they would never figure anything they were doing was wrong since they wouldn't have the concept of wrongness/evil. DuhIdiot1 really said that being without morality would be an improvement?
DantehMan 3 months ago
@DantehMan
I don't believe so. I think he was applying the "good tree cannot bear bad fruit" line to Eve's actions with the apple to show that disobedience proves she was already bad, and by extension so was God. I went a step further back and proposed that being without morality was already flawed on its own (though not in a way that could be its fault) and put it directly on god without a middle step.
rkyeun 3 months ago
Theramin, these first two vids in this series are the first of yours that I've watched, but I'm going to go ahead and throw in with those praising you as perhaps the clearest and most lucid of the YouTube atheists. This vid touched on what could have been a bewildering array of topics and subtopics, but presented substantive arguments quickly, clearly, and without wandering off-subject. Textbook performance, man.
DuhIdiot1 5 months ago 3
You made an excellent point on the discrepancy of god not been able to kill them self, really a fascinating argument
jose11216 5 months ago
wow, really sorry about all the repeat messages. I kept getting errors and had to retype everything. did not mean to spam the comments like that.
georgek19 5 months ago
9:00 This eloquently describes why I am humbly Agnostic. Very Good work.
Keiranforreal 5 months ago
Wow, your presentation and clarity is unrivalled.
TatsujinSan 5 months ago
Link, you never cease to amaze me. Your clear thinking and concise explanations are simply dazzling. It seems to me the only way anyone could watch your videos and remain Christian (or any other religion) is by simply refusing to see and hear what you present with such devastating clarity.
Largo64 5 months ago 7
@Largo64 Hey Larry, thanks muchly, and hope you're doing well ;8) I've not forgotten the tag you sent about death — circumstances have led to quite a bottleneck in regards to my available time for YT — hence this response series being about eleven months late. But I'm doing an amalgam video, which should be next up, with three tags that seem to tesselate, if somewhat perversely — including yours.
TheraminTrees 5 months ago
@Largo64 "it seens to me..." I think it makes them feel better because it would then take more faith to believe which has them clapping their hands three times and saying "Wow, my faith is stronger than I thought"
cheers
nedladdy 5 months ago
"...everybody would follow him because they had to, not because they WANTED to."
Here we have an unwittingly, a psychological confession of the true motive for a theist's belief. It's because they "WANT to".
sweetsweatyfeet 5 months ago
Where's part threeee!?!!
ksthebest 6 months ago
I get a logic boner everytime I watch this
kiddhitta 6 months ago 55
This is just another big case of miss interpretations. If you're gonna quote the Bible then do it right. Explain each verse, don't just say one then go off on some lead. No offense of course but I dislike it when people explain verses to people that maybe haven't ever seen them so they have no say in what they mean.
ThreeSixtyD 6 months ago
wether or not you belive in god, it will always be like this.
if you only believe in god, your ignorant.
if you only belive in scientific facts, your ignorant.
in order for you to not be ignorant you must be able to accept things from both sides. One thing that both of these have in common is that they both have things that cannot be explained.
juanrocks2001 6 months ago
To never lack being is not an inability
twocheesepots 6 months ago
Hey TheraminTrees when is part 3 coming out?
globalchaos1984 6 months ago
@globalchaos1984 It was planned for this week. There are some horrendous things going on in the UK at the moment, that we're all trying to get to grips with, so part three might be slightly delayed.
TheraminTrees 6 months ago 3
@TheraminTrees - i have a feeling you're probably the most harassed person ever to post a video on youtube so il keep it short:
keep up the good work bro
20BagBoy 4 months ago
you. are. AWESOME. AWESOMEE
OpqHMg 6 months ago 8
@OpqHMg Thank you ;8)
TheraminTrees 6 months ago
Great Video!
Very well established arguments. I'm re-watching this series again tonight after work. :)
Ital21 6 months ago
What this means is that everybody who doesn't have a complete understanding of God's purpose will get a second chance (possibly) when they die. In the end it's all about our morals. I think that by following God's rules you can make your and other lives more valuable, and that is reason enough to follow his principals. I never ask myself "What if God really doesn't exist?" because I know that this wouldn't change my behaviour.
Don't fear God, instead look at him for guidance.
pite9 6 months ago
@pite9 'Don't fear God, instead look at him for guidance.'
—You can't fear what you don't believe in, so there's no fear here. And you seem to have a very detailed idea of what 'hell' is — it's a pity that everything you've said about it is utterly meaningless because there's neither evidence for any such phenomenon, nor any means of gaining it. All you've written amounts to nothing more than a brief spot of creative writing.
TheraminTrees 6 months ago 14
@TheraminTrees Yeah, I can't prove the validity of my interpretations, but my point is that you tried to prove that he doesn't exist by looking into minor details of human interpretations, and I showed that you can interpret the Bible differently. If someone of God's power exists, he's way too intelligent and complex for a simple human to understand, so trying to logically find out if he exists is a impossible task.
pite9 6 months ago
@pite9 Nope, I didn't try to prove gods don't exist — I don't need to: the burden is on those making the positive claim. You're free to interpret whatever holy book however you like — and choose your own interpretation. But, like I say, there's no difference between doing that and any other piece of creative writing.
TheraminTrees 6 months ago
@TheraminTrees Well, in this video you've discussed the validity of certain specific interpretations, and you have assumed that these interpretations are 100% valid. Someone of your intelligence should know better.
I'm not interested in discussing religion, I just want to show you that you can't look at religion with a logical mindset, because since noone knows exactly who God is and how he operates, your conclusion are entirely in the hands of your interpretations and how valid they are.
pite9 6 months ago
@pite9 ''you have assumed that these interpretations are 100% valid'
—Nope — I've actually done the reverse — I've shown these particular interpretations have no validity. And this is by no means an exhaustive list — I'll be dealing with further unworkable interpretations in the third video.
'.... since noone knows exactly who God is ....'
—No one knows 'exactly'? No one's presented anything approaching a credible case that they know gods in any sense whatsoever, nevermind 'exactly'.
TheraminTrees 6 months ago
@TheraminTrees You misunderstood my point. Yes, you have shown that particular interpretations are invalid, and my point is that these interpretations that you were analyzing might have been invalid representations of the Bible in the first place. This is not very far-fetched, since the Bible was written and translated by humans, plus most things are also open to interpretation.
You can't analyze the validity of religion based on mainstream ideas.
pite9 6 months ago
@pite9 you cant "analyze" religion in a scientific concept of any scale.....it just doesnt hold up, its ultimate only point is..."we dont know"...and you can not make "belief's" valid...
stylesisdaman 6 months ago
@pite9 '... these interpretations ... might have been invalid representations of the Bible in the first place.'
—er, that's kind of implicit in the whole notion of 'interpretations'. Biblical interpretations differ — answering an interpretation doesn't mean I'm assuming that it's the valid representation of the bible — I'm addressing their argument. I tend to give viewers credit for knowing this obvious stuff. I analyse religious claims on the grounds they're given, mainstream or idiosyncratic.
TheraminTrees 6 months ago
@pite9 'I just want to show you that you can't look at religion with a logical mindset'
—Of course you can. If someone makes claims about something's existence, then they need to give justifications for those claims. Religions makes those claims — so they need to provide the justifications. If they can't, then their claims can be dismissed.
TheraminTrees 6 months ago
@pite9 I see. So you're that "one true christian" that simply everyone claims to be. Easy enough for you to dismantle other's interpretations of gospel, but yours is where the rubber meets the road, eh? You claim "that by following god's rules you can make your and other lives more valuable". Have you looked over god's "rules" lately? It seems god is in the business of demeaning and devaluing as many lives as possible. Or is this just my erroneous interpretation?
fdasherv 5 months ago
@fdasherv That God wants to put us down is just a interpretation that is based on the behaviours of a few Christians who doesn't understand Christianity fully, but still thinks they have the right to speak in God's name. I think God gave us guidelines to help us, not to have control over us. He's in fact the opposite of that, since he wants us to choose from right and wrong ourselves. I'm sure I could find a lot of atheists with messed up beliefs. Does that make atheism invalid?
pite9 5 months ago
@pite9 You're obviously the "one true christian" in the world. Please refer us to the correct parts of the bible that so perfectly tells us what god wants of us. Which guidelines are correct? For every one you indicate, another "true christian" will point out twenty others. They will speak for god as easily as you do. Do you see where this leaves us? It leaves us at the point where a person's theology is tailored perfectly to that person's predetermined human foibles. Yours included.
fdasherv 5 months ago
@fdasherv The Bible is correct as a whole, but there are probably some things that are not accurate, since it was written and translated many times by ppl. Some ppl also take things out of context, or just plainly interpret it wrong. I've never said I'm the true Christian, I'm just saying you sceptists look too much into what a few loud Christians say. Me and many other Christians don't stand for these specific views and interpretations, so why do you take it for granted that God does?
pite9 5 months ago
@pite9 Ah, so the bible is correct. I suppose, then, you support slavery. I suppose we should stone unruly children to death. Say, when do you intend to sell your daughter? Genocide and rape squads are a good thing, I see. And let's remember to kill homosexuals. Have you rewarded a rapist today? That's what god would have you do. Have you sold your belongings and abandoned your family yet? Do you willfully lie to satisfy a biblical imperative? If not, you violate the bible's instruction.
fdasherv 5 months ago
@fdasherv You can't discuss with someone who will do anything to interpret things wrong. You pick up opinions that is comfortable to your intellect, and only accept ideas that have been proven, and you reject everything else. There's nothing I can say that would change your mind, because I can't prove the validity of God or the Bible. If I could prove it, God's plan would be obsolete, because then everybody would follow him because they had to, not because they wanted to.
pite9 5 months ago
@pite9 Yea, whatever. Get back to me when your god is more substantial than a wisp of vapor.
fdasherv 5 months ago
@pite9 why did god prove himself to other people in the stories? was it necessary back then but isn't now? are modern people supposed to accept the assertions from other humans about what the creator of the universe wants?
georgek19 5 months ago
@georgek19 accepting God isn't about accepting other ppl's stories, it's about asking God yourself if they are true and what they mean. The Bible just introduces us to God.
Accepting God is like educating yourself and getting a job. It can seem like a drag to some ppl, but you're doing it for a purpose, to help yourself have a more meaningful life. Some ppl are lazy, or think they know better than God, so they reject God for their own set of rules.
pite9 5 months ago
Comment removed
georgek19 5 months ago
Comment removed
georgek19 5 months ago
Comment removed
georgek19 5 months ago
Comment removed
georgek19 5 months ago
Comment removed
georgek19 5 months ago
@pite9 how do you know for certain the bible introduces anyone to god? how is anyone supposed to know for sure they are talking to yahweh?
how would you respond if someone said the same thing you just said but concerning a different god?
also, some people are raised with nothing but the bible in their lives, through no choice of their own. are there approaches to Christianity that are better or worse than others?
georgek19 5 months ago