As an atheist, I can tell you that most of the atheists I have met have never once used this reasoning as to their convergence or as an aspect in their decision-making to become an atheist. You, perhaps from your own experience, have come across other people who think like this but sir, you are GENERALIZING here.
I like this one a lot! It is short and funny and so so true. Yes as you say atheists basically set up a straw man that we don't even believe and then show how THEIR MISUNDERSTANDING doesn't make sense.
"Who the hell believes in an invisible man in the sky"
Mormons. The rest of the features are what fundamentalists CONTINUALLY TELL US GOD IS. They don't call God a dictator, but they way they describe him and their dogma points to a dictator. It's like saying you know a guy who thinks all Jews are evil but then ask why I'm calling your friend and anti-semite. You can't get mad at us for describing your God as his followers describe him.
"Why does a god need to use the threat of hell?" Every lover warns the beloved of an imminent danger - for his own benefit.
"Why does a god not just get rid of it and delete bad people when they die?" Because annihilation would be a self-contradictory act on God's part.
.
"How is a god that pretty much says "do as i say or ill let harm happen to you after you die" not classified as a tyranical dictator?" He warns you - not forces you - against your path of self-destruction. Tis lurve!
Well, simply referring to someone as "delusional" I find an ad hominem attack if it is used as a substitute for an actual argument, and referring to a "magic man in the sky" is a straw man. You should treat these arguments as such. You clearly know them to be flawed, but being able to call them on it by the name of the fallacy is helpful when debating. Now, if we are referring to the character of the judeo-christian god as described in the bible (cont)
(cont) (especially in the old testament), I find such a being (as described) immoral (on that point I agree). Yes, there are a lot of us who are mean and childish, there are some who do not present sound arguments... but the same could be said about theists. We should both take care not to stereotype here, it would encourage this "us vs. them" mentality that, in turn, (cont 2)
(cont 3) causes a tendency on both sides to indulge in splitting (a type of cognitive distortion). Lastly, if we use this to dismiss an argument from someone with an opposing viewpoint before we've even heard it, we not only fail to account for the confirmation bias at the information gathering stage, but encourage this notion of selective collection of evidence. This is much more subtle, but just as dangerous, as delusion. (cont 4)
(cont 4) Someone who is delusional holds a belief in the face of superior evidence, while the selective collection of evidence convinces a person who is otherwise in touch with reality of something which might not necessarily be so. Either way, this notion of certainty which both sides posess is not only uncalled for, but more often than not interferes with the pursuit of truth.
It is commonly held that tyrants don't have the ability to send others to hell. Moreover, belief in God is what ensures us joy for God knows what is truly best for us. If we reject what He wants for us, then we have signed our perdition in this life and in the life to come. It is simple, obey the perfect and you can one day reach Him, disobey your creator and you chose the path of evil. So we chose our destiny, not God. He gives us the choice between good and bad.
@AdversusHaereses Being good and believing in god are two separate things. Considering the amount of monotheism in the world, you can be thrown in hell for choosing(or being born into) the wrong one, can't you? My family and friends are full of devout Sikhs and do not believe in Jesus and are confident in their salvation, I will not worship a god who will punish them for a petty reason.
@aether9000 Actually since God is perfect, there is no way you can be good other than following His nature and His teachings. In the book of Lamentations it says "The Lord is good to them that hope in Him, to the soul that seeketh Him."
@AdversusHaereses that excuse will work with any other religion; Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, Judaism. Unless your creationist, the nature argument would fail, If you except evolution by natural selection, evolution of moral psychology must follow. Its a necessary component of evolution and your religion has to be reconciled with it.
@AdversusHaereses, "It is commonly held that tyrants don't have the ability to send others to hell." They do, however, kill people. Depending on how the analogy is made, I think it is a valid one.
"so if I don't believe and worship your god, do I go to hell?" = "So if I do not want to be with God, God will respect my decision and I will be apart from Him." How is that "tyranny"? There seems to be too much lolgic at work with some "criticisms" here...
You're a Catholic, right? I was raised a Catholic. As a Catholic, you gotta follow Catholic doctrine. Unless you pick and choose which parts you like and disregard the rest, in which case you're not a Catholic. There are doctrines that you must follow. "Who the hell thinks that God is a person who sends people to hell?" MANY people believe this, the bible states it, religious figures continuously re-iterate that people will go to hell.
@kainedamo People going to hell is different from God sending them. We go to hell if we choose the path of evil. Every departure from God is a path of evil since He is perfect.
@AdversusHaereses You're making a number of unprovable assumptions. You assume that God doesn't send people to hell, you have no way of knowing that. You assume God is perfect, you assume he exists. Nothing in your comment is provable. There are roughly 6 billion people in the world who are not Catholic. The idea that they're all going to burn in hell, along with everyone in history who was not Catholic, to me suggests that God is not good. If its not up to God, then God is not omnipotent.
@sgal88 Philosophically, logically, you can prove thought exists. I think therefore I am. A number of things follow logically from that. We can be reasonably sure of a lot of things, as long as we go as far as to accept that we can rely on our ability to observe our reality. I think therefore I am, follows logically to trusting our senses and ability to observe, but none of that follows logically to the existence of God. Buy a beginner's guide on philosophy.
@kainedamo That is ur opinion. One can have a faith based on what was said by the ancient Fathers, Abraham, Isaac et al. Second, thoughts do exist, but it doesn't mean we can see them. I can not see your thoughts just as much as you can not see mine. Scientifically, we can see thoughts flow in our brain but not the idea itself. 3rd, faith is a requirement and faith is to believe what is not seen.
@sgal88 You don't need faith to prove thoughts exist, just simple logic. Faith has nothing to do with logic. I agree that faith is required to believe in God.
@kainedamo A married couple who love each other have to have faith that each will remain faithful till death and that each love each other has they say they do. That in itself is faith. Faith is trusting in one another. Abraham trusted in God because He is wisest above our intellect and it is pride that blinds one to assume that God does not exist. You should learn some humility, for God rejects the proud.
@sgal88 Don't you see the inherent contradictions in what you say? You tell me that God is wisest above our intellect, you state it as fact with no way of knowing if it is true, and yet you say that I need to learn humility? I think the person who claims that such a God is 100% fact is the person who needs to practice humility. You don't know that God exists. Accepting that IS humble.
@sgal88 Human beings do have natural empathy and there is scientific evidence of that. You can almost literally feel the love from another person when they display that emotion. You have more direct evidence of the love of another person than you would of the existence of God.
@kainedamo There is scientific evidence for those who meditate or pray that their body reacts to it. And as for love, there is also something called acting.
@sgal88 There is scientific evidence that people react to yoga and exercise, and drugs. Why do you assume a supernatural explanation when there are already very natural scientific explanations? So some people can fake and fool others into thinking they're in love, what's that supposed to prove?
@kainedamo That you are to have faith in the person who tells you that they love you. Second, you would practically disregard saints who have felt this intense love from God. Saints like, St. Gemma, St. Catherine, St. Pio, St. Vianney and many more who have felt love from their creator and even those who do feel the love from God.
@sgal88 You can have faith in something and be completely wrong. How many children genuinely believe Santa exists? Do you not think that human beings can have an incredible capacity for self-delusion? I can point to examples of other religions, people in history, who genuinely believed in Zeus, and fought for Zeus, and made sacrifices for Zeus. Their love is as genuine as those of the saints.
Look at the people of North Korea and their grief over Kim Jong Il, who they believed to be a God.
@kainedamo Actually believing in Santa is not the same as believing in God. We have good evidence that the things we claim Santa does, is not done by him. God on the other hand, without Him, nothing would exist since all existence owes itself to His essence.
@AdversusHaereses That's circular reasoning. It's fallacious because the argument assumes the premise is true. It's no better than saying "he is because he is". The argument only supports itself if we assume the premise is true.
Can you come back with an argument that isn't circular?
@kainedamo Everything in the universe is contingent and necessarily requires a cause. If every being were contingent, then there would be nothing since the series of causes would go ad infinitum. Yet that is impossible or else we would not be here. There must be a necessary being out of which all things owe their existence to directly or indirectly. This being we call God.
@AdversusHaereses Your argument still makes assumptions and leaps in logical connections and is STILL circular. How do you get to there being nothing if there is a series of causes that are infinite? Why do you assume this is impossible, but an eternal being is possible? How do you get from us being here, to us owing our existence to an intelligent being? Why does the cause have to be either a being or intelligent?
@kainedamo When I say being, I presume entity. Metaphysics is the study of being, not just human beings but being as a whole. Now, an infinite series is impossible or else there would have to be an infinite amount of events that took place in the past for us to be here. But if there were an infinite amount of events, we would never be here! Things do not spontaneously pop into existence, so even prior to the physical world, things existed. A necessary being to allow all this is called God.
...Continuing So the punishment of Hell may not be immediate punishment but it's definitely something that someone who believes in it keeps in mind. And think about Hell, it's a very permanent prison sentence for eternity with no rehabilitation possibilties based on a very short period of time in the scale of things. As far as saying like "Sky Daddy", that is an oversimplification of God and usually used to make God sound more unlikely. I think it shouldn't be used in my opinion.
In the old testament it seemed that God did dictate what is moral via the Ten Commandments and other writings of Torah as well as other parts of the Tanakh. Then with the New Testament bringing in hell, those morals seemed much more pushed as well as regular pentence to avoid Hell (in whatever way you want to define hell). ...Continued
Hence we arrive at the precipice of getting into Catholic theology, another massive topic. No orthodox Catholic intellectual in the entire history of Western thought would confuse God's essential nature, that of being infinite, eternal, and transcendent, with the nature He assumed in the Incarnation: that of a human body and soul, in other words, physical matter. You have confused the two natures of Christ by misapplying the staunch defense of His human nature to His essential Divine Nature.
You don't know anyone who believes in a man in the sky? Really? Is that why Christianity uses imagery such as Jesus ascending to Heaven, Elijah riding to heaven in a chariot of fire etc. Also, when Moses received the tablets with the commandments he claimed to have seen God's back. Seems pretty anthropomorphic to me.
If you don't believe in these things I guess you're not a True Christian?
@Gnomefro -dimensional realities, yet still understand that even though the physical universe extends unimaginably further than our atmosphere, in a sense relative to our experience of life here on earth, the sky symbolizes and embodies for humanity the unknown, the Heavens, and God. In other words, one can assign spiritual significance to earth from our perspective, and contained within the confines of the earth, without believing in a physical Heaven in the clouds made of matter.
... stubbornness and rebellion, whether people admit it or not, as well as extreme arrogance - although I wouldn't be surprised if there are some people who literally can't comprehend or grasp proper logic enough to see theism properly, as rational philosophy and as a rich, historic worldview.
God is spirit, eternal, infinite, pure Good and the only source of true freedom, and the likeness of man to God is made possible purely by and through God made man, Christ our Lord. Veritatis Splendor.
@pj100003 "whether people admit it or not, as well as extreme arrogance"
I beg to differ. Any arrogance in this topic comes from the people who think they know that "God" exists while presenting "reasons" that flat out contradict their only source of information about the being. You call God "pure Good", even though Yahweh commands the burning of little girls in Lev 21:9. This is either a flat out contradiction or a perversion of the word "good" to the point where it has no meaning anymore.
@pj100003 Either way it seems clear that you have no idea what you're talking about, yet go on about theism being a "rational philosophy". Also, FYI, you don't have to go far back in history to find statements to the effect that "Of course my God is physical!" from intellectuals. The reason this view has been abandoned is the slow steady march of human understanding of nature. Same thing that killed off Zeus. All that remains today are vacuous statements like "spirit", "good" etc.
@Gnomefro As unfair as this may sound, I feel I need to be honest and let you know that I don't have time right now to get into an extended debate on YouTube. First and foremost, regarding your first comment addressed to Adversus, you don't grasp the mystical understanding of orthodox Christianity regarding the world, physical flesh, and God himself. Catholics can believe in a spiritual understanding of 'up' and 'down' in the physical world; ie, believe in Heaven or Hell as parallel/other-
@Gnomefro The case of Moses is probably a case of a vision, in which God can assume any form He chooses in order to relate truth to human beings in a way we can understand. There is also such a thing as progressive revelation in Sacred Scripture, where truth of God is more clearly understood over time. At this time, God was understood very dimly and mysteriously, and described in a limited way in terms of somewhat anthropomorphic Hebrew idioms and conceptualizations...
@Gnomefro ... and God cooperated with and allowed that for a time. From the very beginning, however, there has existed within Hebrew religious concepts the acute realization of God's 'otherness' or holiness, and his transcendent and eternal nature. You can find statements like this all throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. Moreover, when Christ taught His followers of God, He clearly taught of God as being a non-physical, spiritual entity; hence his words to the woman at the well...
@Gnomefro ... in the Gospel of St. John chapter four: "God is spirit," discouraging her from thinking in terms of ancient shunning by the Jews for their refusal to worship at the *physical* sight of Jersusalem. Catholics consider this the ultimate teaching and ultimate revelation of who God is, on His authority, and well backed-up by Hebrew religious concepts.
Please also understand that I'm touching on these things extremely briefly and perhaps a bit...
@Gnomefro lacking from what you would get from someone trained in theology. I'm seventeen and there is a lot I have yet to learn and much education I have laid out before me. I can clearly and definitely say I don't know all there is to know about this as well.
EDIT: site* not sight of Jerusalem.
Now, briefly touching on your two comments to me:
No, statements about the attributes of God are not reasons for adopting a theistic perspective and life philosophy, you're mistaken.
@Gnomefro Your attempting to use that passage (and I would assume others like it - general moral condemnation of actions in Scripture) to disprove orthodox Catholic understandings of the attributes of God: His absolute goodness, etc. This has nothing to do with reasons for the existence of a Divine Principle, that belongs to the realm of reason and philosophy.
@Gnomefro So considering your statement that I don't know what I'm talking about is entirely based on a faulty logic flow and a strawman regarding reasons to believe in God, I'm disregarding it entirely. Now, if we were discussing morality and Scripture, that would be an entirely different discussion involving a rational benchmark for even determining what is good, the existence of good and evil, and societal factors as well as exploring the concept of sin and deviance. That's a huge topic.
@Gnomefro Oh, and one more thing. Orthodox Catholic scholars and intellectuals still profess the same creed of physicality that you, in a butchered way, applied to anthropomorphism and this whole idea of God's nature. These statements did and still do almost certainly refer to Christ in His glorified humanity, in keeping with the Catholic dogma defined de fide that nature and matter are good, and that human beings, composed of body and soul, have a supernatural end in God for both body and soul.
It's funny, I have actually met young adults, individuals under 25, who for the sake of rebellion actually do believe God is an invisible, temporal, anthropomorphic-type self-imposing deity like you describe. Not dumb individuals either, smart ones who flat-out deliberately refuse to use reason and logic to shape their life philosophy and worldview around the Divine Principle, and from there come to Christian and finally Catholic Faith. The problem is often (not always, but often) that of...
From one Catholic to another, most Atheists tend to see Fundamentalists in the terms you mentioned on this video. Fundamentalists (a'la Ray Comfort, etc) tend to somewhat distort the words of the faith and there in lies the term of God as a "Sky daddy" who "sends people to hell". Ergo, the truth about God gets distorted and all the confusion exists. Hope that helps.
@Stitchman3875 I tend to think Catholics who are faithful to the teachings of Christ are the true fundamentalist with the correct balance of literal and figurative.
@sgal88 I would most definitely agree with that statement. The Catholics have a far deeper concept of God and a better definition of faith. That is part of the reason why I myself am a convert to the Catholic Faith. The Evangelicals water down every definition to the point where the absurdity objections are justified. They make faith look foolish because of the misdefinition.
@Stitchman3875, @sgal88 Agreed with both of you. I am personally a convert from Evangelical Lutheranism, which is more or less Evangelicalism with a twist. You can't improve upon the Faith we received from Christ and the Apostles by tearing down two millenia of Christian thought and belief, watering it down, and then building up your own, misshapen mess.
As an atheist, I can tell you that most of the atheists I have met have never once used this reasoning as to their convergence or as an aspect in their decision-making to become an atheist. You, perhaps from your own experience, have come across other people who think like this but sir, you are GENERALIZING here.
dogliker2 6 days ago
You make a good point. Even though I'm an atheist, a lot of the atheistic arguments are pure idiocy.
SuperBspb 2 weeks ago
i can tell by the look of your face that you believe in some invisible man in the skies
trollazable 1 month ago
Sure glad you made this.
Lawborn 1 month ago
O, and why do you resort to profanity?
Hirduin 1 month ago
Dude, what's with the bouncy video and your agitated movements?? Too much coffee??
Hirduin 1 month ago
I like this one a lot! It is short and funny and so so true. Yes as you say atheists basically set up a straw man that we don't even believe and then show how THEIR MISUNDERSTANDING doesn't make sense.
sk8412c 1 month ago
i see santa every december...i dont see a god ever. people make the claim that gods exist yet fail to provide evidence to support it.
we might not have all the answers but that doesnt give anyone the right to insert a god to fill in the gaps
Shadrach76 1 month ago
"Who the hell believes in an invisible man in the sky"
Mormons. The rest of the features are what fundamentalists CONTINUALLY TELL US GOD IS. They don't call God a dictator, but they way they describe him and their dogma points to a dictator. It's like saying you know a guy who thinks all Jews are evil but then ask why I'm calling your friend and anti-semite. You can't get mad at us for describing your God as his followers describe him.
DarkEmergence 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here is a clip to be a rebuttal ----> watch?v=aLGbXHc-Ce0&list=FLpDkrxhd_zOcKvE0OY26nqw&feature=mh_lolz
TheUKathiest 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Why does a god need to use the threat of hell?" Every lover warns the beloved of an imminent danger - for his own benefit.
"Why does a god not just get rid of it and delete bad people when they die?" Because annihilation would be a self-contradictory act on God's part.
.
"How is a god that pretty much says "do as i say or ill let harm happen to you after you die" not classified as a tyranical dictator?" He warns you - not forces you - against your path of self-destruction. Tis lurve!
Shlomayo 2 months ago
Dood! I haz it! Them godless hordes be Calvinists ... think aboot it!
Shlomayo 2 months ago in playlist More videos from AdversusHaereses
@Shlomayo John Calvin syndrome is quite common among atheists.
AdversusHaereses 2 months ago 6
" If its not up to God, then God is not omnipotent." I never knew before that omnipotence necessitated self-contradictory elements xD
Tis god those godless folks here speak of indeed is an "invisible man in the sky": one I do not know :P
Shlomayo 2 months ago
Comment removed
Shlomayo 2 months ago
I've looked for a god for over 50 years and never found one. If you have, please advise. Various tests have been applied and they all failed.
ktorch 2 months ago
Well, simply referring to someone as "delusional" I find an ad hominem attack if it is used as a substitute for an actual argument, and referring to a "magic man in the sky" is a straw man. You should treat these arguments as such. You clearly know them to be flawed, but being able to call them on it by the name of the fallacy is helpful when debating. Now, if we are referring to the character of the judeo-christian god as described in the bible (cont)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont) (especially in the old testament), I find such a being (as described) immoral (on that point I agree). Yes, there are a lot of us who are mean and childish, there are some who do not present sound arguments... but the same could be said about theists. We should both take care not to stereotype here, it would encourage this "us vs. them" mentality that, in turn, (cont 2)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont 3) causes a tendency on both sides to indulge in splitting (a type of cognitive distortion). Lastly, if we use this to dismiss an argument from someone with an opposing viewpoint before we've even heard it, we not only fail to account for the confirmation bias at the information gathering stage, but encourage this notion of selective collection of evidence. This is much more subtle, but just as dangerous, as delusion. (cont 4)
naejimba 2 months ago
(cont 4) Someone who is delusional holds a belief in the face of superior evidence, while the selective collection of evidence convinces a person who is otherwise in touch with reality of something which might not necessarily be so. Either way, this notion of certainty which both sides posess is not only uncalled for, but more often than not interferes with the pursuit of truth.
naejimba 2 months ago
Why does a god need to use the threat of hell?
Why does a god not just get rid of it and delete bad people when they die?
How is a god that pretty much says "do as i say or ill let harm happen to you after you die" not classified as a tyranical dictator?
Do as i say or hell....
Yahweigh 2 months ago
so if I don't believe and worship your god, do I go to hell? If so, he is a tyrant dictator
aether9000 2 months ago
It is commonly held that tyrants don't have the ability to send others to hell. Moreover, belief in God is what ensures us joy for God knows what is truly best for us. If we reject what He wants for us, then we have signed our perdition in this life and in the life to come. It is simple, obey the perfect and you can one day reach Him, disobey your creator and you chose the path of evil. So we chose our destiny, not God. He gives us the choice between good and bad.
AdversusHaereses 2 months ago
@AdversusHaereses Being good and believing in god are two separate things. Considering the amount of monotheism in the world, you can be thrown in hell for choosing(or being born into) the wrong one, can't you? My family and friends are full of devout Sikhs and do not believe in Jesus and are confident in their salvation, I will not worship a god who will punish them for a petty reason.
aether9000 2 months ago
@aether9000 Actually since God is perfect, there is no way you can be good other than following His nature and His teachings. In the book of Lamentations it says "The Lord is good to them that hope in Him, to the soul that seeketh Him."
AdversusHaereses 2 months ago
@AdversusHaereses that excuse will work with any other religion; Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, Judaism. Unless your creationist, the nature argument would fail, If you except evolution by natural selection, evolution of moral psychology must follow. Its a necessary component of evolution and your religion has to be reconciled with it.
aether9000 2 months ago
@AdversusHaereses, "It is commonly held that tyrants don't have the ability to send others to hell." They do, however, kill people. Depending on how the analogy is made, I think it is a valid one.
naejimba 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aether9000
"so if I don't believe and worship your god, do I go to hell?" = "So if I do not want to be with God, God will respect my decision and I will be apart from Him." How is that "tyranny"? There seems to be too much lolgic at work with some "criticisms" here...
Shlomayo 2 months ago
Do you believe that God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac?
kainedamo 2 months ago
Google search 'Can non-Catholics be saved, according
to the Roman Catholic Church?'
kainedamo 2 months ago
You're a Catholic, right? I was raised a Catholic. As a Catholic, you gotta follow Catholic doctrine. Unless you pick and choose which parts you like and disregard the rest, in which case you're not a Catholic. There are doctrines that you must follow. "Who the hell thinks that God is a person who sends people to hell?" MANY people believe this, the bible states it, religious figures continuously re-iterate that people will go to hell.
kainedamo 2 months ago
@kainedamo People going to hell is different from God sending them. We go to hell if we choose the path of evil. Every departure from God is a path of evil since He is perfect.
AdversusHaereses 2 months ago
@AdversusHaereses You're making a number of unprovable assumptions. You assume that God doesn't send people to hell, you have no way of knowing that. You assume God is perfect, you assume he exists. Nothing in your comment is provable. There are roughly 6 billion people in the world who are not Catholic. The idea that they're all going to burn in hell, along with everyone in history who was not Catholic, to me suggests that God is not good. If its not up to God, then God is not omnipotent.
kainedamo 2 months ago
@kainedamo Do you assume that because we can not physically see God, that He then does not exist?
sgal88 2 months ago
@sgal88 We can't see gravity, but we know gravity exists. It's something that we can measure and prove. You can't prove the existence of God.
kainedamo 2 months ago
@kainedamo Neither can you prove the existence of a thought or an idea. You can not measure it or no its weight, but we know it exist.
sgal88 2 months ago
@sgal88 Philosophically, logically, you can prove thought exists. I think therefore I am. A number of things follow logically from that. We can be reasonably sure of a lot of things, as long as we go as far as to accept that we can rely on our ability to observe our reality. I think therefore I am, follows logically to trusting our senses and ability to observe, but none of that follows logically to the existence of God. Buy a beginner's guide on philosophy.
kainedamo 2 months ago
@kainedamo That is ur opinion. One can have a faith based on what was said by the ancient Fathers, Abraham, Isaac et al. Second, thoughts do exist, but it doesn't mean we can see them. I can not see your thoughts just as much as you can not see mine. Scientifically, we can see thoughts flow in our brain but not the idea itself. 3rd, faith is a requirement and faith is to believe what is not seen.
sgal88 2 months ago
@sgal88 You don't need faith to prove thoughts exist, just simple logic. Faith has nothing to do with logic. I agree that faith is required to believe in God.
kainedamo 2 months ago
@kainedamo A married couple who love each other have to have faith that each will remain faithful till death and that each love each other has they say they do. That in itself is faith. Faith is trusting in one another. Abraham trusted in God because He is wisest above our intellect and it is pride that blinds one to assume that God does not exist. You should learn some humility, for God rejects the proud.
sgal88 2 months ago
@sgal88 Don't you see the inherent contradictions in what you say? You tell me that God is wisest above our intellect, you state it as fact with no way of knowing if it is true, and yet you say that I need to learn humility? I think the person who claims that such a God is 100% fact is the person who needs to practice humility. You don't know that God exists. Accepting that IS humble.
kainedamo 2 months ago
@kainedamo Neither can you prove if your spouse loves you, you just have to accept it face value from their lips.
sgal88 2 months ago
@sgal88 Human beings do have natural empathy and there is scientific evidence of that. You can almost literally feel the love from another person when they display that emotion. You have more direct evidence of the love of another person than you would of the existence of God.
kainedamo 2 months ago
@kainedamo There is scientific evidence for those who meditate or pray that their body reacts to it. And as for love, there is also something called acting.
sgal88 2 months ago
@sgal88 There is scientific evidence that people react to yoga and exercise, and drugs. Why do you assume a supernatural explanation when there are already very natural scientific explanations? So some people can fake and fool others into thinking they're in love, what's that supposed to prove?
kainedamo 2 months ago
@kainedamo That you are to have faith in the person who tells you that they love you. Second, you would practically disregard saints who have felt this intense love from God. Saints like, St. Gemma, St. Catherine, St. Pio, St. Vianney and many more who have felt love from their creator and even those who do feel the love from God.
sgal88 2 months ago
@sgal88 You can have faith in something and be completely wrong. How many children genuinely believe Santa exists? Do you not think that human beings can have an incredible capacity for self-delusion? I can point to examples of other religions, people in history, who genuinely believed in Zeus, and fought for Zeus, and made sacrifices for Zeus. Their love is as genuine as those of the saints.
Look at the people of North Korea and their grief over Kim Jong Il, who they believed to be a God.
kainedamo 2 months ago
@kainedamo Actually believing in Santa is not the same as believing in God. We have good evidence that the things we claim Santa does, is not done by him. God on the other hand, without Him, nothing would exist since all existence owes itself to His essence.
AdversusHaereses 2 months ago
@AdversusHaereses That's circular reasoning. It's fallacious because the argument assumes the premise is true. It's no better than saying "he is because he is". The argument only supports itself if we assume the premise is true.
Can you come back with an argument that isn't circular?
kainedamo 2 months ago
@kainedamo Everything in the universe is contingent and necessarily requires a cause. If every being were contingent, then there would be nothing since the series of causes would go ad infinitum. Yet that is impossible or else we would not be here. There must be a necessary being out of which all things owe their existence to directly or indirectly. This being we call God.
AdversusHaereses 1 month ago
@AdversusHaereses Your argument still makes assumptions and leaps in logical connections and is STILL circular. How do you get to there being nothing if there is a series of causes that are infinite? Why do you assume this is impossible, but an eternal being is possible? How do you get from us being here, to us owing our existence to an intelligent being? Why does the cause have to be either a being or intelligent?
kainedamo 1 month ago
@kainedamo When I say being, I presume entity. Metaphysics is the study of being, not just human beings but being as a whole. Now, an infinite series is impossible or else there would have to be an infinite amount of events that took place in the past for us to be here. But if there were an infinite amount of events, we would never be here! Things do not spontaneously pop into existence, so even prior to the physical world, things existed. A necessary being to allow all this is called God.
AdversusHaereses 1 month ago
"I can guarantee you that's not what God is"
How can you guarantee that?
kainedamo 2 months ago
...Continuing So the punishment of Hell may not be immediate punishment but it's definitely something that someone who believes in it keeps in mind. And think about Hell, it's a very permanent prison sentence for eternity with no rehabilitation possibilties based on a very short period of time in the scale of things. As far as saying like "Sky Daddy", that is an oversimplification of God and usually used to make God sound more unlikely. I think it shouldn't be used in my opinion.
willquestion 2 months ago
In the old testament it seemed that God did dictate what is moral via the Ten Commandments and other writings of Torah as well as other parts of the Tanakh. Then with the New Testament bringing in hell, those morals seemed much more pushed as well as regular pentence to avoid Hell (in whatever way you want to define hell). ...Continued
willquestion 2 months ago
Hence we arrive at the precipice of getting into Catholic theology, another massive topic. No orthodox Catholic intellectual in the entire history of Western thought would confuse God's essential nature, that of being infinite, eternal, and transcendent, with the nature He assumed in the Incarnation: that of a human body and soul, in other words, physical matter. You have confused the two natures of Christ by misapplying the staunch defense of His human nature to His essential Divine Nature.
pj100003 2 months ago in playlist Liked videos
You don't know anyone who believes in a man in the sky? Really? Is that why Christianity uses imagery such as Jesus ascending to Heaven, Elijah riding to heaven in a chariot of fire etc. Also, when Moses received the tablets with the commandments he claimed to have seen God's back. Seems pretty anthropomorphic to me.
If you don't believe in these things I guess you're not a True Christian?
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@Gnomefro -dimensional realities, yet still understand that even though the physical universe extends unimaginably further than our atmosphere, in a sense relative to our experience of life here on earth, the sky symbolizes and embodies for humanity the unknown, the Heavens, and God. In other words, one can assign spiritual significance to earth from our perspective, and contained within the confines of the earth, without believing in a physical Heaven in the clouds made of matter.
pj100003 2 months ago in playlist Liked videos
... stubbornness and rebellion, whether people admit it or not, as well as extreme arrogance - although I wouldn't be surprised if there are some people who literally can't comprehend or grasp proper logic enough to see theism properly, as rational philosophy and as a rich, historic worldview.
God is spirit, eternal, infinite, pure Good and the only source of true freedom, and the likeness of man to God is made possible purely by and through God made man, Christ our Lord. Veritatis Splendor.
pj100003 2 months ago
@pj100003 "whether people admit it or not, as well as extreme arrogance"
I beg to differ. Any arrogance in this topic comes from the people who think they know that "God" exists while presenting "reasons" that flat out contradict their only source of information about the being. You call God "pure Good", even though Yahweh commands the burning of little girls in Lev 21:9. This is either a flat out contradiction or a perversion of the word "good" to the point where it has no meaning anymore.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@pj100003 Either way it seems clear that you have no idea what you're talking about, yet go on about theism being a "rational philosophy". Also, FYI, you don't have to go far back in history to find statements to the effect that "Of course my God is physical!" from intellectuals. The reason this view has been abandoned is the slow steady march of human understanding of nature. Same thing that killed off Zeus. All that remains today are vacuous statements like "spirit", "good" etc.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@Gnomefro As unfair as this may sound, I feel I need to be honest and let you know that I don't have time right now to get into an extended debate on YouTube. First and foremost, regarding your first comment addressed to Adversus, you don't grasp the mystical understanding of orthodox Christianity regarding the world, physical flesh, and God himself. Catholics can believe in a spiritual understanding of 'up' and 'down' in the physical world; ie, believe in Heaven or Hell as parallel/other-
pj100003 2 months ago in playlist Liked videos
@Gnomefro The case of Moses is probably a case of a vision, in which God can assume any form He chooses in order to relate truth to human beings in a way we can understand. There is also such a thing as progressive revelation in Sacred Scripture, where truth of God is more clearly understood over time. At this time, God was understood very dimly and mysteriously, and described in a limited way in terms of somewhat anthropomorphic Hebrew idioms and conceptualizations...
pj100003 2 months ago in playlist Liked videos
@Gnomefro ... and God cooperated with and allowed that for a time. From the very beginning, however, there has existed within Hebrew religious concepts the acute realization of God's 'otherness' or holiness, and his transcendent and eternal nature. You can find statements like this all throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. Moreover, when Christ taught His followers of God, He clearly taught of God as being a non-physical, spiritual entity; hence his words to the woman at the well...
pj100003 2 months ago in playlist Liked videos
@Gnomefro ... in the Gospel of St. John chapter four: "God is spirit," discouraging her from thinking in terms of ancient shunning by the Jews for their refusal to worship at the *physical* sight of Jersusalem. Catholics consider this the ultimate teaching and ultimate revelation of who God is, on His authority, and well backed-up by Hebrew religious concepts.
Please also understand that I'm touching on these things extremely briefly and perhaps a bit...
pj100003 2 months ago in playlist Liked videos
@Gnomefro lacking from what you would get from someone trained in theology. I'm seventeen and there is a lot I have yet to learn and much education I have laid out before me. I can clearly and definitely say I don't know all there is to know about this as well.
EDIT: site* not sight of Jerusalem.
Now, briefly touching on your two comments to me:
No, statements about the attributes of God are not reasons for adopting a theistic perspective and life philosophy, you're mistaken.
pj100003 2 months ago in playlist Liked videos
@Gnomefro Your attempting to use that passage (and I would assume others like it - general moral condemnation of actions in Scripture) to disprove orthodox Catholic understandings of the attributes of God: His absolute goodness, etc. This has nothing to do with reasons for the existence of a Divine Principle, that belongs to the realm of reason and philosophy.
pj100003 2 months ago in playlist Liked videos
@Gnomefro So considering your statement that I don't know what I'm talking about is entirely based on a faulty logic flow and a strawman regarding reasons to believe in God, I'm disregarding it entirely. Now, if we were discussing morality and Scripture, that would be an entirely different discussion involving a rational benchmark for even determining what is good, the existence of good and evil, and societal factors as well as exploring the concept of sin and deviance. That's a huge topic.
pj100003 2 months ago in playlist Liked videos
@Gnomefro Oh, and one more thing. Orthodox Catholic scholars and intellectuals still profess the same creed of physicality that you, in a butchered way, applied to anthropomorphism and this whole idea of God's nature. These statements did and still do almost certainly refer to Christ in His glorified humanity, in keeping with the Catholic dogma defined de fide that nature and matter are good, and that human beings, composed of body and soul, have a supernatural end in God for both body and soul.
pj100003 2 months ago in playlist Liked videos
It's funny, I have actually met young adults, individuals under 25, who for the sake of rebellion actually do believe God is an invisible, temporal, anthropomorphic-type self-imposing deity like you describe. Not dumb individuals either, smart ones who flat-out deliberately refuse to use reason and logic to shape their life philosophy and worldview around the Divine Principle, and from there come to Christian and finally Catholic Faith. The problem is often (not always, but often) that of...
pj100003 2 months ago
lol You're right. Those 'arguments' are silly
Happy New Year by the way
pawsoned 2 months ago
From one Catholic to another, most Atheists tend to see Fundamentalists in the terms you mentioned on this video. Fundamentalists (a'la Ray Comfort, etc) tend to somewhat distort the words of the faith and there in lies the term of God as a "Sky daddy" who "sends people to hell". Ergo, the truth about God gets distorted and all the confusion exists. Hope that helps.
Stitchman3875 2 months ago
@Stitchman3875 I tend to think Catholics who are faithful to the teachings of Christ are the true fundamentalist with the correct balance of literal and figurative.
sgal88 2 months ago
@sgal88 I would most definitely agree with that statement. The Catholics have a far deeper concept of God and a better definition of faith. That is part of the reason why I myself am a convert to the Catholic Faith. The Evangelicals water down every definition to the point where the absurdity objections are justified. They make faith look foolish because of the misdefinition.
Stitchman3875 2 months ago 6
@Stitchman3875, @sgal88 Agreed with both of you. I am personally a convert from Evangelical Lutheranism, which is more or less Evangelicalism with a twist. You can't improve upon the Faith we received from Christ and the Apostles by tearing down two millenia of Christian thought and belief, watering it down, and then building up your own, misshapen mess.
pj100003 2 months ago
Ok, Christopher Reid.
sgal88 2 months ago