I came across this while i was browsing Reddit.com, and I, as a Pragmatic Agnostic, am -for lack of a better word- stupefied. You really have walked right through the open door in my head. Kudos. I am thoroughly impressed and its because of people like you that i still have faith in humanity. As you said people are quick to should their opinions with their eyes closed and their hands over their ears. This, in my opinion, is pure ignorance. Thanks you for being the voice of reason and clarity :)
Science and religion are incompatible for deeper reasons than timelines. Science shows that the very concept of consciousness is something that only applies to biological organisms. There can't be a supernatural being with a mind because there can't be a mind without a brain. You can't separate [thoughts & feelings] from [living creatures]. Living creature define thoughts and feelings. God can only be a construct of the imagination.
EVEN IF you strip away the 95% of the bible that makes no sense (either it contradicts itself, history, or science.) and use the 5% that can be made compatible with science (abstractly but whatever.) Who's to say that the "real" god is the Judeo-Christian god? Who's to say it isn't Zeus or Odin or Vishnu? If you take away everything that makes the christian god christian and only use the abstract parts, you aren't a christian anymore, your just a loose, vague theist.
lol. I met a proff like that too, and upon our meeting he discouraged having a conversation as such.
The parallel between these stories brings me to 3 conclusions. 1: They find it wrong to influence someone from what they believe in and see as true. 2. They don't like the conclusions they've come to about the Bible. 3: they see the Bible as a very good thing for society despite the inaccuracies seen within it.
What if the sources contained biases which they base their conclusions from?
I loved your conclusion that everything is relative, this series is very informative for people from any spectrum who are interested in religion. The bible is to me a series of metaphors, ways of explaining things we could not at the time with science, or math.
Etymology: Religion comes form Latin "religio" which means "what attaches". An English word derived from it is rely. Religion means "something or somebody to which you attach".
Belief: (oxford dictionary)
an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
There is no proof for the complete absence of supernatural beings, so "secular humanism" is a belief.
What is the reason you belief in the religion "secular humanism"?
You say all the time that God is bad because of being against homosexuals.
But as a secular humanism, you have no proof for morality. After all, causing harm is scientifically just a "transformation of the state of a substance". The moral values called "Ethics" originated from the Bible moral code.
So you have no proof for a moral system in your belief as secular humansim.
Etymology: Religion comes form Latin "religio" which means "what attaches". An English word derived from it is rely. Religion means "something or somebody to which you attach".
Belief: (oxford dictionary)
an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
(you are born knowing no religion)
What is the reason or so called "proof" you belief in the religion "secular humanism"?
You say all the time that God is bad because of being against homosexuals.
But as a secular humanism, you have no proof for morality. After all, causing harm is scientifically just a "transformation of the state of a substance". The moral values called "Ethics" originated from the Bible moral code.
So you have no proof for a moral system in your belief as secular humansim.
@auskudestroy It's not easy to disprove God, but you can certainly dismantle Christian theology on several levels as a false teaching by showing the Bible to be at best logically inconsistent and at worst an outright fabrication. The possibility of God is not 50/50 if you consider all other religions are likely false by similar merit. This leaves you with deist/agnostic/atheist or some combination. Pascal's wager is logically weak, as if you are honest, it wouldn't work.
@deejayalemus We certainly can't argue against the existence of "some God." We can quite easily argue against the Christian God successfully if we are allowed to use evidence and logic as standards. Pascal's wager proves yetis, bigfoot, aliens, and a teapot on Mars. It is irrelevant.
Of course anyone with actual knowledge of theory of relativity would see the bunk in Schroeder's argument.
1) For any reference frame you can find another in which time passes arbitrarily slow in comparison with the original frame (just make its speed arbitrarily close to c with respect to the original frame).
2) Anything that travels at the speed of light does not experience time, i.e. everything happens at the same time!
@AtheismIsCorrect The classic fish symbol (with no legs) is a traditional Christian symbol, making reference to the bible story about Jesus miraculously feeding multitudes with a few loaves of bread and fish. The "Darwin Fish" (where it has legs and 'Darwin' written on it) is a deliberate parody of the Christian Fish. The implication is, "I believe in something true, i.e. Evolution, as opposed to a fantasy story, i.e. the fish miracle and by extension all of Christianity."
I really hope that you did not look at George W Bush as a "christian" and then become deconverted. He probably got "born-again" more than anyone on earth! I've seen all your videoes in case you were wondering. Seems like you are trying to prove to the world why you gave up on christianity.
@909pleasantville Actually, I think he (was) trying to prove to the Christian naysayers (the ones that hurriedly state, "Well, you must have never really been a true Christian then!") that he really was a Christian at the outset....
I never had a religion, but I have gotten interested in the God debate of the last few years, but I did find the books of Dawkins and Hitchens not to be very useful, and pretty rude. Sam Harris was slightly more respectful.
I did believe in God now and then when i was like 9-13 years old, but not in the christian sense or any other religion.
Even the priests where I grew up said that the bible isn't literally true, so the scientific discrepancies were never a problem.
The hardest part for you not committing ad ignorantiam over and over again. "I empirically don't know what triggered the big bang and evolution, therefore, God." Nope, doesn't work logically man. Sorry.
Man, I can relate so much to your story so far! Atheist now btw. I did the same thing discussing religion online and couldn't help but think "Oh man, shit's about to hit the fan" when you mentioned that the amazon review writer was a professor and out classed you. Being an opened minded Christian who continues to study about the world will definitely be conflicted with what they find.
Am I the only one who would like to meet the professor? Like over coffee or drinks just to chat? I bet it would be one of the most interesting discussions in my life.
Even as a Christian I am loving this series, it is important to see the opinions and views of others to strength the very core beliefs of our religious choices.
@HardcoreEnigma I assure you, you aren't going to strengthen your faith by watching this series, unless you twist his words around and misunderstand his arguments.
@HardcoreEnigma The point of hearing other opinions is to get a better view of the world and if you are shown to be wrong, you change your beliefs to fit the truth. You do not listen to other peoples beliefs in order to ignore them and stick more stubbornly with your own.
It is important that when presented with other views, you do not do what you are doing but rather you critically look at all views including your own to see the truth.
After being introduced to the god-concept at an early age one goes through their life associating events and circumstances, developing a personality for their imaginary friend what it likes and don't likes, when it is smiling on their actions or frowning on their actions and everybody got their own interpretation of their association with their imaginary friend, by the time they are 20-30ish they say their relationship with their god is real, after such foundation I can understand the realness!
@fitzgod So then you have people like me, who more or less was atheist, who at the age of 23 turned christian. So while some may fall into that category, there are many people, many adults, who turn to christian faith. So that would seem to run counter to what you are suggesting.
@bluefootedpig The more or less could mean undecided, grew up in a family that did not go or talk much on religion. I think that many to christianity is a small percentage. You may be trying it out and that trial period tenure is yet unknown. Me personally born christian 13yrs, atheist 2yrs, Islam 15yrs, agnostic 5yrs now atheist. Circle complete, I can't pray a bill away or pray a meal into manifestation so I can't find religion to serve an earthly purpose other than to regulate population.
As a fellow atheist/agnostic, I truly respect you. Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful reasons for deconversion. I was never raised in a religious household, though my parents are Jewish. I really, really want you to know that I love listening to your videos.
i'm enjoying this series. and it's true -this book helped you -you are now wiser, and able to share your journey with others in a similar position. i've recently gone through the same journey, although of course there are differences. i think i was a "worse" christian than you, and i actually admire your dedication to what you thought was true. i also admire your dedication to documenting the entire transformation. it's something i wish i had been able to do myself, but this is a great resource.
"The only reason people are atheist is because they think science conflicts with the bible"? You've gotta be kidding!!! From my perspective and other atheists I know, the bible has squat to do with it. It's simply that there is no evidence for any and all of humanity's supposed 'Gods'.
@BrettAubrey i think you may be missing the point. he's documenting his thoughts when he was still a christian. from someone who was there not so long ago, and who still has many christian friends, the christian view of atheists is about as different to reality as you could get.
@BrettAubrey okay, so with science, please explain the pyramids, or why several cultures built large structures on the exact same longitudinal line. Or what about those bricks that have precise drilling, years before the first drill, drilled into stone perfectly, better than any machine we have today. Where master stone carvers, using all of today's tools, cannot reproduce the perfection that was done on these bricks? For being primitive, they seems to have better technology than we have today.
@bluefootedpig Where is your documentation of these "facts"? How about some specific sources of your information? Without them, your claims just sound like nonsense.
@ndrthrdr1 That is like me asking you where your proof is of evolution. It takes good less than 1 second to return thousands of results showing these facts. For the bricks, look up lake Titicaca. They are ancient buildings there that modern day stone workers say with modern day tools, they would have difficulty doing it. But really, what are you looking for? google it if you want to actually investigate.
You are helping the world by spreading this story! Despite all the holes in our collective knowledge, science builds upon itself over time and improves and fills in the "holes". I believe strongly in religious freedom, but I hope for a world where the vast majority consciously choose to be religion-free. By being though provoking, you are helping the world!
@normythebear I'm starting to think, the day when religion becomes a minority would be the day when we atheist retires, and it's the day the world becomes dull.
Atheists are only atheist because there is a "belief".
@KenM66 ebookmall (dot) com/ebook/71147-ebook(dot)htm NIV version. By International Bible Society. Produced by Zondervan. Looking at his review itself, amazon doesn't appear to carry it now.
Incidentally it is also interesting to read his reviews. He wrote several for the books he mentions in the series and it provides a sort of neat extra little level of depth to his story.
It seems the culture has changed a bit. There's no doubt in my mind that the Christian friends that I have have sought the truth and are still seeking the truth more than anyone else I know. Perhaps I'm simply one of the fortunate few. Hopefully that will change. I'm also glad to have older Christians than myself who are of the same mind and have developed greater understanding than myself.
There's a great doco (in fact, a couple of different ones) here on youtube about "Who Wrote the Bible?". I enjoyed them all quite a bit. Worth searching for, for those interested.
I love your videos, and I have noticed how you link photos with words you say, and I wanted to ask you if you had Synesthesia. Only out of curiosity. :)
next, only a true scientist or learned scholar can speak on evidences for evolution or creation. the rest of you who use google or youtube to form your worldview are the "faithful". believers and non believers alike. regardless of what you believe, you are simply placing your faith in something you probably havent/ cant prove on your own. you just listen to what you heard, read, or saw. so please, all of you science bashing athiest. be humble.
This professor sounds awesome! I tried to find his review on Amazon but couldn't. Did he take it down? Anyways, I really want to talk to this guy. Could you tell me who he is? You can send me a PM if you don't want to put it in the comments section.
No we can perceive some of the aspects of God, just not all of them. God is in all things, and all places. The human brain exists, and it is linked to our world. Since humans think and can imagine things, then God is real to me. God is real to me, because I believe God is real. I can pray using my thoughts and I am only part of Gods existence. All matter is just within Gods existence. I am not God, but I am part of God.
@cbeaudette92 yeah, i mean i dont know all the answers, its just my position. I obviously cant factually prove God, it would be impossible, God is not quantifiable into anything that you could prove. God just is!
I think there is a God, I just think that humans dont have the capacity to fully comprehend God, the religions are just a barrier to the true nature of God, and spirituality. This is my opinion on the subject.
@EternalGreen2012 "I think there is a God, I just think that humans dont have the capacity to fully comprehend God, the religions are just a barrier to the true nature of God, and spirituality"
Then by what indication is there any god at all if we cannot percieve any attribute belonging to this entity? How is such a concept different from the non-existant?
I am liking your videos. I had a deconversion myself recently, and it is still confusing me. They are rather intense to watch because of the background music you use, it makes them feel serious.
but that guy has been mislead,. God even said, people will be mislead. Just because he taught at standford, and all the other places, and appeared very smart, doesnt mean he is correct..
i agree with the way you use to think, it makes perfect since. But being an atheist, how does that make since? how could "something" appear out of "nothing" to create "everything???" there has to be a higher power, and that is God
@kelsey4442 Intelligent beings are contingent on the existence of intelligence. The first cause can't be contingent on anything. Can you call such a being a god?
What do you mean by nothing? Does this nothing include logic?
If not there is nothing to keep it that way.
If there is nothing, then the set of all things is the empty set, which is not nothing. From there you can get most of mathematics. If this includes the theory of everything, then it includes its result, our universe.
Thanks for posting this. I doubt I will ever meet you but you are definitely a kindred spirit. My experiences have been almost identical to yours. All the best
I can go on further too, regarding the age of the earth and animals, and the many issues with carbon(etc..) dating---the countless proof that scientists throw out inconsistent results with their tests, and only keep those within the "range" of the specified belief they have about the age of certain species.
See... if you KNEW that Satan was trying to deceive people, you'd see the lies. "Evidence" is not what matters, the worldview in which you perceive it is what does...
""Evidence" is not what matters, the worldview in which you perceive it is what does..."
That is only true if your worldview makes presuppositions about what the evidence will say before you investigate (like your Satan presupposition)
If you start with a practice of evidence gathering based on neutral principles that could reasonably infer that either answer is true, you don't have to skew the evidence. I will present the neutral principles that I use in the video 3.4.1: Evidence.
"If you start with... neutral principles"---that's hilarious. Sorry I don't mean to be rude with that--it was my actual reaction.. I just expected a better debate---false neutrality---one of the worst fallacies anyone can make in an argument.
If you're neutral, stick to it... be an infinite skeptic, why even debate? why make videos? why live? why die? Why wake up? Is this reality? Can you truly rely on your ability to use reason? What about your 5 senses? Push your neutrality.
"false neutrality" is not a fallacy I can find. Do you mean "false balance"? If so, that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
"why make videos?"
You mistake premature certainty as being necessary to make a strong argument. I argue that, starting from neutral principles (not presuming the conclusion), the God hypothesis is a bad one.
Being impartial is not impossible. Just because you use circular reasoning (presuming your conclusion), it doesn't mean that I do.
@droptozro "thinking themselves wise they became as fools" & "how long shall you wallow in your simplicity" these apply to you friend, just as paul meant it for the earliest christians. A faith that remains untested is no faith at all. Think about these, dont just assume they apply to non-believers only.
@droptozro Just because your junk Bible says about Satan doesn't mean it exists. If that is the case, as per Hinduism and Islam, Jesus is Satan. So, I would argue that you and your religion are Satanic LOL
What about Schroeder's argument? I've never seen a stronger argument for the scientific validity of Genesis. You seem to have completely ignored this..
"you are still weak in faith"
You don't have enough information to make this evaluation. You don't know how many atheists I resisted before listening to this one.
In any case, these personal attacks on my conviction are irrelevant. What matters is if you can respond to these arguments
"the age of the universe is approx 15 billion"---no, last I checked it was like 13.1 or something...according to all science. It just keeps getting older. Again, you're meshing views of secular science with the Bible--and you believe macro evolution was a process God used...hah, I'm sorry---but you and your friend DID NOT read the fine print in the Bible--"each animal after it's OWN kind." Let alone the consistent records of early Christians refuting the pagan philosophers (cont)
view that the world is much older than it seems. Jesus believed in the literal translations of the Scripture--if you had the mind of Christ, instead of this other book, you would have seen that clearly within Christ's many comments about the BEGINNING and Adam and Eve being literal people. See, it's not about what you say that makes me question your past--it's what you DON'T say/understand--consistently.
@Evid3nc3 How about The Genesis Question by Hugh Ross? His arguments are far more scientific and convincing, making Schroeder's arguments look like a stretch, actually pointing out phrases in Genesis most apologists ignore, and integrating it with the Bible's other creation accounts, like Psalm 104. And Ross is familiar with Schroeder's arguments, yet rejects them as being far too weak compared to the actual evidence we do have for the Bible's validity with regards to natural history. Check it!
@GabrielKoulikov Hugh Ross is a very moderate thinker, and I enjoy the fact that most christians think he isn't a true christian, yet he identifies himself as one anyhow. He doesn't believe Noah's Flood was global, he even explained how the "10,000" years idea were wrong, and even opposes Intelligent Design. That being said, he is still an astrophysisist, and as such likely does not make accurate assumptions about the sociological effects of the bible and its purposes as well as authors.
i don't know how to describe your videos, they are pretty incredible how you do it is beyond me you are clear, concise and sincere and its a pleasure to watch
i have a pentecostal friend. how do you even begin to argue about the gift of tongues and interpretation and crap? it seems lilke its impossible without just calling him a liar. or a faker.
anyway i was wondering if you had some insight or advice?
@astro15 Yes!! I love Karen Armstrong. I think she is utterly fantastic. I am an atheist, yet I agree with basically everything she says. She is such an intelligent Christian. I believe Christians must hate her, but I don't know if this is true. Every Christian and atheist should become acquainted with her work. It will alter your perception no matter what side you're on.
@NSquarticsurface I haven't read the book, but I Wiki'ed her. The quote isn't cited, but quotes her as saying, "We need to...make the authentic voice of religion a power in the world that is conducive to peace." That sounds great, but it involves cherry-picking through the Bible and perhaps the other holy books (I cannot speak of the Quaran , etc. as I have not read those). It ignores the baggage that comes with. In my opinion, the better solution is to get away from religion completely!
@NSquarticsurface Well, I read the Amazon editorial reviews for the book, and one mentions that she "views as inevitable a move away from the idea of a personal God." I'm alright with that. Once you move away from a personal god, I don't see any reason to believe in a god at all, though (a god that doesn't answer prayers, etc. doesn't provide the comforting qualities a personal god does). However, it may be a good first step away from fundamentalism instead of quiting religion "cold turkey."
I Think everyone should choose their beliefs but study all the possibilities out there. I've taken many, philosophy of religion courses and other related classes. I feel that I have explore everything and I AM a free thinker who CHOSE to believe in a God. I do agree that science makes more sense, but yet there are things that science can't explain and things that speak for themselves.
@favm360 I think this is an admirable position. I know I have issue with believing in God (for me) because I don't understand this concept of choosing to believe in God. I understand the concept of freewill but I have a logical problem with being able to choose in a system where the creator is all powerful and all knowing.
How do you circumvent the idea that if I can choose and he knew all that would happen and has the ability to change that then he is essentially damning me to hell?
I can't get over how hardcore you were. You thought God was working through amazon.com. I am astounded. I just cannot comprehend of how that thought process goes. I thought I had a basic understanding of the religious but clearly not.
The argument from relativity takes a very different form at times. I had a Christian once claim to me that "since time goes slower as you approach the speed of light [correct], then as god stands in the light, the time given in the Bible must be accurate."
The original Hebrew Text of the Old Testamnet used a Hebrew word that translates into "shapeshifter, serpant". The Tora aka Old Testament was written in Hebrew which when converted into a single line of text and analyzed, cleary was not authored by Bedowan Sheep Herders.
@waketheoblivious I always hate to see this false logic, one fake amongst hundreds maybe even thousands of real fossils does not invalidate the real ones.
Think about it, I could make a fake god, find people stupid enough to worship it, and after a few years claim my god never truely existed and by your logic I could say that no god must have ever existed.
Second, theistic evolution has to take the beginning of Genesis as an allegory and not literal. By doing this, Adam would not have existed until years later when evolution produced human and if he did not actually sin, then the idea of redemption collapses.
The theory of theistic evolution the belief that God created the first speck of life on earth and then directed its evolution to generate man has several problems. The first is that God would never create such a cruel method for creating humans. Evolution involves survival of the fittest and destruction of the weak. Jesus says the opposite of this in his life. He wanted us to help the weak and the afflicted. Evolution goes against Jesus teachings.
Ok, now I feel wrong about what I wrote on the last video, because you do seem to portray yourself as quite a little nut, even while obviously telling how everything made sense from an inside perspective.
It's sort of ironic that you felt that it was god's will that you continued to talk to that professor - something that would ultimately lead to your de-conversion.
Leaving to find a lost lamb leaves the rest of the flock to the wolves. Why should a shepherd be concerned about one lost sheep instead of the multitude of other sheep he still has?
I think that the overconfidence stems from not having thought it through well enough. Atheists are atheists because they *have* thought it through (this has nothing to do with intelligence), usually much more than a theist who mostly just have faith which are only validated with cognitive biases and not enough exposure to other perceptions and ways of viewing the same things. All faiths that are blind and not thought through have weak pillars.
@xSilverPhinx For me, when I was a Christian, I actually HAD put a lot of thought into it, the problem was that I hadn't been exposed to other viewpoints. During my upbringing I'd been sheltered from such ideas and as I got older I came to view non-Christian ideas as evil -- and so I kept myself away from them. It was as though I'd become my own jailer. Dogma is an ugly, yet highly effective meme.
boring videos in my opinion, just because you realized that you had been tricked into worshipping a man made god, does not mean that god does not exist. everything in(and outside of) the physical world we live in is all just thoughts in the mind of God. "The reality is we are one god and he loves us" -Bill Hicks
No, that should be title of every speech ever made by any religious preacher or religious organisation around the entire world. Throughout human history.
There's nothing rational about believing in God, especially the God Yaweh of Judeo Christian mythology.
how is this not a sermon for atheism? I'm sure along the end of all this, this person believes that what he says, thinks, and does still has "meaning". But if atheism(the materialistic kind) is true then it doesn't matter, in fact it would be because it is true that it wouldn't matter. It would be equally irrelevant to be a "believer" or an atheist, since everything is meaningless. So if your right who care? we'll all be dead one day, and not even know that we existed. Oh joy!
Meaning is subjective. You make up your own meanings. What is wrong with that? Also, the truth or falsity of a proposition is independent of whether or not you find the consequences "meaningful".
If the "meaning" I made up caused a conflict for the "meaning" you made up, would there be a problem?
Would it be subjective for you if another person felt killing a lot of people fulfilled that persons "meaning"?
And I think I was making the point that "subjective meaning" is equally meaningless. Which if true, nothing you(or me for that matter) write down on this comment page matters. But for some reason people say life has no "meaning" but then continue their lives like they do.
Okay then, could you explain what term would best suite it.
All I've ever gotten from atheist's is that "meaning"(I will use a better word if you can show me one) is subjective, in other words its all in your mind.
My question isn't "what is the meaning of life", my question is "is there any scientific proof of "meaning" outside of the mind, in an natural materialistic universe", so no God, no supernatural reality, just science to answer the question. Thanks for replying.
If meaning is subjective, what do you think? Subjective means contingent upon a mind. It would be nonsensical to suggest that it exists outside of minds.
I can't let this go, but there is no worldview at all that allows for meaning to be objective. Even if you allow for a god, the meaning coming from that god is still contingent upon that god's mind, and thus subjective.
Agreed, no person in the world, can make objective meaning.
I would not be so sure about a God's lack of ability to make objective meaning if that same God can make objects(universe) with His mind. Or that His mind would be anything like our minds.
The problem I see with trying to live in a subjective world view is that it has no meaning. Of course that would be my view, it might conflict with yours, then who would be right? Do you believe(feel) that your view has meaning? thanks again.
"Meaning" is simply the significance attached to a word, event, object, etc. Without a mind there to do the attaching, and to perceive the significance, there is no "meaning" to anything. The idea that there is some grand, overarching "meaning" is an exercise in the misuse of language. Or as Dan Dennett would call it, a "deepity".
I think I said that, and pretty much agreed with you(at least in a material atheistic way). What you care about or value is only in your mind. The value of your atheism is also only in your mind. And if what you say is true it would be the same for me. But what we "value" does not exist beyond our minds, into reality like gravity/magnetism/energy/matter and so on. So they can not be real in that way. How am I disagreeing with you?
No, I only said that there is no objective meaning. Subjective meaning is only in your mind, isn't that what you have been saying all along? That in fact it can't be real outside of your mind? Again I would have to ask why you think I'm disagreeing with you? Do you not like how I word it? it doesn't have that much appeal for me either, but I can't see how its wrong to say it that way?
You seem to be suggesting that "subjective meaning" is less meaningful than "objective meaning"(which is nonexistent). You are also suggesting that "meaning" imparted by some god figure is not subjective, which is categorically false. If there is a god, any meaning it imparts on things is also subjective, as it is contingent upon the mind of that god.
Now the bigger issue, why do you feel that you need to get "meaning" from some outside source?
One to claim a "bigger issue" is subjective, you think its a "bigger issue" because its in your mind( see how crappy this can get).
And I'm not say that subjective value is less then objective value. I'm saying the only value it can have is in your mind. It can not exist out side of your mind, I think you agree with that(maybe, I'm starting to wonder).
As for a "God" how would you know that your thoughts could compare to this said "God"s" thoughts? Wouldn't reality if created by a God, cont
wouldn't space/time/energy/matter only be His thoughts? But my argument is for a universe that has no God(Creator). You still could only have value in your mind, but not in the physical world.
yeah it runs itself in circles. Lets say there is no God(or anything supernatural). All I've said is what you think only has value/worth/meaning in your mind. I wonder how you jumped to the conclusion that I said subjective value is less then(but it would correct to say "equal") objective value, which is no value, just because it only exists in your mind. Is it because I said that your value in atheism was only in your mind? That does upset people sometimes. Sorry if your upset, for real.
There is no objective value in the universe, none.
there is subjective value, but it only exists's in your mind. Only. It has no place out side of your mind.
Now does your mind have value? You can say that your mind has value because your think/feel/believe it does, but its value still won't exist outside your mind. That is why when your mind ceases your subjective values will cease as well. Unlike gravity which you can think of, but exist's outside of you.
Third section is gibberish. "Values" are simply special variants of "meaning". Of course "value" doesn't exist independent of the mind; without an entity evaluating things, there could be no values. I don't see what the issue is.
Now do you still believe that there can be no conflict, when you take your subjective values and apply then to the real world? For instance If one person thinks its right kill/steal/rape, this of course is only in his mind, but anyone who disagrees, their sense of disagreement is also in their minds. Both trains of thought are only valuable in their minds. And not in reality.
So? We call this area of disagreement and debate "ethics". Go to your local institution of higher learning and see about attending a course or colloquium on ethics. Fascinating subject. Evid3nc3 even mentions this stuff in his videos. The fact that moral judgments are subjective does not negate them. In fact, realizing that moral judgments are subjective equips you to make better judgments.
And this may surprise you, but people DO disagree on ethical matters. Your examples of theft, murder, and rape are not particularly contested, but even they have gray areas.
The closest you are going to get to "objective"(but not really), are the evolved moral faculties we all share. Watch this for example: watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo
"better judgments" are also subjective, all in your mind.
And no it doesn't surprise me that humans have been in disagreement/conflict/ war and so on.
By taking that course you suggested you have made a subjective view that it is a "better" way to go. But that is only something you make up in your mind. Any "path" one takes is equally irrelevant in the physical universe.
Irrelevant to stars and galaxies, but not irrelevant to us. That is all that matters. I think your problem is that you want an anthropo-centric universe, and the realization that human ethical decisions are products of the human mind kind of undermines that.
Also, of course the idea of "better" judgments is subjective. It came out of my mind. SO WHAT? That is what I am trying to get from you. You think by pointing out that it is subjective you have said something, WHAT?
The deal is that we are social creatures and some behaviors are beneficial to society, some detrimental some do no harm, as social creatures we tend towards the values that benefit society. People exercise this subjective morality even in spite of holy books, like not stoning disobedient children.
Also because people like yourself want to attribute it to a god doesn't make it any more objective, merely subject to another being.
@garith21 I agree attributing it to a "god" that only "exist"(using the word very loosely)in my mind, does not make it objective, it makes it delusional. The same as believing that "society" and the people its made up of, have meaning,is delusional. There is no objective meaning, and subjective meaning is just a belief in some ones mind. Not any more real then the "god" that only "exist" in my mind. Cont"d
Thank you. Thank you for all your videos.
ajbfakrhbvoiwuqh4foi 1 week ago
I came across this while i was browsing Reddit.com, and I, as a Pragmatic Agnostic, am -for lack of a better word- stupefied. You really have walked right through the open door in my head. Kudos. I am thoroughly impressed and its because of people like you that i still have faith in humanity. As you said people are quick to should their opinions with their eyes closed and their hands over their ears. This, in my opinion, is pure ignorance. Thanks you for being the voice of reason and clarity :)
Nshelton5683 1 week ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
Its refreshing to hear an eloquent person.Aghh.
TheMomochan13 1 week ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
pour some out for schroeder's cat
AStyleProductions 1 week ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
Science and religion are incompatible for deeper reasons than timelines. Science shows that the very concept of consciousness is something that only applies to biological organisms. There can't be a supernatural being with a mind because there can't be a mind without a brain. You can't separate [thoughts & feelings] from [living creatures]. Living creature define thoughts and feelings. God can only be a construct of the imagination.
TheWhiteStripes3 1 week ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
your voice is epic and I find these vids pretty damn interesting :D
iFoxyFox 1 week ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
EVEN IF you strip away the 95% of the bible that makes no sense (either it contradicts itself, history, or science.) and use the 5% that can be made compatible with science (abstractly but whatever.) Who's to say that the "real" god is the Judeo-Christian god? Who's to say it isn't Zeus or Odin or Vishnu? If you take away everything that makes the christian god christian and only use the abstract parts, you aren't a christian anymore, your just a loose, vague theist.
wrylie188 2 weeks ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
@wrylie188 If there is another God out there that is real, he does not deserve to be worshiped if he will not show himself.
nintendo768 3 days ago
Jesus christ this guys voice is so boring.
Shadow6728 2 weeks ago
lol. I met a proff like that too, and upon our meeting he discouraged having a conversation as such.
The parallel between these stories brings me to 3 conclusions. 1: They find it wrong to influence someone from what they believe in and see as true. 2. They don't like the conclusions they've come to about the Bible. 3: they see the Bible as a very good thing for society despite the inaccuracies seen within it.
What if the sources contained biases which they base their conclusions from?
Hibitrit 3 weeks ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
How did you convince John Boehner to appear in your video at 6:18 ?
booksRbad 3 weeks ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
Wow this is really well made and polished, and the story is very interesting...
Tranquilance 1 month ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian 2
I loved your conclusion that everything is relative, this series is very informative for people from any spectrum who are interested in religion. The bible is to me a series of metaphors, ways of explaining things we could not at the time with science, or math.
NeutralExistence 1 month ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
@Evid3nc3
Etymology: Religion comes form Latin "religio" which means "what attaches". An English word derived from it is rely. Religion means "something or somebody to which you attach".
Belief: (oxford dictionary)
an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
There is no proof for the complete absence of supernatural beings, so "secular humanism" is a belief.
What is the reason you belief in the religion "secular humanism"?
auskudestroy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Evid3nc3
You say all the time that God is bad because of being against homosexuals.
But as a secular humanism, you have no proof for morality. After all, causing harm is scientifically just a "transformation of the state of a substance". The moral values called "Ethics" originated from the Bible moral code.
So you have no proof for a moral system in your belief as secular humansim.
Therefor God does things because he is moral.
auskudestroy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Evid3nc3
I don't get the reason why you stopped being a christian.
You can not prove that there is no God, but you can not prove that there is one.
Therefor the possibility of God existence is 50/50.
Now, if you are an atheist and you die and God exists, "your suffer like hell", but if God doesn't exist nothing happens.
Now, if you are a christian and you die and God exists, "you go to heaven", but if God doesn't exist nothing happens.
The wiser choice is to be a christian.
auskudestroy 1 month ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
@Evid3enc3
Etymology: Religion comes form Latin "religio" which means "what attaches". An English word derived from it is rely. Religion means "something or somebody to which you attach".
Belief: (oxford dictionary)
an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
(you are born knowing no religion)
What is the reason or so called "proof" you belief in the religion "secular humanism"?
auskudestroy 1 month ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
@Evid3enc3
You say all the time that God is bad because of being against homosexuals.
But as a secular humanism, you have no proof for morality. After all, causing harm is scientifically just a "transformation of the state of a substance". The moral values called "Ethics" originated from the Bible moral code.
So you have no proof for a moral system in your belief as secular humansim.
auskudestroy 1 month ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
@Evid3enc3
I don't get the reason why you stopped being a christian.
You can not prove that there is no God, but you can not prove that there is one.
Therefor the possibility of God existence is 50/50.
Now, if you are an atheist and you die and God exists, "your suffer like hell", but if God doesn't exist nothing happens.
Now, if you are a christian and you die and God exists, "you go to heaven", but if God doesn't exist nothing happens.
The wiser choice is to be a christian.
auskudestroy 1 month ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
@auskudestroy It's not easy to disprove God, but you can certainly dismantle Christian theology on several levels as a false teaching by showing the Bible to be at best logically inconsistent and at worst an outright fabrication. The possibility of God is not 50/50 if you consider all other religions are likely false by similar merit. This leaves you with deist/agnostic/atheist or some combination. Pascal's wager is logically weak, as if you are honest, it wouldn't work.
deejayalemus 1 month ago
@deejayalemus We certainly can't argue against the existence of "some God." We can quite easily argue against the Christian God successfully if we are allowed to use evidence and logic as standards. Pascal's wager proves yetis, bigfoot, aliens, and a teapot on Mars. It is irrelevant.
halfLotusMusic 3 weeks ago
I must say, these videos are so well put together!
The images are great. I just found it hilarious how you presented the atheist professor... he really does seem intimidating!
cordlc 3 months ago
Of course anyone with actual knowledge of theory of relativity would see the bunk in Schroeder's argument.
1) For any reference frame you can find another in which time passes arbitrarily slow in comparison with the original frame (just make its speed arbitrarily close to c with respect to the original frame).
2) Anything that travels at the speed of light does not experience time, i.e. everything happens at the same time!
SerbAtheist 3 months ago
How does Darwin's fish symbol mock christianity?
AtheismIsCorrect 3 months ago
@AtheismIsCorrect The classic fish symbol (with no legs) is a traditional Christian symbol, making reference to the bible story about Jesus miraculously feeding multitudes with a few loaves of bread and fish. The "Darwin Fish" (where it has legs and 'Darwin' written on it) is a deliberate parody of the Christian Fish. The implication is, "I believe in something true, i.e. Evolution, as opposed to a fantasy story, i.e. the fish miracle and by extension all of Christianity."
thebeatts 3 months ago
@thebeatts My science teacher has one of those. Isn't it illegal to mock religion in a public school?
AtheismIsCorrect 3 months ago
@AtheismIsCorrect Quite the contrary.
1nsultTo1njury 2 months ago
I really hope that you did not look at George W Bush as a "christian" and then become deconverted. He probably got "born-again" more than anyone on earth! I've seen all your videoes in case you were wondering. Seems like you are trying to prove to the world why you gave up on christianity.
909pleasantville 3 months ago
@909pleasantville Actually, I think he (was) trying to prove to the Christian naysayers (the ones that hurriedly state, "Well, you must have never really been a true Christian then!") that he really was a Christian at the outset....
palerider1775 2 months ago
Thank you for these videos.
I never had a religion, but I have gotten interested in the God debate of the last few years, but I did find the books of Dawkins and Hitchens not to be very useful, and pretty rude. Sam Harris was slightly more respectful.
I did believe in God now and then when i was like 9-13 years old, but not in the christian sense or any other religion.
Even the priests where I grew up said that the bible isn't literally true, so the scientific discrepancies were never a problem.
GoldenChantarelle 3 months ago
Comment removed
GoldenChantarelle 3 months ago
The hardest part for you not committing ad ignorantiam over and over again. "I empirically don't know what triggered the big bang and evolution, therefore, God." Nope, doesn't work logically man. Sorry.
OrmazdX34 4 months ago
Comment removed
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What arrogance from the said professor, which is a natural course of those who scoff at God. Not to mention the loaded fallacy.
faro0485 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Scientific concepts "the big bang"... *buzz* wrong. Remember, science came from God.
And let's not take corrupted religion as an example of what religion has to say for itself.
faro0485 4 months ago
The story of genesis... most people can't even comprehend. That's why the Jews were the originators Greek technological advancement.
faro0485 4 months ago
Man, I can relate so much to your story so far! Atheist now btw. I did the same thing discussing religion online and couldn't help but think "Oh man, shit's about to hit the fan" when you mentioned that the amazon review writer was a professor and out classed you. Being an opened minded Christian who continues to study about the world will definitely be conflicted with what they find.
StevenCasteel 5 months ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian 7
Am I the only one who would like to meet the professor? Like over coffee or drinks just to chat? I bet it would be one of the most interesting discussions in my life.
daSchoof 5 months ago
Even as a Christian I am loving this series, it is important to see the opinions and views of others to strength the very core beliefs of our religious choices.
HardcoreEnigma 7 months ago 2
@HardcoreEnigma I assure you, you aren't going to strengthen your faith by watching this series, unless you twist his words around and misunderstand his arguments.
TheBiAtheist 6 months ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian 51
@HardcoreEnigma You're supposed to love God.
faro0485 4 months ago
@HardcoreEnigma The point of hearing other opinions is to get a better view of the world and if you are shown to be wrong, you change your beliefs to fit the truth. You do not listen to other peoples beliefs in order to ignore them and stick more stubbornly with your own.
It is important that when presented with other views, you do not do what you are doing but rather you critically look at all views including your own to see the truth.
Aleitheo 1 week ago
After being introduced to the god-concept at an early age one goes through their life associating events and circumstances, developing a personality for their imaginary friend what it likes and don't likes, when it is smiling on their actions or frowning on their actions and everybody got their own interpretation of their association with their imaginary friend, by the time they are 20-30ish they say their relationship with their god is real, after such foundation I can understand the realness!
fitzgod 7 months ago
@fitzgod So then you have people like me, who more or less was atheist, who at the age of 23 turned christian. So while some may fall into that category, there are many people, many adults, who turn to christian faith. So that would seem to run counter to what you are suggesting.
bluefootedpig 5 months ago
@bluefootedpig The more or less could mean undecided, grew up in a family that did not go or talk much on religion. I think that many to christianity is a small percentage. You may be trying it out and that trial period tenure is yet unknown. Me personally born christian 13yrs, atheist 2yrs, Islam 15yrs, agnostic 5yrs now atheist. Circle complete, I can't pray a bill away or pray a meal into manifestation so I can't find religion to serve an earthly purpose other than to regulate population.
fitzgod 5 months ago
wow.
hangtime9873 7 months ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
This story just proofs that the internet is not just pure evil. Without the internet, this exchange would have never taken place.
Nine00 7 months ago
As a fellow atheist/agnostic, I truly respect you. Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful reasons for deconversion. I was never raised in a religious household, though my parents are Jewish. I really, really want you to know that I love listening to your videos.
manderson610 7 months ago
i'm enjoying this series. and it's true -this book helped you -you are now wiser, and able to share your journey with others in a similar position. i've recently gone through the same journey, although of course there are differences. i think i was a "worse" christian than you, and i actually admire your dedication to what you thought was true. i also admire your dedication to documenting the entire transformation. it's something i wish i had been able to do myself, but this is a great resource.
BozoTheBear 8 months ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
In my humble opinion, this is where the story actually starts.
PeterBrainTV 8 months ago
"The only reason people are atheist is because they think science conflicts with the bible"? You've gotta be kidding!!! From my perspective and other atheists I know, the bible has squat to do with it. It's simply that there is no evidence for any and all of humanity's supposed 'Gods'.
BrettAubrey 8 months ago
@BrettAubrey i think you may be missing the point. he's documenting his thoughts when he was still a christian. from someone who was there not so long ago, and who still has many christian friends, the christian view of atheists is about as different to reality as you could get.
BozoTheBear 8 months ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
@BrettAubrey okay, so with science, please explain the pyramids, or why several cultures built large structures on the exact same longitudinal line. Or what about those bricks that have precise drilling, years before the first drill, drilled into stone perfectly, better than any machine we have today. Where master stone carvers, using all of today's tools, cannot reproduce the perfection that was done on these bricks? For being primitive, they seems to have better technology than we have today.
bluefootedpig 5 months ago
@bluefootedpig Where is your documentation of these "facts"? How about some specific sources of your information? Without them, your claims just sound like nonsense.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 That is like me asking you where your proof is of evolution. It takes good less than 1 second to return thousands of results showing these facts. For the bricks, look up lake Titicaca. They are ancient buildings there that modern day stone workers say with modern day tools, they would have difficulty doing it. But really, what are you looking for? google it if you want to actually investigate.
bluefootedpig 4 months ago
You are helping the world by spreading this story! Despite all the holes in our collective knowledge, science builds upon itself over time and improves and fills in the "holes". I believe strongly in religious freedom, but I hope for a world where the vast majority consciously choose to be religion-free. By being though provoking, you are helping the world!
normythebear 8 months ago
@normythebear I'm starting to think, the day when religion becomes a minority would be the day when we atheist retires, and it's the day the world becomes dull.
Atheists are only atheist because there is a "belief".
h2321 8 months ago in playlist Why I am no longer a Christian
@normythebear Ironically, I say, "Amen!" I could not have put it better myself. :)
manderson610 7 months ago
So gripping! I love both this story (so far) and the way you tell it.
IamBHM 9 months ago
Does anyone know what book that was that was being reviewed? I cannot find anything like what the cover looks like on amazon.
KenM66 9 months ago
@KenM66 ebookmall (dot) com/ebook/71147-ebook(dot)htm NIV version. By International Bible Society. Produced by Zondervan. Looking at his review itself, amazon doesn't appear to carry it now.
Incidentally it is also interesting to read his reviews. He wrote several for the books he mentions in the series and it provides a sort of neat extra little level of depth to his story.
SpriterShard 9 months ago
These videos are amazing thank you to have posted them. You did a great job !
alive4ever1 9 months ago
It seems the culture has changed a bit. There's no doubt in my mind that the Christian friends that I have have sought the truth and are still seeking the truth more than anyone else I know. Perhaps I'm simply one of the fortunate few. Hopefully that will change. I'm also glad to have older Christians than myself who are of the same mind and have developed greater understanding than myself.
BlackEyedGhost 9 months ago
There's a great doco (in fact, a couple of different ones) here on youtube about "Who Wrote the Bible?". I enjoyed them all quite a bit. Worth searching for, for those interested.
demonella 9 months ago
I love your videos, and I have noticed how you link photos with words you say, and I wanted to ask you if you had Synesthesia. Only out of curiosity. :)
konstelacioni11 10 months ago
only a fool can say "there is no God"
next, only a true scientist or learned scholar can speak on evidences for evolution or creation. the rest of you who use google or youtube to form your worldview are the "faithful". believers and non believers alike. regardless of what you believe, you are simply placing your faith in something you probably havent/ cant prove on your own. you just listen to what you heard, read, or saw. so please, all of you science bashing athiest. be humble.
TheHumanbeingHuman 10 months ago
LONG LIVE ACADEMIA!!!!!
philonous09 11 months ago
Let's pray to science that N. Selection roots out all these creationist degenerates:D!
buktomsin 11 months ago
8:05 lol oh the arrogance and self-assurance we had when we were saved :)
btw, thanks I've ordered those books.
Prizm4 1 year ago
Wow, this really beautiful.
HayashiKaiji 1 year ago
This professor sounds awesome! I tried to find his review on Amazon but couldn't. Did he take it down? Anyways, I really want to talk to this guy. Could you tell me who he is? You can send me a PM if you don't want to put it in the comments section.
ryanmshepard92 1 year ago
No we can perceive some of the aspects of God, just not all of them. God is in all things, and all places. The human brain exists, and it is linked to our world. Since humans think and can imagine things, then God is real to me. God is real to me, because I believe God is real. I can pray using my thoughts and I am only part of Gods existence. All matter is just within Gods existence. I am not God, but I am part of God.
EternalGreen2012 1 year ago
@EternalGreen2012 You know that when you say things you also have to support them with facts, right?
cbeaudette92 1 year ago
@cbeaudette92 yeah, i mean i dont know all the answers, its just my position. I obviously cant factually prove God, it would be impossible, God is not quantifiable into anything that you could prove. God just is!
EternalGreen2012 1 year ago
I think there is a God, I just think that humans dont have the capacity to fully comprehend God, the religions are just a barrier to the true nature of God, and spirituality. This is my opinion on the subject.
EternalGreen2012 1 year ago
@EternalGreen2012 "I think there is a God, I just think that humans dont have the capacity to fully comprehend God, the religions are just a barrier to the true nature of God, and spirituality"
Then by what indication is there any god at all if we cannot percieve any attribute belonging to this entity? How is such a concept different from the non-existant?
stiimuli 1 year ago
God damn... I did the EXACT same thing with The Science of God 11 years ago... Glad I wasn't the only one...
THEMACGOD 1 year ago
I never got why people never see the gigantic error of Genisis where it says the earth was made before the sun.
wybo2 1 year ago
Wait... If God works through evolution does that mean God is part of the eugenics movement?
Embler9 1 year ago
This video assumes that people's only access to God is/would be through the Bible. That assumption itself is false.
KittenButter 1 year ago
@KittenButter You didn't watch his other vids, did you?
Embler9 1 year ago
Interesting considering the "big bang" has happened over and over again, constantly expanding and contracting.
shangobah 1 year ago
I am liking your videos. I had a deconversion myself recently, and it is still confusing me. They are rather intense to watch because of the background music you use, it makes them feel serious.
wouterW24 1 year ago
Your videos are simply beautiful.
rclawitw 1 year ago
but that guy has been mislead,. God even said, people will be mislead. Just because he taught at standford, and all the other places, and appeared very smart, doesnt mean he is correct..
i agree with the way you use to think, it makes perfect since. But being an atheist, how does that make since? how could "something" appear out of "nothing" to create "everything???" there has to be a higher power, and that is God
kelsey4442 1 year ago
@kelsey4442 Intelligent beings are contingent on the existence of intelligence. The first cause can't be contingent on anything. Can you call such a being a god?
What do you mean by nothing? Does this nothing include logic?
If not there is nothing to keep it that way.
If there is nothing, then the set of all things is the empty set, which is not nothing. From there you can get most of mathematics. If this includes the theory of everything, then it includes its result, our universe.
SuperMerlin100 1 year ago
im just an atheist that doesn't kneel to no one
stevievicious 1 year ago
Thanks for posting this. I doubt I will ever meet you but you are definitely a kindred spirit. My experiences have been almost identical to yours. All the best
hellcat6249472 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I can go on further too, regarding the age of the earth and animals, and the many issues with carbon(etc..) dating---the countless proof that scientists throw out inconsistent results with their tests, and only keep those within the "range" of the specified belief they have about the age of certain species.
See... if you KNEW that Satan was trying to deceive people, you'd see the lies. "Evidence" is not what matters, the worldview in which you perceive it is what does...
droptozro 1 year ago
@droptozro
""Evidence" is not what matters, the worldview in which you perceive it is what does..."
That is only true if your worldview makes presuppositions about what the evidence will say before you investigate (like your Satan presupposition)
If you start with a practice of evidence gathering based on neutral principles that could reasonably infer that either answer is true, you don't have to skew the evidence. I will present the neutral principles that I use in the video 3.4.1: Evidence.
Evid3nc3 1 year ago 57
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Evid3nc3
"If you start with... neutral principles"---that's hilarious. Sorry I don't mean to be rude with that--it was my actual reaction.. I just expected a better debate---false neutrality---one of the worst fallacies anyone can make in an argument.
If you're neutral, stick to it... be an infinite skeptic, why even debate? why make videos? why live? why die? Why wake up? Is this reality? Can you truly rely on your ability to use reason? What about your 5 senses? Push your neutrality.
droptozro 1 year ago
@droptozro
"false neutrality" is not a fallacy I can find. Do you mean "false balance"? If so, that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
"why make videos?"
You mistake premature certainty as being necessary to make a strong argument. I argue that, starting from neutral principles (not presuming the conclusion), the God hypothesis is a bad one.
Being impartial is not impossible. Just because you use circular reasoning (presuming your conclusion), it doesn't mean that I do.
Evid3nc3 1 year ago 45
@droptozro "thinking themselves wise they became as fools" & "how long shall you wallow in your simplicity" these apply to you friend, just as paul meant it for the earliest christians. A faith that remains untested is no faith at all. Think about these, dont just assume they apply to non-believers only.
TheCaptainLulz 11 months ago
@droptozro Just because your junk Bible says about Satan doesn't mean it exists. If that is the case, as per Hinduism and Islam, Jesus is Satan. So, I would argue that you and your religion are Satanic LOL
srikargottipati 10 months ago
@droptozro Really? Really? HAHAHAHA WHAT A TARD
UndeadClown95 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Continuing the series... 1) you are relying more on other books and professors...
2) you begin to mesh your views of evolution with the Scriptures
3) you are still weak in faith--this shows so many times by quickly accepting other views before Christ, and still see no defense for faith so far...
each video makes you less and less convincing as a true convert... I really did have the benefit of the doubt for you too.
(this is in response to your earlier comment on the other video)
droptozro 1 year ago
@droptozro
"and still see no defense for faith so far..."
What about Schroeder's argument? I've never seen a stronger argument for the scientific validity of Genesis. You seem to have completely ignored this..
"you are still weak in faith"
You don't have enough information to make this evaluation. You don't know how many atheists I resisted before listening to this one.
In any case, these personal attacks on my conviction are irrelevant. What matters is if you can respond to these arguments
Evid3nc3 1 year ago 40
@Evid3nc3
"the age of the universe is approx 15 billion"---no, last I checked it was like 13.1 or something...according to all science. It just keeps getting older. Again, you're meshing views of secular science with the Bible--and you believe macro evolution was a process God used...hah, I'm sorry---but you and your friend DID NOT read the fine print in the Bible--"each animal after it's OWN kind." Let alone the consistent records of early Christians refuting the pagan philosophers (cont)
droptozro 1 year ago
@droptozro
view that the world is much older than it seems. Jesus believed in the literal translations of the Scripture--if you had the mind of Christ, instead of this other book, you would have seen that clearly within Christ's many comments about the BEGINNING and Adam and Eve being literal people. See, it's not about what you say that makes me question your past--it's what you DON'T say/understand--consistently.
droptozro 1 year ago
@Evid3nc3 How about The Genesis Question by Hugh Ross? His arguments are far more scientific and convincing, making Schroeder's arguments look like a stretch, actually pointing out phrases in Genesis most apologists ignore, and integrating it with the Bible's other creation accounts, like Psalm 104. And Ross is familiar with Schroeder's arguments, yet rejects them as being far too weak compared to the actual evidence we do have for the Bible's validity with regards to natural history. Check it!
GabrielKoulikov 1 year ago
@GabrielKoulikov Hugh Ross is a very moderate thinker, and I enjoy the fact that most christians think he isn't a true christian, yet he identifies himself as one anyhow. He doesn't believe Noah's Flood was global, he even explained how the "10,000" years idea were wrong, and even opposes Intelligent Design. That being said, he is still an astrophysisist, and as such likely does not make accurate assumptions about the sociological effects of the bible and its purposes as well as authors.
BigLundi 8 months ago
has this professor watched your videos?
lukeism2 1 year ago
i don't know how to describe your videos, they are pretty incredible how you do it is beyond me you are clear, concise and sincere and its a pleasure to watch
DeemotheAtheist 1 year ago
i have a pentecostal friend. how do you even begin to argue about the gift of tongues and interpretation and crap? it seems lilke its impossible without just calling him a liar. or a faker.
anyway i was wondering if you had some insight or advice?
danielyeh 1 year ago
i saw the 'history of god' in the book store the other day but i wasn't sure if i should get it. do you advise me to buy it?
astro15 1 year ago
@astro15 Yes!! I love Karen Armstrong. I think she is utterly fantastic. I am an atheist, yet I agree with basically everything she says. She is such an intelligent Christian. I believe Christians must hate her, but I don't know if this is true. Every Christian and atheist should become acquainted with her work. It will alter your perception no matter what side you're on.
NSquarticsurface 1 year ago
@NSquarticsurface I haven't read the book, but I Wiki'ed her. The quote isn't cited, but quotes her as saying, "We need to...make the authentic voice of religion a power in the world that is conducive to peace." That sounds great, but it involves cherry-picking through the Bible and perhaps the other holy books (I cannot speak of the Quaran , etc. as I have not read those). It ignores the baggage that comes with. In my opinion, the better solution is to get away from religion completely!
lgbuzals 1 year ago
@NSquarticsurface Well, I read the Amazon editorial reviews for the book, and one mentions that she "views as inevitable a move away from the idea of a personal God." I'm alright with that. Once you move away from a personal god, I don't see any reason to believe in a god at all, though (a god that doesn't answer prayers, etc. doesn't provide the comforting qualities a personal god does). However, it may be a good first step away from fundamentalism instead of quiting religion "cold turkey."
lgbuzals 1 year ago
Gosh. I have so much read.
Methereals 1 year ago
@Methereals to read*
Methereals 1 year ago
I Think everyone should choose their beliefs but study all the possibilities out there. I've taken many, philosophy of religion courses and other related classes. I feel that I have explore everything and I AM a free thinker who CHOSE to believe in a God. I do agree that science makes more sense, but yet there are things that science can't explain and things that speak for themselves.
favm360 1 year ago
@favm360 I think this is an admirable position. I know I have issue with believing in God (for me) because I don't understand this concept of choosing to believe in God. I understand the concept of freewill but I have a logical problem with being able to choose in a system where the creator is all powerful and all knowing.
How do you circumvent the idea that if I can choose and he knew all that would happen and has the ability to change that then he is essentially damning me to hell?
ToiletBomb 1 year ago
I can't get over how hardcore you were. You thought God was working through amazon.com. I am astounded. I just cannot comprehend of how that thought process goes. I thought I had a basic understanding of the religious but clearly not.
possiblefuture 1 year ago
The argument from relativity takes a very different form at times. I had a Christian once claim to me that "since time goes slower as you approach the speed of light [correct], then as god stands in the light, the time given in the Bible must be accurate."
I had no response to such stupidity.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago 3
The original Hebrew Text of the Old Testamnet used a Hebrew word that translates into "shapeshifter, serpant". The Tora aka Old Testament was written in Hebrew which when converted into a single line of text and analyzed, cleary was not authored by Bedowan Sheep Herders.
waketheoblivious 1 year ago
Step Right Up Ladies and Gentlemen to Evolution, the Greatest Show On Earth!
1913 Piltdown Man, he is your ancestor and is the "missing link" that satisfys "irrefutable evidence"..... 1953 whoops, he's a planted hoax
1913-2010 No legitimate "missing link" just a constant series of frauds
2010 The Show Must Go On, Bring In the Clowns Claiming to be Scientists
waketheoblivious 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@waketheoblivious And your explanation for the diversity of life is? And your irrefutable evidence for that is?
Toudiyama 1 year ago
@waketheoblivious I always hate to see this false logic, one fake amongst hundreds maybe even thousands of real fossils does not invalidate the real ones.
Think about it, I could make a fake god, find people stupid enough to worship it, and after a few years claim my god never truely existed and by your logic I could say that no god must have ever existed.
Mooker777 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mooker777
Partial List of Diabolical Frauds Presented as the "Missing Link"
1913-53 - Piltdown Man, Diabolical Manufactured Planted Evidence
Nebraska Man, Discarded Pigs Tooth
Peking Man, Conglomeration of Co-Mingled Fossils
Lucy, Manipulated Fossil Using Plaster
Orce Man, 4 Month Old Donkey Bone
2009 - Ida, Grossly Unsupportable Classification
2010 - Sebida, A PetsMart Gerbil
waketheoblivious 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mooker777
Partial List of Diabolical Frauds Presented as the "Missing Link"
1913-53 - Piltdown Man, Diabolical Manufactured Planted Evidence
Nebraska Man, Discarded Pigs Tooth
Peking Man, Conglomeration of Co-Mingled Fossils
Lucy, Manipulated Fossil Using Plaster
Orce Man, 4 Month Old Donkey Bone
Ida, Grossly Unsupportable Classification
Sebida, A PetsMart Gerbil
waketheoblivious 1 year ago
Second, theistic evolution has to take the beginning of Genesis as an allegory and not literal. By doing this, Adam would not have existed until years later when evolution produced human and if he did not actually sin, then the idea of redemption collapses.
tim5392 1 year ago
The theory of theistic evolution the belief that God created the first speck of life on earth and then directed its evolution to generate man has several problems. The first is that God would never create such a cruel method for creating humans. Evolution involves survival of the fittest and destruction of the weak. Jesus says the opposite of this in his life. He wanted us to help the weak and the afflicted. Evolution goes against Jesus teachings.
tim5392 1 year ago
Ok, now I feel wrong about what I wrote on the last video, because you do seem to portray yourself as quite a little nut, even while obviously telling how everything made sense from an inside perspective.
Nice video again.
Azotadeth 1 year ago
It's sort of ironic that you felt that it was god's will that you continued to talk to that professor - something that would ultimately lead to your de-conversion.
xSilverPhinx 1 year ago
an absolutely superb series. what an amazing, important story brought to haunting life by excellent media skills and great narration. 5*
neurocrater 1 year ago
Or maybe the Hebrew word day is Yom and Yom means period of time...
keysle 1 year ago
Oh ho ho!
Trying to re-convert a lost lamb, but wound up de-converting yourself. As Luke Skywalker said "Your overconfidence is your weakness"
The exact same thing happened to me actually.
EternalAlert 1 year ago 90
Leaving to find a lost lamb leaves the rest of the flock to the wolves. Why should a shepherd be concerned about one lost sheep instead of the multitude of other sheep he still has?
=P
In other words... piss off Christians. lol
Darkside1025 1 year ago
@EternalAlert
I think that the overconfidence stems from not having thought it through well enough. Atheists are atheists because they *have* thought it through (this has nothing to do with intelligence), usually much more than a theist who mostly just have faith which are only validated with cognitive biases and not enough exposure to other perceptions and ways of viewing the same things. All faiths that are blind and not thought through have weak pillars.
xSilverPhinx 1 year ago
@xSilverPhinx For me, when I was a Christian, I actually HAD put a lot of thought into it, the problem was that I hadn't been exposed to other viewpoints. During my upbringing I'd been sheltered from such ideas and as I got older I came to view non-Christian ideas as evil -- and so I kept myself away from them. It was as though I'd become my own jailer. Dogma is an ugly, yet highly effective meme.
EternalAlert 1 year ago
boring videos in my opinion, just because you realized that you had been tricked into worshipping a man made god, does not mean that god does not exist. everything in(and outside of) the physical world we live in is all just thoughts in the mind of God. "The reality is we are one god and he loves us" -Bill Hicks
SnottHawley 1 year ago
All god concepts are man made, also just because you assert something that has no evidence to substantiate it doesn't mean it's true.
garith21 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
title is wrong. it should be something like "confessions of an irrational person"
cheburashka1326 1 year ago
No, that should be title of every speech ever made by any religious preacher or religious organisation around the entire world. Throughout human history.
There's nothing rational about believing in God, especially the God Yaweh of Judeo Christian mythology.
Panosl 1 year ago 3
What an outstanding video series. Well done man!
forestskog 1 year ago 25
Very good production value on this video. It's obvious that you spent good amount of time on this. 5 stars.
Onirayushizobura 1 year ago 5
how is this not a sermon for atheism? I'm sure along the end of all this, this person believes that what he says, thinks, and does still has "meaning". But if atheism(the materialistic kind) is true then it doesn't matter, in fact it would be because it is true that it wouldn't matter. It would be equally irrelevant to be a "believer" or an atheist, since everything is meaningless. So if your right who care? we'll all be dead one day, and not even know that we existed. Oh joy!
kvash3154 2 years ago
@kvash3154
Meaning is subjective. You make up your own meanings. What is wrong with that? Also, the truth or falsity of a proposition is independent of whether or not you find the consequences "meaningful".
ctvwr 1 year ago
If the "meaning" I made up caused a conflict for the "meaning" you made up, would there be a problem?
Would it be subjective for you if another person felt killing a lot of people fulfilled that persons "meaning"?
And I think I was making the point that "subjective meaning" is equally meaningless. Which if true, nothing you(or me for that matter) write down on this comment page matters. But for some reason people say life has no "meaning" but then continue their lives like they do.
kvash3154 1 year ago
@kvash3154
Wow. Where to begin.
"Subjective" means contingent upon a mind.
"Meaning" requires a mind.
The whole "what is the meaning of life?" pondering is so confusing because it starts with the misuse of the term "meaning".
ctvwr 1 year ago
Okay then, could you explain what term would best suite it.
All I've ever gotten from atheist's is that "meaning"(I will use a better word if you can show me one) is subjective, in other words its all in your mind.
My question isn't "what is the meaning of life", my question is "is there any scientific proof of "meaning" outside of the mind, in an natural materialistic universe", so no God, no supernatural reality, just science to answer the question. Thanks for replying.
kvash3154 1 year ago
@kvash3154
If meaning is subjective, what do you think? Subjective means contingent upon a mind. It would be nonsensical to suggest that it exists outside of minds.
ctvwr 1 year ago
@kvash3154
I can't let this go, but there is no worldview at all that allows for meaning to be objective. Even if you allow for a god, the meaning coming from that god is still contingent upon that god's mind, and thus subjective.
ctvwr 1 year ago
Agreed, no person in the world, can make objective meaning.
I would not be so sure about a God's lack of ability to make objective meaning if that same God can make objects(universe) with His mind. Or that His mind would be anything like our minds.
The problem I see with trying to live in a subjective world view is that it has no meaning. Of course that would be my view, it might conflict with yours, then who would be right? Do you believe(feel) that your view has meaning? thanks again.
kvash3154 1 year ago
@kvash3154
You completely missed the point.
"Subjective" means 'contingent upon a mind'.
"Objective" means 'independent of minds'.
ctvwr 1 year ago
@kvash3154
Also, you are still misusing the word "meaning".
"Meaning" is simply the significance attached to a word, event, object, etc. Without a mind there to do the attaching, and to perceive the significance, there is no "meaning" to anything. The idea that there is some grand, overarching "meaning" is an exercise in the misuse of language. Or as Dan Dennett would call it, a "deepity".
ctvwr 1 year ago
I think I said that, and pretty much agreed with you(at least in a material atheistic way). What you care about or value is only in your mind. The value of your atheism is also only in your mind. And if what you say is true it would be the same for me. But what we "value" does not exist beyond our minds, into reality like gravity/magnetism/energy/matter and so on. So they can not be real in that way. How am I disagreeing with you?
kvash3154 1 year ago
@kvash3154
You are babbling about there being no "subjective meaning", when "meaning" is ONLY subjective.
ctvwr 1 year ago
No, I only said that there is no objective meaning. Subjective meaning is only in your mind, isn't that what you have been saying all along? That in fact it can't be real outside of your mind? Again I would have to ask why you think I'm disagreeing with you? Do you not like how I word it? it doesn't have that much appeal for me either, but I can't see how its wrong to say it that way?
kvash3154 1 year ago
@kvash3154
You seem to be suggesting that "subjective meaning" is less meaningful than "objective meaning"(which is nonexistent). You are also suggesting that "meaning" imparted by some god figure is not subjective, which is categorically false. If there is a god, any meaning it imparts on things is also subjective, as it is contingent upon the mind of that god.
Now the bigger issue, why do you feel that you need to get "meaning" from some outside source?
ctvwr 1 year ago
One to claim a "bigger issue" is subjective, you think its a "bigger issue" because its in your mind( see how crappy this can get).
And I'm not say that subjective value is less then objective value. I'm saying the only value it can have is in your mind. It can not exist out side of your mind, I think you agree with that(maybe, I'm starting to wonder).
As for a "God" how would you know that your thoughts could compare to this said "God"s" thoughts? Wouldn't reality if created by a God, cont
kvash3154 1 year ago
cont.
wouldn't space/time/energy/matter only be His thoughts? But my argument is for a universe that has no God(Creator). You still could only have value in your mind, but not in the physical world.
kvash3154 1 year ago
@kvash3154
I'm not getting what it is you are trying to say. you aren't making a whole lot of sense.
ctvwr 1 year ago
yeah it runs itself in circles. Lets say there is no God(or anything supernatural). All I've said is what you think only has value/worth/meaning in your mind. I wonder how you jumped to the conclusion that I said subjective value is less then(but it would correct to say "equal") objective value, which is no value, just because it only exists in your mind. Is it because I said that your value in atheism was only in your mind? That does upset people sometimes. Sorry if your upset, for real.
kvash3154 1 year ago
@kvash3154
You are incoherent. I can't understand what you are talking about. Try rephrasing.
ctvwr 1 year ago
Okay lets try this:
There is no objective value in the universe, none.
there is subjective value, but it only exists's in your mind. Only. It has no place out side of your mind.
Now does your mind have value? You can say that your mind has value because your think/feel/believe it does, but its value still won't exist outside your mind. That is why when your mind ceases your subjective values will cease as well. Unlike gravity which you can think of, but exist's outside of you.
kvash3154 1 year ago
@kvash3154
The first sentence is a tautology.
Second sentence is a tautology.
Third section is gibberish. "Values" are simply special variants of "meaning". Of course "value" doesn't exist independent of the mind; without an entity evaluating things, there could be no values. I don't see what the issue is.
ctvwr 1 year ago
I guess all I'm saying is its just imagined(subjective value), or made up by your mind.
And I don't see a conflict in either of our statements. Both seem to support each other.
kvash3154 1 year ago
@kvash3154
What is wrong with meaning being "made up"? Indeed, what is supposed to be the alternative?
ctvwr 1 year ago
Its nether right nor wrong.
And there is no alternative in a natural materialistic reality. Except for the death of the mind, if you want to count that one.
Thanks for the replies, It gave me a lot to think about. (assuming your done I mean, you might have more to say)
kvash3154 1 year ago
@kvash3154
There is no alternative in ANY worldview. As I explained, even if we assume a god, that god's values and meanings for things are still subjective.
ctvwr 1 year ago
Fine, none it is then.
Now do you still believe that there can be no conflict, when you take your subjective values and apply then to the real world? For instance If one person thinks its right kill/steal/rape, this of course is only in his mind, but anyone who disagrees, their sense of disagreement is also in their minds. Both trains of thought are only valuable in their minds. And not in reality.
kvash3154 1 year ago
@kvash3154
So? We call this area of disagreement and debate "ethics". Go to your local institution of higher learning and see about attending a course or colloquium on ethics. Fascinating subject. Evid3nc3 even mentions this stuff in his videos. The fact that moral judgments are subjective does not negate them. In fact, realizing that moral judgments are subjective equips you to make better judgments.
ctvwr 1 year ago
@kvash3154
And this may surprise you, but people DO disagree on ethical matters. Your examples of theft, murder, and rape are not particularly contested, but even they have gray areas.
The closest you are going to get to "objective"(but not really), are the evolved moral faculties we all share. Watch this for example: watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo
ctvwr 1 year ago
"better judgments" are also subjective, all in your mind.
And no it doesn't surprise me that humans have been in disagreement/conflict/ war and so on.
By taking that course you suggested you have made a subjective view that it is a "better" way to go. But that is only something you make up in your mind. Any "path" one takes is equally irrelevant in the physical universe.
kvash3154 1 year ago
@kvash3154
Irrelevant to stars and galaxies, but not irrelevant to us. That is all that matters. I think your problem is that you want an anthropo-centric universe, and the realization that human ethical decisions are products of the human mind kind of undermines that.
Also, of course the idea of "better" judgments is subjective. It came out of my mind. SO WHAT? That is what I am trying to get from you. You think by pointing out that it is subjective you have said something, WHAT?
ctvwr 1 year ago
The deal is that we are social creatures and some behaviors are beneficial to society, some detrimental some do no harm, as social creatures we tend towards the values that benefit society. People exercise this subjective morality even in spite of holy books, like not stoning disobedient children.
Also because people like yourself want to attribute it to a god doesn't make it any more objective, merely subject to another being.
Euthyphro's dilemma comes to mind
garith21 1 year ago
@garith21 I agree attributing it to a "god" that only "exist"(using the word very loosely)in my mind, does not make it objective, it makes it delusional. The same as believing that "society" and the people its made up of, have meaning,is delusional. There is no objective meaning, and subjective meaning is just a belief in some ones mind. Not any more real then the "god" that only "exist" in my mind. Cont"d
kvash3154 1 year ago