@TheraminTrees : Apart from your great reasoning skills, I think you should narrate movies and series and things like those professionally. You have a gentle voice, it's smooth and very pleasant to listen to. :)
@theramintrees thanks for pointing up the ridiculous once again. I agree, it's a desperate argument and yet typical of people who deeply invested in their faith. These kinds of arguments confirm for me that these people are truly delusional and need help, not in a pejorative sense but in a clinical sense.
Question about the person x argument. It says that "George" never met person x but Matthew wrote Matthew. Matthew met Jesus. And, Jesus is God. So, doesn't it follow that "George" did meet "Person X"?
@ingridaaa1 "Mathew" did not wrote "Mathew", the author is unknown, it originated in Syria towards the end of the 1st century drawing on a number of sources according to the Christian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (100–140 AD) so I'm afraid "Mathew" didn't meet Jesus... Now tell me you know more and better than Papias of Hierapolis about what happenned 2000 years ago if you dare...
None of the four Gospels were written by their named authors. Those names were added about 300 years after they were written. The true authors of those gospels are unknown. Furthermore, there are intentional forgeries in the gospels themselves. Look up the last 12 verses in Mark.
Don't believe me? Look it up for yourself. Preferably from a reputable Seminary source.
Uh, did the author Matthew call you one day to tell you about Jesus? No. His writings and sayings were passed generation to generation as described in the video.
@ 7:30 I am a cult of one. I made up my own religion. In it God doesn't give a damn. Nor blessing. He has no personality but has some rules. There are things that simply cannot be done like exceeding the cosmic speed limit. In this religion our best scientists are divining (get it) the Rules from the Rulings.
God is the Oracle of Truth that is consulted by experiment. And as with all oracles His answers are always true and often misleading.
i dont believe in god because i dont even understand how someone can believe in anything other than the statement "i am" or "is is". Heres the definition, "An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists." it just seems a bit conceded to me i consider some things to be more likely than other things but who the hell am i to reject the possibility that im totally wrong about pretty much everything.
Hmm... So I'm an atheist, but thinking from a religious point of view, I think I've found a flaw in the "Person X" argument. Yes, the Bible was written by humans, but the religious person could argue that God worked through the writers to create the Bible. (I'm not sure if every denomination believes this, but I know the church my family takes me to asserts this). So if this was the case, then a believer would not be putting his faith in a human, but rather the work of God himself.
@vaiority 'the religious person could argue that God worked through the writers to create the Bible'
—They could claim that — we can all claim all kinds of bizarre stuff. How does that affect the Person X argument? The Person X argument is about direct personal access. Did this proposed god tell them that it worked through the bible authors? If not, where did this idea of divine authorship originate? Humans. If they claim it did, let's hear the substantiation for that claim.
@TheraminTrees man you have good responses. it would be cool to borrow your brain when I would talk to my Christian family. but meh. my brains arent fully developed yet and i pay too much attention to my emotions.
I was an extremely devoted Christian once and Christians, whose involvement with their faith was to flip a coin on Sunday morning to see if they'd go to a service, had the audacity to say I was never a true Christian once I 'turned'. I never saw them building homes for the homeless, read a bible, or doing any other works that the faith compels others to do. Seems I set the faith bar much higher than their faith but it was never real. What does that say about them?
@AtheistExplains The 'You were never a christian' line is a rather desperate piece of rhetoric — and as you point out, often a deeply ironic piece of rhetoric considering some of the folks who come out with it. I've long wanted to do a follow-up to this video to add several other points — for instance to debunk the unworkable, but repeatedly cited, 1 Johns 2, v.19 defence, among other quoted passages. I'll now be putting that follow-up on my list of things to do.
@TheJohnVandivier No — the corinthians reference isn't a cheap shot. Its inclusion in the context of simple association is given because it's been used in exactly that sense in several exchanges I've had over the years. That's what happens with a lot of biblical metaphor, isn't it — others find and implement different meanings. I look forward to watching your video sometime — I've wanted to do a follow up to this old video for a long time, adding points not mentioned.
@TheraminTrees good call. It is open to interpretation. I just hope people realize that people don't buy the fact that Chrisitans are supposed to be anti-associative with non believers cause we ARE supposed to go all around the world and mix with all kinds of people etc just like Jesus did.
But good call ya there's always some of those knuckleheads who bend the bible to say what they want it to :(
(this may be lost in the sea of youtube comments, but i'll say it anyways) Do you think that someone can have faith WITH reason? I'm a christian, and I really respect the way you went about your argument, so your opinion would be appreciated. (i'm not trying to be confrontational, just so you know)
@DouglasEaton1 I'm open to hearing from people who think that's possible. We can of course give 'reasons' for all kinds of ideas — but the question is, does the reasoning hold or not — ie, is it instead a rationalisation, a comfortingly plausible but ultimately invalid construction. I was a theist once, and in exercising reason to try and support my faith, as hard as it was to accept back then, I found that a rigorous examination of theistic arguments always showed up fatal flaws.
@benthemeister I don't see the effect religion (or lack there of) can have on a statement that is true entirely on its own. I have found myself agreeing with many religious assertions simply because they where self evident. On a side note, judging from what I have seen from theramintrees, I seriously doubt he would expect you to, let alone demand that you take his word for anything.
@MacFlanahan Nice one! But seriously, there are several core beliefs I can agree with. For example, eh... Let's see, um... Well, I'm having a tough time remembering some, but we can at least agree with...
Its odd that you mentioned Anthony Flew because many atheist are now using the same argument to assert that he was never an atheist since he renounced atheism and became a Deist. Aronra was one of those people who used that argument on me. The only difference was that Flew was not a child. He was all grown up. I dont know if you were raised a Christian or if you actually gave your heart to Christ as a child but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and take your word for it.
In my opinion religion and people who believe in gods are weak.
Science can offer mankind hope, cures, and survival but one thing mankind cant offer is a luxury pad post mortem.
This is where people shake and through their own incapability to know the next stop when you pop your cloggs they begin looking for answers elsewhere.
Only religion can offer comfort of a paradise dressed up with impossible stories and unlikely events. Thats post mortem.
You know what dirty tactic shoos Atheists out of the marching path of faith, religion and god? Number.
Like you said about these absolutist groups indoctrinating smaller numbers into their belief system through ignorance, trust preachers or just way of life passing on belief through generations religions have gathered a great number.
It is this one against many that leads to Atheists being shunned and the idea of god being propagated and taken as being real, through popular belief
Each person perceives his own reasons for being a [fillintheblank] as the genuine valid reasons, and is likely to view others who claim to be a [fillintheblank] for flimsier reasons to be a half-assed [fillintheblank]. "No True Fillintheblank" may not define Fillintheblank, but it does define the values of the person making the statement.
I submit for anyone to criticize, a statement I made to someone making an appeal to authority. I said, "No serious thinker reveres the idea, because of the man. Rather, we revere the man for his ideas, when they hold up to scrutiny."
Is this an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy? I'm really not sure. I think my central point is sound, and common place amongst, well...serious thinkers. But, that doesn't mean my rhetoric is sound.
@t3tsuyaguy1 The central point seems sound to me — about the valuing of ideas, and the caution against appeals/submission to authority/status without scrutinising the idea. I think it's only the wording of 'No serious thinker ....' that's problematic. Because serious thinkers make mistakes — they can succumb to lapses/bias/laziness, however momentarily — eg, bowing to experts in other fields sometimes without appropriate rigour. But they're still serious.
@TheraminTrees Very well. This is what I love about youtube. The opportunity to have even little details of my intellectual rigor confronted, has been very valuable. Thank you sir.
@TheraminTrees For the atheist who holds the position that there is no God, some fundamental problems surface. In order for a person to be absolutely certain that no God exists, then that indulvidual would have to have infinite knowledge. Well only God has infinite knowledge. So that person in essence would have to be God in order to be 100% sure that no God exists.
@theabiotictheory 'For the atheist who holds the position that there is no God ....'
—Most atheists I know are agnostic — several leaning towards ignostic. Of those who positively claim to know there are no gods, very few are formally claiming absolute certainty — in fact I'm not sure I personally know of a single one. Generally, they are instead dismissing the concept in line with epistemological contextualism — ie as many theist would dismiss unicorns.
@TheraminTrees The reason Christians label apostates of never having been true christians is based on the 1 John 2:19. I also believe you've constructed a false dichotomy, you claim either someone is rational or they are a christian. I take the opposite view, atheism is the more irrational of the two. Con'd
@theabiotictheory I'm aware of those kinds of quotes — which obviously contradict metaphors like the lost sheep. But they create a more profound problem. If we accept the argument I was never a christian — and I don't — then it would mean we could never call anyone a christian. To do that, we'd have to know for sure that they didn't lose their faith in their final moments, or had not lost their faith years ago and hid it. To label anyone 'christian' would require god-like absolute certainty.
I totally agree with everything you say here, except I wonder if we need to consider that the definition of what a Christian is ought to contain what is stated in 1 John 2:19. Since it is in the bible, this is part of what it means to be Christian. I kinda think we have to give them that, even though we all know it's really a fallacy. My brother is a pastor and I think he would simply say the definition for Christian is lacking. What do you think?
@stiimuli 'Floella' is an iconic name for folks of a certain age in the UK. Ms Benjamin was a tv presenter, who threw herself into her work. Regarding the sound, I think this video is before I got my Blue Snowball mic. There's a horrible squeak in the old iMac mic — apparently because it was situated too close the the camera mechanism — and I was forever trying stuff out in Logic to eradicate it.
every time someone tries to tell me i was never a christian, i ask them to prove they ARE christian, to which they respond they don't have to prove anything to me... & there you have it... i don't have to prove i was a christian. if it inflates their egos to insist we don't exist, let them have it, cus no matter what you say, it won't be good enough. no matter how much you know, it's not enough. no matter how compelling your argument, it's not good enough :::shake the dust from your shoes::: :-x
I'm a Scotsman who was brought up with sugar in his porridge. Now while I prefer salt in it I love it with cinnamon. Am I hopelessly lost (he asks nervously)? :D
Joking apart, I have recently "come out" as an atheist and have had some of these arguments thrown at me already. However, I would agree with someone who says I never was a Christian, or any kind of theist. There was always "something" vital missing. I only realised recently that something was God. I have wasted my life in delusion.
So you think it is up to a denomination to decide what a true Christian is? Or a personal interpretation? So everyone can decide for themselves what a Christian is? Can I decide what a true atheist is?
What is the BIBLICAL DEFINITION of what a true Christian is?
#1. A person MUST be BORN AGAIN. John 3:3
#2. A person must have the Spirit of God in their life and be led by that Spirit. Romans 8:9b "And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ." (plus more)
@sandiegoevangelism 'So you think it is up to a denomination to decide what a true Christian is? Or a personal interpretation?'
—er, nope. What I'm saying is the exact opposite. No individual or specific denomination decides what a true christian is — they only get to decide their own view, not *the* view. 'Christian' encompasses many different and conflicting beliefs, many rites of passage that confirm someone as christian. I was confirmed within my own denomination. Hence I was a christian.
@sandiegoevangelism Okay I will agree with that. You were a confirmed "Christian" in a most likely dead church. This is probably what 90% or more of what the church is made up of now. It is no wonder you walked away from that lifestyle as it is only religious in nature and there is no life in the Spirit.
Thanks for being honest as I have yet to meet an atheist who was truly born again of God's Spirit. I was an atheist/agnostic myself for my first 32 years till God saved me and set me free.
@sandiegoevangelism 'You were a confirmed "Christian" in a most likely dead church.'
—Ask yourself why you had to do that — why you had to try and dismiss the church I was raised in as 'dead'. When you can be honest with yourself, you'll admit it was an ignorant rationalisation. And when you're not only honest, but have a heart, you'll acknowledge within yourself that ignorantly dismissing others in such a disgusting way — others who you haven't a clue about — is an unchristian disgrace.
@TheraminTrees Okay I think that is an easy one to answer.
#1. MOST CHURCHES TODAY ARE DEAD! Probably close to 80-90% or more so it is statistically unlikely you were in a good church. There are some out there put very hard to find. I only know of a few in America I would consider "bibically sound". (Yes, this is my opinion but many agree and most strong Christians don't even attend church any longer!)
#2. Since your denomination didn't explain being born again it is most likely dead.
@sandiegoevangelism Oh — your genius answer to why you dismiss a church full of people, whose lives, humour, devoutness, faith, etc., you know absolutely nothing about, is: 'most churches are dead'. So you back up your prejudice with prejudice. You really haven't got the first clue about the irony of you coming here 'praising Jesus' and then blithely judging people you've never met as 'dead'. LOL you wonder why people are turned off religion. Take a long look at your judgements.
@TheraminTrees I hope most people are turned off to "religion" as it is religion that kills people's faith in God. You haven't the slightest clue what it means to be a true, born again believer in Jesus Christ. You spend so much of your life blasting Christianity and mocking other people's faith and then your upset that someone points out, as others have tried to tell you, that you had not real born again experience, you never knew God and are in no position to claim your an "Ex-Christian".
@sandiegoevangelism Hope all you like. Many folks PM me saying they were pushed away by the alienating prejudice/judgements of their flock. Exactly like you, who condemned a church you never knew. You think I'm upset? LOL on the contrary. I love comments like yours — yes, they're disgraceful but they only hurt other christians. In fact I might use them in a video I'm planning on prejudice. As to being your version of 'born again', couldn't care less. It's enough that I was a christian ;8)
@sandiegoevangelism You just used the no true Scotsman fallacy, since you do not know god either(have you met him?) then there is not way that you could make objective truth about that person. That is simply a subjective perspective. Also, where does it say that at one point someone could be a christian and at another point not be a christian. Things change and so can minds. Plus, do you know what it means to be a born again christian. There is no definition you give.
@sandiegoevangelism I know three - count 'em, three - ex born again christians who's rabid faith was as virulent as yours seems. One I've known all my life and I can recall the day I had to tell her just how unpleasant her company was. But all that's behind us as she's back among the living. You can crank the volume until the speakers blow, but any "level" of piety can succumb to reason. I'm sure you lapse into masturbation and rationalize a pass from god.
@sandiegoevangelism Three points. You didn't identify which argument you found 'silly'. I wasn't a christian because I was 'persuaded by reason' — I was indoctrinated to be one. And your definition of 'true christian' is an equivocation fallacy — this video uses the general definition. Substituting your personal definition, or the definition of your denomination, as the general definition is not valid.
george? floella benjamin? it'll be zippy and bungle next. i suspect a hint of rainbow worship with a sprinkling of playschool, both better moral teachers than the babble!
Further more I feel I could ask you the same questions about many historic figures that you asked about God or Jesus. For example, You consider it common knowledge that George Washington lived. Did Washington visit you or speak to you on the phone? No. You learned about Washington from teachers and books. When you think about it there is really no way to scientifically prove that George Washington existed and did the things people said he did
@En3rg3tic Proof constitutes an abundance of evidence, and we have an abundance of physical evidence that G.W. lived and was our president, where there is no such physical evidence for Christ's life. I could go raid the tomb of our first president right now and bitch slap his skull. No such luck finding Jesus' corpse to do the same. We also have 1st hand written accounts of Washington, where as the gospels were first written fifty years after the crucifixion. G.W. is a bad example. -_-
@En3rg3tic Further to ApemanD's response, you missed the point I was making, which is about ongoing existence, not historical existence — ie no one here's claiming Washington's watching over you right now and loves you. So no, the same questions do not apply. On historical existence, I often grant Jesus's existence, just for argument — his supernatural side is another matter. And I know full well what faith means — I was making a point about the middle men/women we're putting our faith in.
@En3rg3tic That's an ignorant metaphor to make. And here's the simple reason why; we know Washington exists because there are numerous primary sources as well as anthropological evidence that confirm his prior existence. Where as the earliest mention of Jesus is from Paul, who wrote his gospel decades after Jesus died. The bible is composed of nothing but secondary sources at the very best and agenda-driven assertions at the least. Not to mention vague speculative superstition.
While I agree with the first two points you make in this video. I strongly disagree with what you said about faith in Christ. As a catholic I don't put my faith in "George" or the Bible, I put my faith in the existence of God. The fact that you are saying faith in God without proof, means you don't understand the definition of the word faith which is - 1.confidence or trust in a person or thing 2.belief that is not based on proof-
@gjsterp Thanks. Though one can be 100% atheist and 100% agnostic. Agnosticism pertains to the question of whether you think the existence of god(s) is knowable. Atheism refers to whether you believe in gods. Hence you can be:
—agnostic atheist — existence unknowable and not believed
—agnostic theist — existence unknowable but believed
—'gnostic' atheist — non-existence is knowable and existence not believed
No belief with no evidence is perfectly justified. No belief with evidence is a problem.
@TheraminTrees I have discussed this with several people and many seem to think that I am not commited to my atheism. My atheism in regard to the religions I have studied is 100% The God's they expound, I do not believe exist.
I also would state that if there is a god, and that is a big if, we would no inkling as to what it is like.
That is the part of my agnosticism.
However, since I do not and can not know everything, I withhold the statement, "There is NO god."
@gjsterp Isn't it interesting that the people who claim that god is beyond our understanding when logical inconsistency is brought up, are often the same people who are all too happy to define God and tell us what it wants.
People educated in [the critical habit of thought] ...are slow to believe. They can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty and without pain. - William Graham Sumner
Just for the record, the definition of "true Christian" you ran into isn't just a private one: it's a fundamental tenet of Calvinism and its doctrines of limited atonement, irresistable grace, unconditional election and perservation of the saints. In it, any person who apostatizes was ipso facto never regenerate and never a member of the Church Spiritual. It's completely circular reasoning, but that definition isn't just the private view of a few, but a central teaching of Reformed theology.
@nothingmemorable I'm aware of the various ill-conceived calvinist tenets. And your very mention of the reformed tradition fulfils my use of the word 'private' — ie, belonging to/in use by a particular person or particular group. This is the private view of calvinists — what they feel, or have been taught, constitutes a christian.
@TheraminTrees As I understand Flew's definition of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, it involves an ad hoc change to shore up an assertion, combined with a shift in the meaning of the words used in the original assertion. This would not apply in the case of Calvinism, as it isn't an ad hoc assertion, nor is there a meaning-shift: Calvinism defines its terms in advance. Also, that definition follows necessarily from Calvinist soteriology, and is no way an afterthought. Sorry if I'm being pedantic.
@nothingmemorable The shift in meaning is from the general word 'christian' to their specific private definition — ie an ad hoc equivocation has taken place. SImilar to the calvinists, the Scotsman who talks of 'true Scotsmen' may have held his views long in advance, about what he considers a 'true Scotsman'. But his defence remains an ad hoc equivocation, inserting his own meaning to discount a claim not based on his meaning.
@nothingmemorable 'it sounds like you're making a One True Scotsman argument here yourself.'
—Nope. I'm not claiming my definition is *the true* definition. I'm pointing out that I qualified as a christian under very standard, accepted definitions — believing in the christian god, following Christ. To dispute that, an equivocation was employed, substituting a more limited private definition. They can say 'You're not my definition of a christian,' etc. But not that I wasn't a true christian.
Your analogy might be better if George claimed Person X had some sort of psychic powers, so if you opened your heart and mind to him, you would FEEL his presence. This lets you get away with saying you really do have a relationship with Person X because he "speaks" to you via his psychic powers--but you can only feel his psi waves if you truly believe, or your skeptical negative energy blocks the message. That's why skeptics can't know Person X like you can. ;)
Your argument about Christians putting their faith in humans is true. We heard from other people about this supernatural being that exists but we have not ever seen him, but other people did get to see the son and that is something that is documented just like everything else we learn in history class. How do you know about anything that happened in the B.C. timeframe? You have documents that talk about what happened. Thats pretty much it for most things that old.
@melodee105 What he is saying is the actual defitinion of 'atheist' never mentions anything about said atheist's reasoning abilities or capacity for logic. An atheist is simply someone who lacks a belief in god or gods. Atheists run the gambit of personalities/disabilities/intelligence levels/etc that any religion does as well so to say you are an atheist does not imply you have a certain capacity for logic/wisdom/knowledge or anything else, simply that you do not hold a belief in a god.
5:30 - Invalid Comparison...in this context, "Associate" and "Yoke" are VERY different. Associate=to keep company, as a friend, companion, or ally. Yoke=to join, couple, link, or unite. Just as two oxen are yoked together for a common purpose, Christians are to yoke with each other to work toward COMMON purposes. If one ox is significantly stronger/different than the other, they will walk in circles... In fact, the bible instructs Christians to associate with EVERYONE (Matthew 28:19).
@pkonopa The point of including that bible passage was because I've had christians use it in precisely the sense I'm indicating: as instruction not to associate with non-christians, full stop. Whether they're wrong to use it that way is not the issue — it's the fact they do that I'm highlighting.
@TheraminTrees There will always be uneducated people...hearing SOME christians use a scripture inappriately does not mean you should use their comments as an arguement against christianity. It's invalid, and once exposed actually weakens your credibility as a logical unbiased critical thinker. Otherwise, interesting video. Certainly, though, we as humans learn from other people's experiences every day. To suggest that we can only believe that which we experience first hand is also invalid.
@pkonopa First, arguing that those christians were 'uneducated' or 'inappropriate' doesn't hold. They can fully justify their view scripturally. Second I don't argue that all christians think that — I'm aware that many don't. Your comment misses the point being made in the video, about cult/religion division. Neither do I argue that 'we can only believe that which we experience first hand' — quite obviously, people are capable of believing all kinds of stuff they've never experienced.
@TheraminTrees Honestly, I wasn't commenting on the overall point of your video...I was simply explaining what I believe is the true meaning of 2 Corinthians 6:14 so that you would not spread it's out-of-context use as many others have done. By likening it to Waco, you fortify a common misconception that christian people are inherently intolerant and/or ignorant...certainly not what Christ taught. And yes, the person who said you were never a christian is an idiot...only Christ knows that.
@pkonopa 'I was simply explaining what I believe is the true meaning of 2 Corinthians 6:14 so that you would not spread it's out-of-context use'
—Two points. First, I acknowledge that's what you think the passage means, though as I've pointed out, other christians insist differently. Second, the point isn't that christians are inherently intolerant — some are intolerant, some aren't — but that cult behaviours are not some 'over there' phenomenon — they're seen everywhere including mainstream.
@pkonopa Different denominations of Christianity interpret scripture in different ways. Even different churches within the same denomination can and do differ slightly in there interpretation. Within these multiple views on the "word" of "god" there will be incompatibility. It's easy to say "Those Christians are wrong in their interpretation, This is what it really means..." But the problem is that there will be 50 other people saying the same thing about your statement.
The SALVATION process is not just a one-time event but a THREE-FOLD process. The TRUE believer IS SAVED (John 3:36; cf. John 6:47), IS BEING SAVED (2 Corinthians 2:15; cf. 1 Corinthians 1:18), and WILL BE SAVED (Mark 16:16; cf. Acts 16:31)
JESUS SAID: “Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but THE ONE WHO STANDS FIRM TO THE END WILL BE SAVED” (Matthew 24:12-13, emphasis mine). By your testimony, Sir, I am all the more convinced that Christ's words are true.
@bibliomaniac727 The arguments that because I'm no longer a christian then I never was, simply don't hold. Say there are two versions of me. Both with identical faith. One is killed at 10, faith intact. The other lives on and loses their faith. But the faiths up to age 10 were identical, so either they were both real, or both false. Moreover, according to NTS arguments, *no one* can be called a christian — we can't be certain that people don't lose their faith in their last few seconds.
@TheraminTrees I don't dispute the fact that you *were* a Christian. I believe that you *were.* But Jesus said that only those "who endure to the END will be saved." Your love for Christ (the love you once had but no longer have, as per your confession in this video) has grown cold (dead), and Jesus, in Matthew 24:12-13, clearly predicts what happens to such "believers." By your renunciation of the Faith, you prove Christ's words true.
@bibliomaniac727 'I don't dispute the fact that you *were* a Christian. I believe that you *were.*'
—Great.
'By your renunciation of the Faith, you prove Christ's words true.'
—You're not saying "those who stand firm to the end will be saved" is proved true by my video, are you? Surely you wouldn't be saying that — because clearly that's not proved at all by this video. So what words are you saying are proved?
@TheraminTrees Okay, I'll repeat myself: JESUS SAID: “At that time many will turn away from the faith ... and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people ... the love of most will grow cold, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved” (Matthew 24:10-13). Don't you think that your renunciation is exactly what Jesus is describing here? (If you aren't sure, read the entire chapter for context) What I am saying is that your renunciation of faith proves Jesus' prophecy true.
@bibliomaniac727 "At that time many will turn away from the faith"
-No Shit Sherlock! it doesn't take a genius to realize that eventually people will start to notice flaws of this religion and realize that its a scam. If I scheme a modus operandi right now along with others, I can easily write in a *holy book* that eventually our scam will be found out (or should I say love of most will grow cold) LOL!
So Im a prophet now huh?
if youre god's intellect can only be at this level. ITS SAD! LOL!
@bibliomaniac727 'Don't you think that your renunciation is exactly what Jesus is describing here?'
—You confuse prophecy with social commentary. If I start saying, 'Many will be conned out of their money, many will stop believing in the kindness of humans, some will remain doggedly optimistic' — that's just what's going on all the time, it's not prophecy. Same with your 'prophecy' — folks losing faith, some keeping it, false prophets, etc.? Proves nothing except commonplace observation.
@bibliomaniac727 Sorry to break it to you bro. But religion is a scam. It capitalizes on human weaknesses: Greed and Fear.
Greed- Worship an imaginary god in exchange for a luxurious life eternally in heaven.
Fear - Do not worship this imaginary god, and you will suffer eternal torture in the depths of fiery lake of hell.
In exchange, give money to the church and you will be taught the words of god (Yes indeed. WORD OF GOD) Funny isn't it? humans are able to comprehend god's words. LOL!
@bibliomaniac727 Did I say I was the final authoritative source of truth? Hilarious! God actually needs our money and worship! HAHAHA! This god is a tyrannic asshole INDEED!
Not only does god allow evil to exist, but god allows evil to mess up humanity's lives, AND! punishes humanity for not obeying god! HAHA! OH! Wait it's our fault for being imperfect now is it? Well you know this god made us imperfect. A perfect being created humanity which is flawed in every aspect.
@bibliomaniac727 Actually, do me a favor will you? It's pointless to discuss these things with you if even within your own religion you cannot reach a common ground. You see why is christianity separated in different branches? why isn't there just one christianity? so which one really will go to heaven? WHICH is the "TRUE" Christianity? HAHA!
You know, you need to sort this out first within your own religion.
“Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but THE ONE WHO STANDS FIRM TO THE END WILL BE SAVED”
-In other words:
Because of the increase of skeptics who are starting to realize that religion is a scam, people will turn away and will condemn this scam. But the one who stands firm will be drained out of his money, turn crazy and be left helpless in the society.
@philosage Thanks. I was trying to find your comment on another video and gave up — one of those days. But it's here. Can't think of any books dedicated to the subject of critical thinking as such. Books exposing frauds, illusions and susceptibilities have all contributed — but it's mainly been a case of thinking things through, asking, 'How might that not be true?' Looking for exceptions, violations. Websites explaining in-/formal logical fallacies seem a great start — and a free resource ;8)
I just wanted to find out your views on belief and values. Whats the difference between the two? I hear atheists say they dont believe in anything which i think is a bad statment to make because it communicates implicitly to some people the dont value anything (im atheist by the way.) i think this confusion can occur because people can say they believe or dont believe in libertarinism.i think there is a dynamic relationship belief and values which i haven't grappled with yet.
@philosage I think 'belief' and 'value' both have huge scope, with the possibility of being used synonymously in some cases. But narrowing that scope a little — and talking for myself, I could say 'belief' evokes to me a sense that something is true, or exists — an entity, a process, a trait, etc. — and 'value' is an attitudinal stance that flow from, and I suspect also inform, those premises. Like you, I'm skeptical of 'I don't believe in anything' — feels like shorthand.
ok... that was one of the best videos i've ever seen in my life. you have great great great arguments and an amazing eloquence in your explanations. :) if only theists were intelligent enough to understand all that!! hahah joking!.... kinda.........
I note that you use TWO definitions of atheism. Those ARE slightly different things, actually, and I distinguish them by calling the first "non-theism" and the other "atheism". Thus I call myself a nontheist agnostic, but not an atheist. The people you criticize for rejecting atheism but being nontheist are indeed agnostics, like Carl Sagan and Thomas Huxley were. So you are mistaken there. Otherwise, your video is excellent!
@DaleHusband Atheism indicated no belief in god. Non-theism is a subset of atheism — I'm not asserting that as my own personal preference, but as defined in dictionaries — not just one obscure dictionary, but dictionaries in general. So if you want to go and call all of them mistaken and try and persuade them to shift to your personal preference, by all means do. In the meantime, please don't come here asserting I'm the one that's mistaken.
My "personal preference" was also that of most other people prior to the 1990s, including most atheists as well as the aforementioned Sagan and Huxley. I've read enough literature to know that. Dictionaries often reflect popular trends, even if those trends are not really logical. Logic is not based on personal preference.
@DaleHusband Dictionaries reflect the evolution of language. New words are introduced to the language. Old words are narrowed or widened in scope, or pronounced archaic. There are many trends in the language that I have problems with. Tell me you have problems with the word 'atheist' covering non-theism and I can understand and appreciate your point of view. But when you tell me, 'So you are mistaken there', you overstate your case. I'm not 'mistaken' — I'm using accepted definitions.
@TheraminTrees In that case, I apologize for the missstatement. You are correct linguistically, even if you might not be correct logically. I was merely arguing that the two definitions of atheism are really different things and should be indicated by two different words.
@DaleHusband 'You are correct linguistically, even if you might not be correct logically.'
—So again you've personalised this to me, saying *I'm* not correct logically. If this is still about the accepted definitions of atheism, then you're making exactly the same overstatement of your case — your beef is with dictionaries so take it to them. If you're referring to some other issue, then please substantiate your vague insinuation of my incorrect logic.
I still can't get over the 'no true christians can be swayed by reason'.
Scientific reason, maybe not. I know christians that to this day reject the idea of the Big Bang Theory, the sun dying out one day, and even Global Warming. But you CANNOT judge every person into two classes based on christianity. People are different, and you seem to be poking a bit of fun at christians through the whole movie, even though you may pull that 'scientific aspect' quite well. "we each represent ourselves"
@TheraminTrees Well I'm very glad that's cleared up. I'm also glad you can see things from different' aspects; the world needs more people with broader minds and broader acceptance. :3
"The bible is - literally - the world's oldest game of Telephone." ~ David Cross
cyanmanta 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Person X said it
I believe it
That settles it. LMAO! Sorry, I couldn't keep a straight face.
SkepticalBliss 1 month ago
I'm praying for you. :3
AprilOceanBlue 1 month ago
@AprilOceanBlue And I'm dancing around my wish tree for you. XD
Xel963 1 week ago
@Xel963 Exercise is good for you. :)
AprilOceanBlue 1 week ago
You sound like Jony Ive.
Slantsixx 1 month ago
convert to person x, you heathens!!!
taffysaur 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheraminTrees : Apart from your great reasoning skills, I think you should narrate movies and series and things like those professionally. You have a gentle voice, it's smooth and very pleasant to listen to. :)
AbXorb 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
Comment removed
AbXorb 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@theramintrees thanks for pointing up the ridiculous once again. I agree, it's a desperate argument and yet typical of people who deeply invested in their faith. These kinds of arguments confirm for me that these people are truly delusional and need help, not in a pejorative sense but in a clinical sense.
beautyinbreakdowns2 2 months ago
Question about the person x argument. It says that "George" never met person x but Matthew wrote Matthew. Matthew met Jesus. And, Jesus is God. So, doesn't it follow that "George" did meet "Person X"?
ingridaaa1 2 months ago
@ingridaaa1 'And, Jesus is God.'
—And the evidence for that is?
TheraminTrees 2 months ago
@ingridaaa1 Think about where you heard that information to find out why this is a poor argument.
f00tstep 2 months ago
Comment removed
DocStrange0123 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ingridaaa1 "Mathew" did not wrote "Mathew", the author is unknown, it originated in Syria towards the end of the 1st century drawing on a number of sources according to the Christian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (100–140 AD) so I'm afraid "Mathew" didn't meet Jesus... Now tell me you know more and better than Papias of Hierapolis about what happenned 2000 years ago if you dare...
DocStrange0123 3 weeks ago
@ingridaaa1
Matthew DID NOT write Matthew.
None of the four Gospels were written by their named authors. Those names were added about 300 years after they were written. The true authors of those gospels are unknown. Furthermore, there are intentional forgeries in the gospels themselves. Look up the last 12 verses in Mark.
Don't believe me? Look it up for yourself. Preferably from a reputable Seminary source.
Chumkil 3 weeks ago
@ingridaaa1 And also, how do you know that Matthew (the apostle) wrote the gospel of Matthew? All the manuscripts were anonymous.
Englishdosser86 2 weeks ago
Uh, did the author Matthew call you one day to tell you about Jesus? No. His writings and sayings were passed generation to generation as described in the video.
TheHeidelbergKid 1 day ago
I admire " Person 'XXX' "
xcellken1 3 months ago
36 dislikes?
36 people who regularly use the No True Scottsman fallacy have rated this video.
TheBIGgourami 3 months ago
@TheBIGgourami Probably the people this video was sent to. -_-
TheBiAtheist 1 month ago
god fucking damn it british accents are so fucking convincing..
cram1nblaze 3 months ago
Hee hee hee! You're very good! Is porridge oatmeal? I know.. I should look it up. You're very calm and honest AND respectful. Refreshing!
rriverstone1 3 months ago
@ 7:30 I am a cult of one. I made up my own religion. In it God doesn't give a damn. Nor blessing. He has no personality but has some rules. There are things that simply cannot be done like exceeding the cosmic speed limit. In this religion our best scientists are divining (get it) the Rules from the Rulings.
God is the Oracle of Truth that is consulted by experiment. And as with all oracles His answers are always true and often misleading.
Oh, by the way, I'm an atheist.
George4943 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i dont believe in god because i dont even understand how someone can believe in anything other than the statement "i am" or "is is". Heres the definition, "An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists." it just seems a bit conceded to me i consider some things to be more likely than other things but who the hell am i to reject the possibility that im totally wrong about pretty much everything.
xcvsdxvsx 3 months ago
Comment removed
xcvsdxvsx 3 months ago
Hmm... So I'm an atheist, but thinking from a religious point of view, I think I've found a flaw in the "Person X" argument. Yes, the Bible was written by humans, but the religious person could argue that God worked through the writers to create the Bible. (I'm not sure if every denomination believes this, but I know the church my family takes me to asserts this). So if this was the case, then a believer would not be putting his faith in a human, but rather the work of God himself.
vaiority 4 months ago
@vaiority 'the religious person could argue that God worked through the writers to create the Bible'
—They could claim that — we can all claim all kinds of bizarre stuff. How does that affect the Person X argument? The Person X argument is about direct personal access. Did this proposed god tell them that it worked through the bible authors? If not, where did this idea of divine authorship originate? Humans. If they claim it did, let's hear the substantiation for that claim.
TheraminTrees 4 months ago
@TheraminTrees man you have good responses. it would be cool to borrow your brain when I would talk to my Christian family. but meh. my brains arent fully developed yet and i pay too much attention to my emotions.
johnnyboi493 1 week ago
"True Christians are not swayed by logical arguments"
well at leasst we've found *some* common ground.
Forcefield23 4 months ago
even as a Christian, I know that a truly devout Christian can fall away, and lose their salvation
gogeta0064 4 months ago
Well done!
I was an extremely devoted Christian once and Christians, whose involvement with their faith was to flip a coin on Sunday morning to see if they'd go to a service, had the audacity to say I was never a true Christian once I 'turned'. I never saw them building homes for the homeless, read a bible, or doing any other works that the faith compels others to do. Seems I set the faith bar much higher than their faith but it was never real. What does that say about them?
AtheistExplains 4 months ago
@AtheistExplains The 'You were never a christian' line is a rather desperate piece of rhetoric — and as you point out, often a deeply ironic piece of rhetoric considering some of the folks who come out with it. I've long wanted to do a follow-up to this video to add several other points — for instance to debunk the unworkable, but repeatedly cited, 1 Johns 2, v.19 defence, among other quoted passages. I'll now be putting that follow-up on my list of things to do.
TheraminTrees 4 months ago
"There was only one Christian, and he died on the cross."
-Friedrich Nietzsche.
tiakpark 4 months ago
Comment removed
TheJohnVandivier 4 months ago
@TheJohnVandivier No — the corinthians reference isn't a cheap shot. Its inclusion in the context of simple association is given because it's been used in exactly that sense in several exchanges I've had over the years. That's what happens with a lot of biblical metaphor, isn't it — others find and implement different meanings. I look forward to watching your video sometime — I've wanted to do a follow up to this old video for a long time, adding points not mentioned.
TheraminTrees 4 months ago
@TheraminTrees good call. It is open to interpretation. I just hope people realize that people don't buy the fact that Chrisitans are supposed to be anti-associative with non believers cause we ARE supposed to go all around the world and mix with all kinds of people etc just like Jesus did.
But good call ya there's always some of those knuckleheads who bend the bible to say what they want it to :(
looking forward to the next vid.
TheJohnVandivier 4 months ago
hey are you from waco? noticed it in the search thing
TheJohnVandivier 4 months ago
wow i like how you call this a fallacy. 3 days till i disprove this video.
TheJohnVandivier 4 months ago
@TheJohnVandivier That was 4 days ago
Yudovitch 4 months ago
@Yudovitch I posted the video response already. guess it hasnt been approved yet. See my page.
TheJohnVandivier 4 months ago
(this may be lost in the sea of youtube comments, but i'll say it anyways) Do you think that someone can have faith WITH reason? I'm a christian, and I really respect the way you went about your argument, so your opinion would be appreciated. (i'm not trying to be confrontational, just so you know)
DouglasEaton1 5 months ago
@DouglasEaton1 I'm open to hearing from people who think that's possible. We can of course give 'reasons' for all kinds of ideas — but the question is, does the reasoning hold or not — ie, is it instead a rationalisation, a comfortingly plausible but ultimately invalid construction. I was a theist once, and in exercising reason to try and support my faith, as hard as it was to accept back then, I found that a rigorous examination of theistic arguments always showed up fatal flaws.
TheraminTrees 4 months ago
i really enjoyed this well-considered and well-presented case.
alasdairm 5 months ago
@alasdairm Thanks.
TheraminTrees 5 months ago
@benthemeister I don't see the effect religion (or lack there of) can have on a statement that is true entirely on its own. I have found myself agreeing with many religious assertions simply because they where self evident. On a side note, judging from what I have seen from theramintrees, I seriously doubt he would expect you to, let alone demand that you take his word for anything.
Traveler246 5 months ago
@Traveler246 Please state a religious assertion that is "self-evident"
MacFlanahan 4 months ago
@MacFlanahan Nice one! But seriously, there are several core beliefs I can agree with. For example, eh... Let's see, um... Well, I'm having a tough time remembering some, but we can at least agree with...
You know what? I'll get back to you on that one.
Traveler246 4 months ago
Its odd that you mentioned Anthony Flew because many atheist are now using the same argument to assert that he was never an atheist since he renounced atheism and became a Deist. Aronra was one of those people who used that argument on me. The only difference was that Flew was not a child. He was all grown up. I dont know if you were raised a Christian or if you actually gave your heart to Christ as a child but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and take your word for it.
benthemiester 5 months ago
this is amaaaaaaaazing!!!!!!!!!! I only wish I could make it known that I'm an atheist in my society!!!!
Missclumsiness 5 months ago
In my opinion religion and people who believe in gods are weak.
Science can offer mankind hope, cures, and survival but one thing mankind cant offer is a luxury pad post mortem.
This is where people shake and through their own incapability to know the next stop when you pop your cloggs they begin looking for answers elsewhere.
Only religion can offer comfort of a paradise dressed up with impossible stories and unlikely events. Thats post mortem.
Pre mortem religion gives us threat of hell.
Dazzletoad 5 months ago
Epic video.
You know what dirty tactic shoos Atheists out of the marching path of faith, religion and god? Number.
Like you said about these absolutist groups indoctrinating smaller numbers into their belief system through ignorance, trust preachers or just way of life passing on belief through generations religions have gathered a great number.
It is this one against many that leads to Atheists being shunned and the idea of god being propagated and taken as being real, through popular belief
Dazzletoad 5 months ago
There are over 38,000 denominations of Christianity. Apparently they can't figure it out either.
JJPHILLYLG 5 months ago
Each person perceives his own reasons for being a [fillintheblank] as the genuine valid reasons, and is likely to view others who claim to be a [fillintheblank] for flimsier reasons to be a half-assed [fillintheblank]. "No True Fillintheblank" may not define Fillintheblank, but it does define the values of the person making the statement.
MagiMysteryTour 6 months ago
In a collective society, do people still represent themselves as individuals? :-/
aquatix 6 months ago
@aquatix As I'm part of the set 'atheists', yet still represent myself as an individual, then yes — apparently they do.
TheraminTrees 6 months ago
you sound like the male version of google translator
432cezar 6 months ago
You quite literally blew my mind.
IGwilson101 6 months ago
I loved the last line! made me laugh really hard!
batfly 6 months ago
Ah, but you were never a true bowl off porridge.
( great videos )
FattyMcFox 6 months ago
Most apt representation of this fallacy I've come across on the topic of religion so far. Thank you.
AbstractReaIity 7 months ago
I submit for anyone to criticize, a statement I made to someone making an appeal to authority. I said, "No serious thinker reveres the idea, because of the man. Rather, we revere the man for his ideas, when they hold up to scrutiny."
Is this an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy? I'm really not sure. I think my central point is sound, and common place amongst, well...serious thinkers. But, that doesn't mean my rhetoric is sound.
t3tsuyaguy1 7 months ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 The central point seems sound to me — about the valuing of ideas, and the caution against appeals/submission to authority/status without scrutinising the idea. I think it's only the wording of 'No serious thinker ....' that's problematic. Because serious thinkers make mistakes — they can succumb to lapses/bias/laziness, however momentarily — eg, bowing to experts in other fields sometimes without appropriate rigour. But they're still serious.
TheraminTrees 7 months ago
@TheraminTrees Very well. This is what I love about youtube. The opportunity to have even little details of my intellectual rigor confronted, has been very valuable. Thank you sir.
t3tsuyaguy1 7 months ago
@TheraminTrees For the atheist who holds the position that there is no God, some fundamental problems surface. In order for a person to be absolutely certain that no God exists, then that indulvidual would have to have infinite knowledge. Well only God has infinite knowledge. So that person in essence would have to be God in order to be 100% sure that no God exists.
theabiotictheory 6 months ago
@theabiotictheory 'For the atheist who holds the position that there is no God ....'
—Most atheists I know are agnostic — several leaning towards ignostic. Of those who positively claim to know there are no gods, very few are formally claiming absolute certainty — in fact I'm not sure I personally know of a single one. Generally, they are instead dismissing the concept in line with epistemological contextualism — ie as many theist would dismiss unicorns.
TheraminTrees 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheraminTrees The reason Christians label apostates of never having been true christians is based on the 1 John 2:19. I also believe you've constructed a false dichotomy, you claim either someone is rational or they are a christian. I take the opposite view, atheism is the more irrational of the two. Con'd
theabiotictheory 6 months ago
@theabiotictheory I'm aware of those kinds of quotes — which obviously contradict metaphors like the lost sheep. But they create a more profound problem. If we accept the argument I was never a christian — and I don't — then it would mean we could never call anyone a christian. To do that, we'd have to know for sure that they didn't lose their faith in their final moments, or had not lost their faith years ago and hid it. To label anyone 'christian' would require god-like absolute certainty.
TheraminTrees 6 months ago
Holy fucking hell your sexy
Lariasio 7 months ago
@Lariasio Why thank you.
TheraminTrees 7 months ago
I totally agree with everything you say here, except I wonder if we need to consider that the definition of what a Christian is ought to contain what is stated in 1 John 2:19. Since it is in the bible, this is part of what it means to be Christian. I kinda think we have to give them that, even though we all know it's really a fallacy. My brother is a pastor and I think he would simply say the definition for Christian is lacking. What do you think?
Devilock07 7 months ago
dumb muslims commit the no true scotsman fallacy all the time when they hear I am no longer a muslim.
Mattyb88ful 7 months ago
I like how your face faces the camera.. but your body is off at a 45 degree angle...
chrism4n14 8 months ago
thanx for this video. I wasnt clear on the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
the problem is, now I have an even bigger nagging question:
is Floella really a name? O_O
also, is your voice under the effects of a digital pitch processor? I'm hearing strange adjustment artifacts in it.
maybe I'm just hearing things.
stiimuli 8 months ago
@stiimuli 'Floella' is an iconic name for folks of a certain age in the UK. Ms Benjamin was a tv presenter, who threw herself into her work. Regarding the sound, I think this video is before I got my Blue Snowball mic. There's a horrible squeak in the old iMac mic — apparently because it was situated too close the the camera mechanism — and I was forever trying stuff out in Logic to eradicate it.
TheraminTrees 7 months ago
every time someone tries to tell me i was never a christian, i ask them to prove they ARE christian, to which they respond they don't have to prove anything to me... & there you have it... i don't have to prove i was a christian. if it inflates their egos to insist we don't exist, let them have it, cus no matter what you say, it won't be good enough. no matter how much you know, it's not enough. no matter how compelling your argument, it's not good enough :::shake the dust from your shoes::: :-x
GodsArePeopleToo 8 months ago
I guarantee you if you try some DMT you just might reconsider :P
L33thalLee 8 months ago
I'm a Scotsman who was brought up with sugar in his porridge. Now while I prefer salt in it I love it with cinnamon. Am I hopelessly lost (he asks nervously)? :D
Joking apart, I have recently "come out" as an atheist and have had some of these arguments thrown at me already. However, I would agree with someone who says I never was a Christian, or any kind of theist. There was always "something" vital missing. I only realised recently that something was God. I have wasted my life in delusion.
ThomasTrue 8 months ago
So you think it is up to a denomination to decide what a true Christian is? Or a personal interpretation? So everyone can decide for themselves what a Christian is? Can I decide what a true atheist is?
What is the BIBLICAL DEFINITION of what a true Christian is?
#1. A person MUST be BORN AGAIN. John 3:3
#2. A person must have the Spirit of God in their life and be led by that Spirit. Romans 8:9b "And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ." (plus more)
sandiegoevangelism 8 months ago
@sandiegoevangelism 'So you think it is up to a denomination to decide what a true Christian is? Or a personal interpretation?'
—er, nope. What I'm saying is the exact opposite. No individual or specific denomination decides what a true christian is — they only get to decide their own view, not *the* view. 'Christian' encompasses many different and conflicting beliefs, many rites of passage that confirm someone as christian. I was confirmed within my own denomination. Hence I was a christian.
TheraminTrees 8 months ago
@sandiegoevangelism Okay I will agree with that. You were a confirmed "Christian" in a most likely dead church. This is probably what 90% or more of what the church is made up of now. It is no wonder you walked away from that lifestyle as it is only religious in nature and there is no life in the Spirit.
Thanks for being honest as I have yet to meet an atheist who was truly born again of God's Spirit. I was an atheist/agnostic myself for my first 32 years till God saved me and set me free.
sandiegoevangelism 8 months ago
@sandiegoevangelism 'You were a confirmed "Christian" in a most likely dead church.'
—Ask yourself why you had to do that — why you had to try and dismiss the church I was raised in as 'dead'. When you can be honest with yourself, you'll admit it was an ignorant rationalisation. And when you're not only honest, but have a heart, you'll acknowledge within yourself that ignorantly dismissing others in such a disgusting way — others who you haven't a clue about — is an unchristian disgrace.
TheraminTrees 8 months ago
@TheraminTrees Okay I think that is an easy one to answer.
#1. MOST CHURCHES TODAY ARE DEAD! Probably close to 80-90% or more so it is statistically unlikely you were in a good church. There are some out there put very hard to find. I only know of a few in America I would consider "bibically sound". (Yes, this is my opinion but many agree and most strong Christians don't even attend church any longer!)
#2. Since your denomination didn't explain being born again it is most likely dead.
sandiegoevangelism 8 months ago
@sandiegoevangelism Oh — your genius answer to why you dismiss a church full of people, whose lives, humour, devoutness, faith, etc., you know absolutely nothing about, is: 'most churches are dead'. So you back up your prejudice with prejudice. You really haven't got the first clue about the irony of you coming here 'praising Jesus' and then blithely judging people you've never met as 'dead'. LOL you wonder why people are turned off religion. Take a long look at your judgements.
TheraminTrees 8 months ago
@TheraminTrees I hope most people are turned off to "religion" as it is religion that kills people's faith in God. You haven't the slightest clue what it means to be a true, born again believer in Jesus Christ. You spend so much of your life blasting Christianity and mocking other people's faith and then your upset that someone points out, as others have tried to tell you, that you had not real born again experience, you never knew God and are in no position to claim your an "Ex-Christian".
sandiegoevangelism 8 months ago
@sandiegoevangelism Hope all you like. Many folks PM me saying they were pushed away by the alienating prejudice/judgements of their flock. Exactly like you, who condemned a church you never knew. You think I'm upset? LOL on the contrary. I love comments like yours — yes, they're disgraceful but they only hurt other christians. In fact I might use them in a video I'm planning on prejudice. As to being your version of 'born again', couldn't care less. It's enough that I was a christian ;8)
TheraminTrees 8 months ago
@sandiegoevangelism You just used the no true Scotsman fallacy, since you do not know god either(have you met him?) then there is not way that you could make objective truth about that person. That is simply a subjective perspective. Also, where does it say that at one point someone could be a christian and at another point not be a christian. Things change and so can minds. Plus, do you know what it means to be a born again christian. There is no definition you give.
bbpatty21 7 months ago
@sandiegoevangelism I know three - count 'em, three - ex born again christians who's rabid faith was as virulent as yours seems. One I've known all my life and I can recall the day I had to tell her just how unpleasant her company was. But all that's behind us as she's back among the living. You can crank the volume until the speakers blow, but any "level" of piety can succumb to reason. I'm sure you lapse into masturbation and rationalize a pass from god.
fdasherv 6 months ago
This is one of the silliest arguments I have seen by an atheist/agnosic or whatever label he uses.
Simply put, A TRUE CHRISTIAN MUST BE BORN AGAIN OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD!
It has NOTHING to do with being persuaded by reasoning. It is a transference from the KINGDOM OF DARKNESS into the KINGDOM OF LIGHT! PRAISE JESUS!
sandiegoevangelism 8 months ago
@sandiegoevangelism Three points. You didn't identify which argument you found 'silly'. I wasn't a christian because I was 'persuaded by reason' — I was indoctrinated to be one. And your definition of 'true christian' is an equivocation fallacy — this video uses the general definition. Substituting your personal definition, or the definition of your denomination, as the general definition is not valid.
TheraminTrees 8 months ago
Easily the most reasonable and scholarly YT user I've stumbled upon. Keep up the good work and I know the rest of the world will come around.
minnaow 8 months ago
@minnaow Why, thank you ;8)
TheraminTrees 8 months ago
i know this is over a year ago but still i would like to talk to you about what is wrong with ur theory from a logical christian standpoint lol
thensis1 8 months ago
Bro, your way of giving me the ability to understand faith in human ideas helped me become atheist 6 months ago. I appreciate you
iliveon 9 months ago
george? floella benjamin? it'll be zippy and bungle next. i suspect a hint of rainbow worship with a sprinkling of playschool, both better moral teachers than the babble!
1empathy 9 months ago
@1empathy ' i suspect a hint of rainbow worship with a sprinkling of playschool'
—Why, I couldn't possibly say .... though you should see me wobble like a jelly.
TheraminTrees 9 months ago
@TheraminTrees Like your style and have therefore subscribed . . .
1empathy 9 months ago
Further more I feel I could ask you the same questions about many historic figures that you asked about God or Jesus. For example, You consider it common knowledge that George Washington lived. Did Washington visit you or speak to you on the phone? No. You learned about Washington from teachers and books. When you think about it there is really no way to scientifically prove that George Washington existed and did the things people said he did
En3rg3tic 9 months ago
@En3rg3tic Proof constitutes an abundance of evidence, and we have an abundance of physical evidence that G.W. lived and was our president, where there is no such physical evidence for Christ's life. I could go raid the tomb of our first president right now and bitch slap his skull. No such luck finding Jesus' corpse to do the same. We also have 1st hand written accounts of Washington, where as the gospels were first written fifty years after the crucifixion. G.W. is a bad example. -_-
ApemanD 9 months ago
@En3rg3tic Further to ApemanD's response, you missed the point I was making, which is about ongoing existence, not historical existence — ie no one here's claiming Washington's watching over you right now and loves you. So no, the same questions do not apply. On historical existence, I often grant Jesus's existence, just for argument — his supernatural side is another matter. And I know full well what faith means — I was making a point about the middle men/women we're putting our faith in.
TheraminTrees 9 months ago
@En3rg3tic That's an ignorant metaphor to make. And here's the simple reason why; we know Washington exists because there are numerous primary sources as well as anthropological evidence that confirm his prior existence. Where as the earliest mention of Jesus is from Paul, who wrote his gospel decades after Jesus died. The bible is composed of nothing but secondary sources at the very best and agenda-driven assertions at the least. Not to mention vague speculative superstition.
PrimusGladius 9 months ago
While I agree with the first two points you make in this video. I strongly disagree with what you said about faith in Christ. As a catholic I don't put my faith in "George" or the Bible, I put my faith in the existence of God. The fact that you are saying faith in God without proof, means you don't understand the definition of the word faith which is - 1.confidence or trust in a person or thing 2.belief that is not based on proof-
En3rg3tic 9 months ago
great video! i subscribed!
all hail the holy person x!
taffysaur 9 months ago
Comment removed
DystopianEmpire01 9 months ago
Excellent video. Found you through Evid3nc3.
I am 99% atheist and 1% agnostic.
I find it hard to believe freethinkers would label themselves 100% atheist.
It sort of shuts the door to 'freethinking.'
gjsterp 9 months ago
@gjsterp Thanks. Though one can be 100% atheist and 100% agnostic. Agnosticism pertains to the question of whether you think the existence of god(s) is knowable. Atheism refers to whether you believe in gods. Hence you can be:
—agnostic atheist — existence unknowable and not believed
—agnostic theist — existence unknowable but believed
—'gnostic' atheist — non-existence is knowable and existence not believed
No belief with no evidence is perfectly justified. No belief with evidence is a problem.
TheraminTrees 9 months ago
@TheraminTrees I have discussed this with several people and many seem to think that I am not commited to my atheism. My atheism in regard to the religions I have studied is 100% The God's they expound, I do not believe exist.
I also would state that if there is a god, and that is a big if, we would no inkling as to what it is like.
That is the part of my agnosticism.
However, since I do not and can not know everything, I withhold the statement, "There is NO god."
God is undefined in a sense
gjsterp 9 months ago
@gjsterp Isn't it interesting that the people who claim that god is beyond our understanding when logical inconsistency is brought up, are often the same people who are all too happy to define God and tell us what it wants.
FosterZygote 9 months ago
@FosterZygote We all know what god wants. It's written in the Bible.
But the Christians ignore the messages or pick and choose the ones they will live by.
I believe it is the 2nd Commandment that says thos should have no craven images before you.
Then they knee before statues and crosses.
I guess when you can't actually see a god, a craven image is better than thin air.
gjsterp 9 months ago
@TheraminTrees I've always liked this quote:
People educated in [the critical habit of thought] ...are slow to believe. They can hold things as possible or probable in all degrees, without certainty and without pain. - William Graham Sumner
FosterZygote 9 months ago
First one of your videos that i see, and i'm already subscribing. Nicely done. Keep up the good work, and i'm off to see the rest of it.
lardhat 9 months ago
Just for the record, the definition of "true Christian" you ran into isn't just a private one: it's a fundamental tenet of Calvinism and its doctrines of limited atonement, irresistable grace, unconditional election and perservation of the saints. In it, any person who apostatizes was ipso facto never regenerate and never a member of the Church Spiritual. It's completely circular reasoning, but that definition isn't just the private view of a few, but a central teaching of Reformed theology.
nothingmemorable 10 months ago
@nothingmemorable I'm aware of the various ill-conceived calvinist tenets. And your very mention of the reformed tradition fulfils my use of the word 'private' — ie, belonging to/in use by a particular person or particular group. This is the private view of calvinists — what they feel, or have been taught, constitutes a christian.
TheraminTrees 9 months ago
@TheraminTrees As I understand Flew's definition of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, it involves an ad hoc change to shore up an assertion, combined with a shift in the meaning of the words used in the original assertion. This would not apply in the case of Calvinism, as it isn't an ad hoc assertion, nor is there a meaning-shift: Calvinism defines its terms in advance. Also, that definition follows necessarily from Calvinist soteriology, and is no way an afterthought. Sorry if I'm being pedantic.
nothingmemorable 9 months ago
@nothingmemorable The shift in meaning is from the general word 'christian' to their specific private definition — ie an ad hoc equivocation has taken place. SImilar to the calvinists, the Scotsman who talks of 'true Scotsmen' may have held his views long in advance, about what he considers a 'true Scotsman'. But his defence remains an ad hoc equivocation, inserting his own meaning to discount a claim not based on his meaning.
TheraminTrees 9 months ago
@TheraminTrees Suit yourself, mate. But it sounds like you're making a One True Scotsman argument here yourself.
nothingmemorable 9 months ago
@nothingmemorable 'it sounds like you're making a One True Scotsman argument here yourself.'
—Nope. I'm not claiming my definition is *the true* definition. I'm pointing out that I qualified as a christian under very standard, accepted definitions — believing in the christian god, following Christ. To dispute that, an equivocation was employed, substituting a more limited private definition. They can say 'You're not my definition of a christian,' etc. But not that I wasn't a true christian.
TheraminTrees 9 months ago
Your analogy might be better if George claimed Person X had some sort of psychic powers, so if you opened your heart and mind to him, you would FEEL his presence. This lets you get away with saying you really do have a relationship with Person X because he "speaks" to you via his psychic powers--but you can only feel his psi waves if you truly believe, or your skeptical negative energy blocks the message. That's why skeptics can't know Person X like you can. ;)
Megaritz 10 months ago
Thank you for this. :)
ohhkellee 10 months ago
Your argument about Christians putting their faith in humans is true. We heard from other people about this supernatural being that exists but we have not ever seen him, but other people did get to see the son and that is something that is documented just like everything else we learn in history class. How do you know about anything that happened in the B.C. timeframe? You have documents that talk about what happened. Thats pretty much it for most things that old.
Amandathechicken410 10 months ago
@Amandathechicken410 By well-documented you mean...?
medicca 10 months ago
Atheism doesn't involve reasoning or any other skills? I'm confused...that sounds like the definition for religion.
melodee105 10 months ago
@melodee105 What he is saying is the actual defitinion of 'atheist' never mentions anything about said atheist's reasoning abilities or capacity for logic. An atheist is simply someone who lacks a belief in god or gods. Atheists run the gambit of personalities/disabilities/intelligence levels/etc that any religion does as well so to say you are an atheist does not imply you have a certain capacity for logic/wisdom/knowledge or anything else, simply that you do not hold a belief in a god.
Pengalor 10 months ago
the best part was the "porridge" tag in the description XD
whatheduck97 11 months ago
5:30 - Invalid Comparison...in this context, "Associate" and "Yoke" are VERY different. Associate=to keep company, as a friend, companion, or ally. Yoke=to join, couple, link, or unite. Just as two oxen are yoked together for a common purpose, Christians are to yoke with each other to work toward COMMON purposes. If one ox is significantly stronger/different than the other, they will walk in circles... In fact, the bible instructs Christians to associate with EVERYONE (Matthew 28:19).
pkonopa 11 months ago
@pkonopa The point of including that bible passage was because I've had christians use it in precisely the sense I'm indicating: as instruction not to associate with non-christians, full stop. Whether they're wrong to use it that way is not the issue — it's the fact they do that I'm highlighting.
TheraminTrees 11 months ago
@TheraminTrees There will always be uneducated people...hearing SOME christians use a scripture inappriately does not mean you should use their comments as an arguement against christianity. It's invalid, and once exposed actually weakens your credibility as a logical unbiased critical thinker. Otherwise, interesting video. Certainly, though, we as humans learn from other people's experiences every day. To suggest that we can only believe that which we experience first hand is also invalid.
pkonopa 11 months ago
@pkonopa First, arguing that those christians were 'uneducated' or 'inappropriate' doesn't hold. They can fully justify their view scripturally. Second I don't argue that all christians think that — I'm aware that many don't. Your comment misses the point being made in the video, about cult/religion division. Neither do I argue that 'we can only believe that which we experience first hand' — quite obviously, people are capable of believing all kinds of stuff they've never experienced.
TheraminTrees 11 months ago
@TheraminTrees Honestly, I wasn't commenting on the overall point of your video...I was simply explaining what I believe is the true meaning of 2 Corinthians 6:14 so that you would not spread it's out-of-context use as many others have done. By likening it to Waco, you fortify a common misconception that christian people are inherently intolerant and/or ignorant...certainly not what Christ taught. And yes, the person who said you were never a christian is an idiot...only Christ knows that.
pkonopa 11 months ago
@pkonopa 'I was simply explaining what I believe is the true meaning of 2 Corinthians 6:14 so that you would not spread it's out-of-context use'
—Two points. First, I acknowledge that's what you think the passage means, though as I've pointed out, other christians insist differently. Second, the point isn't that christians are inherently intolerant — some are intolerant, some aren't — but that cult behaviours are not some 'over there' phenomenon — they're seen everywhere including mainstream.
TheraminTrees 11 months ago
@pkonopa Different denominations of Christianity interpret scripture in different ways. Even different churches within the same denomination can and do differ slightly in there interpretation. Within these multiple views on the "word" of "god" there will be incompatibility. It's easy to say "Those Christians are wrong in their interpretation, This is what it really means..." But the problem is that there will be 50 other people saying the same thing about your statement.
steeliedude 10 months ago
The SALVATION process is not just a one-time event but a THREE-FOLD process. The TRUE believer IS SAVED (John 3:36; cf. John 6:47), IS BEING SAVED (2 Corinthians 2:15; cf. 1 Corinthians 1:18), and WILL BE SAVED (Mark 16:16; cf. Acts 16:31)
JESUS SAID: “Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but THE ONE WHO STANDS FIRM TO THE END WILL BE SAVED” (Matthew 24:12-13, emphasis mine). By your testimony, Sir, I am all the more convinced that Christ's words are true.
bibliomaniac727 1 year ago
@bibliomaniac727 The arguments that because I'm no longer a christian then I never was, simply don't hold. Say there are two versions of me. Both with identical faith. One is killed at 10, faith intact. The other lives on and loses their faith. But the faiths up to age 10 were identical, so either they were both real, or both false. Moreover, according to NTS arguments, *no one* can be called a christian — we can't be certain that people don't lose their faith in their last few seconds.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees I don't dispute the fact that you *were* a Christian. I believe that you *were.* But Jesus said that only those "who endure to the END will be saved." Your love for Christ (the love you once had but no longer have, as per your confession in this video) has grown cold (dead), and Jesus, in Matthew 24:12-13, clearly predicts what happens to such "believers." By your renunciation of the Faith, you prove Christ's words true.
bibliomaniac727 1 year ago
@bibliomaniac727 'I don't dispute the fact that you *were* a Christian. I believe that you *were.*'
—Great.
'By your renunciation of the Faith, you prove Christ's words true.'
—You're not saying "those who stand firm to the end will be saved" is proved true by my video, are you? Surely you wouldn't be saying that — because clearly that's not proved at all by this video. So what words are you saying are proved?
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees Okay, I'll repeat myself: JESUS SAID: “At that time many will turn away from the faith ... and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people ... the love of most will grow cold, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved” (Matthew 24:10-13). Don't you think that your renunciation is exactly what Jesus is describing here? (If you aren't sure, read the entire chapter for context) What I am saying is that your renunciation of faith proves Jesus' prophecy true.
bibliomaniac727 1 year ago
@bibliomaniac727 "At that time many will turn away from the faith"
-No Shit Sherlock! it doesn't take a genius to realize that eventually people will start to notice flaws of this religion and realize that its a scam. If I scheme a modus operandi right now along with others, I can easily write in a *holy book* that eventually our scam will be found out (or should I say love of most will grow cold) LOL!
So Im a prophet now huh?
if youre god's intellect can only be at this level. ITS SAD! LOL!
12InchesUnBuffed 1 year ago
@bibliomaniac727 'Don't you think that your renunciation is exactly what Jesus is describing here?'
—You confuse prophecy with social commentary. If I start saying, 'Many will be conned out of their money, many will stop believing in the kindness of humans, some will remain doggedly optimistic' — that's just what's going on all the time, it's not prophecy. Same with your 'prophecy' — folks losing faith, some keeping it, false prophets, etc.? Proves nothing except commonplace observation.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@bibliomaniac727 Sorry to break it to you bro. But religion is a scam. It capitalizes on human weaknesses: Greed and Fear.
Greed- Worship an imaginary god in exchange for a luxurious life eternally in heaven.
Fear - Do not worship this imaginary god, and you will suffer eternal torture in the depths of fiery lake of hell.
In exchange, give money to the church and you will be taught the words of god (Yes indeed. WORD OF GOD) Funny isn't it? humans are able to comprehend god's words. LOL!
12InchesUnBuffed 1 year ago
Comment removed
bibliomaniac727 1 year ago
@12InchesUnBuffed I'm a sister. That's the first thing. Secondly, who made *you* the final authoritative source of truth?
bibliomaniac727 1 year ago
@bibliomaniac727 Did I say I was the final authoritative source of truth? Hilarious! God actually needs our money and worship! HAHAHA! This god is a tyrannic asshole INDEED!
Not only does god allow evil to exist, but god allows evil to mess up humanity's lives, AND! punishes humanity for not obeying god! HAHA! OH! Wait it's our fault for being imperfect now is it? Well you know this god made us imperfect. A perfect being created humanity which is flawed in every aspect.
WHAT A "GREAT GOD!" LOL!
12InchesUnBuffed 1 year ago
@bibliomaniac727 Actually, do me a favor will you? It's pointless to discuss these things with you if even within your own religion you cannot reach a common ground. You see why is christianity separated in different branches? why isn't there just one christianity? so which one really will go to heaven? WHICH is the "TRUE" Christianity? HAHA!
You know, you need to sort this out first within your own religion.
Oh my gosh this is so entertaining. hahaha!
12InchesUnBuffed 1 year ago
“Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but THE ONE WHO STANDS FIRM TO THE END WILL BE SAVED”
-In other words:
Because of the increase of skeptics who are starting to realize that religion is a scam, people will turn away and will condemn this scam. But the one who stands firm will be drained out of his money, turn crazy and be left helpless in the society.
12InchesUnBuffed 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees you speak with alot of depth clarity is there any books you would recommend on critical thinking etc.
philosage 1 year ago
@philosage Thanks. I was trying to find your comment on another video and gave up — one of those days. But it's here. Can't think of any books dedicated to the subject of critical thinking as such. Books exposing frauds, illusions and susceptibilities have all contributed — but it's mainly been a case of thinking things through, asking, 'How might that not be true?' Looking for exceptions, violations. Websites explaining in-/formal logical fallacies seem a great start — and a free resource ;8)
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees,
I just wanted to find out your views on belief and values. Whats the difference between the two? I hear atheists say they dont believe in anything which i think is a bad statment to make because it communicates implicitly to some people the dont value anything (im atheist by the way.) i think this confusion can occur because people can say they believe or dont believe in libertarinism.i think there is a dynamic relationship belief and values which i haven't grappled with yet.
philosage 1 year ago
@philosage I think 'belief' and 'value' both have huge scope, with the possibility of being used synonymously in some cases. But narrowing that scope a little — and talking for myself, I could say 'belief' evokes to me a sense that something is true, or exists — an entity, a process, a trait, etc. — and 'value' is an attitudinal stance that flow from, and I suspect also inform, those premises. Like you, I'm skeptical of 'I don't believe in anything' — feels like shorthand.
TheraminTrees 11 months ago
ok... that was one of the best videos i've ever seen in my life. you have great great great arguments and an amazing eloquence in your explanations. :) if only theists were intelligent enough to understand all that!! hahah joking!.... kinda.........
taal610 1 year ago
I note that you use TWO definitions of atheism. Those ARE slightly different things, actually, and I distinguish them by calling the first "non-theism" and the other "atheism". Thus I call myself a nontheist agnostic, but not an atheist. The people you criticize for rejecting atheism but being nontheist are indeed agnostics, like Carl Sagan and Thomas Huxley were. So you are mistaken there. Otherwise, your video is excellent!
DaleHusband 1 year ago
@DaleHusband Atheism indicated no belief in god. Non-theism is a subset of atheism — I'm not asserting that as my own personal preference, but as defined in dictionaries — not just one obscure dictionary, but dictionaries in general. So if you want to go and call all of them mistaken and try and persuade them to shift to your personal preference, by all means do. In the meantime, please don't come here asserting I'm the one that's mistaken.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees
My "personal preference" was also that of most other people prior to the 1990s, including most atheists as well as the aforementioned Sagan and Huxley. I've read enough literature to know that. Dictionaries often reflect popular trends, even if those trends are not really logical. Logic is not based on personal preference.
DaleHusband 1 year ago
@DaleHusband Dictionaries reflect the evolution of language. New words are introduced to the language. Old words are narrowed or widened in scope, or pronounced archaic. There are many trends in the language that I have problems with. Tell me you have problems with the word 'atheist' covering non-theism and I can understand and appreciate your point of view. But when you tell me, 'So you are mistaken there', you overstate your case. I'm not 'mistaken' — I'm using accepted definitions.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees In that case, I apologize for the missstatement. You are correct linguistically, even if you might not be correct logically. I was merely arguing that the two definitions of atheism are really different things and should be indicated by two different words.
DaleHusband 1 year ago
@DaleHusband 'You are correct linguistically, even if you might not be correct logically.'
—So again you've personalised this to me, saying *I'm* not correct logically. If this is still about the accepted definitions of atheism, then you're making exactly the same overstatement of your case — your beef is with dictionaries so take it to them. If you're referring to some other issue, then please substantiate your vague insinuation of my incorrect logic.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
I still can't get over the 'no true christians can be swayed by reason'.
Scientific reason, maybe not. I know christians that to this day reject the idea of the Big Bang Theory, the sun dying out one day, and even Global Warming. But you CANNOT judge every person into two classes based on christianity. People are different, and you seem to be poking a bit of fun at christians through the whole movie, even though you may pull that 'scientific aspect' quite well. "we each represent ourselves"
vyvyansmine 1 year ago
@vyvyansmine The 'no true christians can be swayed by reason' message that was sent to me by a christian was quite something to read.
Poking fun at christians through the whole video? Not at all. I poke fun at that silly quote. But the video is making a case, not personal slurs.
TheraminTrees 1 year ago
@TheraminTrees Well I'm very glad that's cleared up. I'm also glad you can see things from different' aspects; the world needs more people with broader minds and broader acceptance. :3
vyvyansmine 1 year ago
@sai10000
Why are there contradictions and records showing additions and subtractions of gospels?
"If a God did write a book it would be the only book ever needed to be written. There would be no need for science."
-Not my words
blkswimmer 1 year ago
@sai10000
Why are there contradictions and records showing additions and subtractions of gospels?
"If a God did write the bible it would be the only book ever needed to be written. There would be no need for science."
-Not my words
blkswimmer 1 year ago
Given what you've said, might you dispute the claim, "No true scientist believes in God"?
BrotherAtticus 1 year ago
Wonderful video, thanks for sharing.
Tambs 1 year ago