Great video's Todd! It might just be me, but I feel like people are moving toward a conscious or intellectual awakening. Do you feel that as well? Social media & the internet might have been a catalyst for that (connecting people, making our world smaller, providing endless info to our fingertips; i.e. videos like yours). I was a "Christian" up to a little over a year ago but find it inconceivable to have faith in any kind of 'Religion' now. But maybe we only surround ourselves with everything
> Maybe that's why most sane and intelligent people have ditched it
What's truly amazing is that how many sane and intelligent people have *not* ditched it! And the creativity of their arguments--the way they attempt to portray primitive writings from a harsh era as the work of Omniscience & Goodness--is often impressive.
> religious manuals are at best metaphors about aspects of the self
And at worst, they're books that people believe are the Word of God, and every command must be obeyed: the adulteress must be stoned, the apostate executed, the Untouchable persecuted, homosexuals condemned, women stifled, etc.
keep on rolling! keep this world alive! dont let it drown in a total madness! change will come. it must come. i hope we gonna see a new age of a healthy reason and responsibility. cheers
situation when person cant find a way anymore to healthy evaluate how far from a reality he is. its a total perverted delusional reality.look at this guy. he is mentally ill. its not a joke,nor insult. people r goin insane. their thinking and sense of reality is sick.religion-mistake. it was created to increase morals of sheeple. but people stopped questioning and drowning in madness.apocalypse of a human reason.religious society is goin to be a real resident evil movie
> [Religion is] a total perverted delusional reality.look at this guy.
If "this guy" refers to me, I don't why you're saying that. This video series does not defend theism. I'm an atheist, and this series just looks at the Jesus story from the perspective of comparative mythology, and traces the different components back to their primitive roots.
No prob ... these things happen. And somehow this same comment got posted on about a dozen of my videos. Hope you don't mind that I deleted most of them!
Overall, I enjoy your video. I was agnostic so both hot-headed annoying fundamentalists and atheists alike irritated me. If we can agree to disagree we can still have enjoyable talks, and (ironically) maybe even come to eventually agree on something.
Then we compare Jesus to the prophets or centerpieces of other faiths and we see how vastly different Jesus is in his teachings and claims he makes about himself (Jesus claimed to be God for one thing: "I and my Father are one") and his claims ultimately gets him killed for blasphemy. Furthermore, the power of God working in human lives is not outward but inward.
Heart-change from depraved sinner to repentant child of God is the miracle of the cross and the work of the Holy Spirit.
> [Jesus'] claims ultimately gets him killed for blasphemy.
But of course if He really was our All-Knowing All-Powerful God in human form, then this was His Plan all along. Make humans who will fall short of standards (after all, 100% are sinners), set up eternal hellfire for their crime of being born, but then offer the escape route of heaven to those who believe He tortured Himself as a sacrifice to appease His anger against humans for the sins they were born into.
God initially made Adam and Eve without flaw or sin. God even warned the first humans not to sin by eating from just one tree out of the whole garden of Eden or they will surely die. If Adam and Eve, or any human being, didn't even have the POSSIBILITY to commit sin, if humans were perfectly "good", we'd be puppets.
Original sin is a person's innate nature to disobey God's commands even though God's commands are for his/her own protection/good like a parent warning a child.
> God even warned the first humans not to sin by eating from just one tree out of the whole garden of Eden or they will surely die.
The observation that people die, get sick, suffer from natural disasters was apparent to people throughout the world—and accordingly, people throughout the world have made up stories to explain suffering.
Its not like there's a God out there who directly communicated His Story by writing it across the sky in some undeniably supernatural manner.
All we have are ancient contradictory tales recorded by people: from India, China, Saudia Arabia, Africa, Japan, etc. The Greek myth of man stealing fire from the gods (via Prometheus), and Zeus sending down sickness and pain (via Pandora) runs parallel to the Hebrew myth of The Garden of Eden.
The difference between you & I is that you believe man just made up all these tales *except* the Hebrew version, whereas I believe man made up *all* the tales.
No one knows what the torment in Hell will be like besides the vague descriptions we have in the Bible, like gnashing of teeth, that may literally or figuratively describe a person's condition in Hell.
The ONLY thing that makes Heaven paradise and Hell torment is in Heaven we are fully in God's presence for eternity, while in Hell we are completed separated from his presence and grace eternally.
> No one knows what the torment in Hell will be like besides the vague descriptions we have in the Bible
The Koran gets more graphic: your skin gets roasted, and then grows back so it can be roasted again. And the Hindus tell us that punishment for misdeeds comes via a miserable reincarnation: coming back as a cockroach or an outcaste.
If you dismiss the Muslim and Hindu Holy Books as the baseless guesswork of ancient humans, well, I agree. It was typical of ancient humans!
Physical death is the separation of body and soul while spiritual death, which is the worse of the two, is separation from God.
So we get God making humans with the desire that we will grow in love and goodness towards God and each other like a parent wishes their children to be loving and good, but we disobey and sin against God and others as human children disobey and hurt themselves and others.
God sacrifices himself to save his children as any loving parent would.
> God sacrifices himself to save his children as any loving parent would.
If I throw myself in front of a car to save my child, its because I have no other choice. But an all-powerful god would have *infinite* choices. No need to throw Himself in front of a car: He could just wave His hand and the car would stop. If there was really an Almighty God, He would have no worthy opposition to force Him to have to sacrifice.
The sacrifice of Jesus makes unbelievable sense to me, but then again, I'm a Christian, a college-educated, philosopher Christian. I guess the Bible is right when it says that the spirit will reveal the truth only to those God chooses to reveal Himself to.
> I guess the Bible is right when it says that the spirit will reveal the truth only to those God chooses to reveal Himself to.
Yet would you accept that same argument from a Hindu or Muslim apologist? That the deeper justifications for the caste system / executing apostates may seem to defy logic, but the [Hindu / Muslim / etc. /] spirit only reveals the truth only to those the Higher Power chooses to reveal Himself to?
The belief that Divine Truths are communicated through the spirit--and communicated selectively--is an argument most theists will accept for their *own* religion . . . few will see that same argument as valid when applied to the *other* 99,999 [give or take] religions that humans have come up with ever since mankind started inventing religions. (And few theists will disagree with the notion that mankind *does* indeed invent religions--all, of course, but their own!)
Why, then, waste your time with all of this? Why do you feel the need to argue against religion? Just go about your business. It is a Christians' job to spread the gospel, however, not argue people into accepting it. We just put the truth out there. Why is an atheist's job spreading disbelief? It's like people that make a hate-website for a band they dislike. What a waste of energy and thought!! Just go on with your life and we'll go on with ours.
> It's like people that make a hate-website for a band they dislike... Just go on with your life and we'll go on with ours.
First of all, my apologies if my previous reply to you gave you the impression that my channel's purpose is anything similar to a "hate-website." The written word, void of body language & tone of voice, can be interpreted a number of ways ... reviewing my above comment, I can see how it might be interpreted to contain an aggressiveness that I did not intend.
My only intention was to point out that an argument that seems acceptable to defend one's own religion (such as "it's a matter of FAITH") will often seem much less valid when applied to foreign religions.
> Why do you feel the need to argue against religion? Just go about your business.
I feel your analogy with musical groups is useful here---for it's certainly possible to "ignore" a band you don't like, and just, as you said, "go about your business."
But when it comes to religious belief, people take actions based on those beliefs that have real-life consequences. Now, I fully agree that many of those consequences are positive! Even though I believe the effects are placebo, I acknowledge that many are nonetheless genuine: religion can provide believers with a feeling of community, unconditional love, and the sense that their lives have a divine place in God's plan;
it can help people cope with the loss of loved ones and alleviate their own fears of death; and faith can give people extra incentives to be charitable (and with regular church attendance, probably more built-in opportunities for charity).
And if religion were nothing more than this, I would keep my skepticism completely to myself.
Yet because many people have so many clashing ideas about which religion is the "right" one, and even believers within one religion disagree with each other over key points about what "God" has instructed us (Shiites vs. Sunnis, Catholics vs. Protestants, etc.), religious belief can also be the cause of great suffering---suffering that affects believers and non-believers alike.
For religion's positive traits notwithstanding, religion also stifles critical thought, breeds contempt & intolerance, fuels terrorism & helps to start wars. Even here in America, religion affects laws on education & marriage & medicine. So unlike a band that I don't like, religion has a direct affect on "my business."
> It is a Christians' job to spread the gospel . . . We just put the truth out there.
As well you should! After all, if you had information that an asteroid was going to strike our planet, you absolutely SHOULD spread that message! And if Christianity's premises are correct---that, for example, we need to accept Jesus as Savior to avoid eternal hellfire---that's even more important news to spread than an asteroid that's on a collision course with the earth.
So I don't at all mind proselytizers. If I thought Christianity were correct, I'd be one myself.
But are Christianity's premises correct? If indeed (1) there is a God, and (2) this God gave humanity Divine Instructions, and (3) of our thousands of religions to choose from, only *one* is from God, and the rest were made up by people, then (4) how do we distinguish the ONE religion from God from the MANY from man? These are the questions I ask.
Yeah that's what I said. Why would a loving god give us less than a one in a hundred chance of guessing which religion is true just to avoid the lake of fire? Does he assume that we automatically know that christianity is the only true religion? Or does Allah assume that we automatically know that Islam is true. Or does Krishna assume that we automatically know that hinduism is true. Or maybe Zeus assumed that we knew Greek mythology was true. I give up. Any idea? We really have to hedge a bet?
@ToddAllenGates That's where Jesus comes in. Historical evidence of his existence and arguments for his resurrection, eyewitness testimonies of his Deity and miracles, history of early Church, and testimonies of apostles and church fathers.
Of course, absolute undeniable proof is not possible because then there would be no room for choice or faith.
We'd pretty much be forced to "believe" in the biblical God. It's like "believing" light comes from the sun.
> Of course, absolute undeniable proof is not possible because then there would be no room for choice or faith.
The "knowledge would negate choice" argument is something I often hear from apologists, but it's inconsistent with all the Bible stories in which God's presence was absolutely clear, yet people were still free to choose:
- Moses even had enough Free Will to argue AGAINST a hot-headed Yahweh and even got His Almightiness to change His mind—twice—when the good Lord was set on slaying all the Israelites for their lack of gratitude (Exodus 32:9-14 and Numbers 14:11-20).
So the argument "undeniable proof of God = no room for choice" doesn't seem to match up with the Bible itself.
Sorry, your right there still is choice since even Romans ch. 1 says all of creation testifies to God's invisible qualities that have been seen and understood so men are without excuse.
We can still choose to rebel even in the midst of God's revelation. If God revealed himself there would be no choice as to God's EXISTENCE. The question would be on whether we choose to put our faith in God's Word and follow, or trust ourselves to know what's good and right. God or men.
> We can still choose to rebel even in the midst of God's revelation.
Yes, so that eliminates the argument that knowledge would negate choice. According to the Bible, God could part the sea before our very eyes, yet we would still be free to worship or reject Him.
And according to Exodus 32:9-14 and Numbers 14:11-20, God could appear and we would even have enough choice to *challenge* Him when Hes being immoral, and get Him to see the error of His ways.
"We can still choose to rebel even in the midst of God's revelation. If God revealed himself there would be no choice as to God's EXISTENCE."
Given the examples you cite, even if God revealed himself it may not do much in leading people to repentance. So it may do little to save people anyways
> Given the examples you cite, even if God revealed himself it may not do much in leading people to repentance. So it may do little to save people anyways
Hi again linkvashflcl,
So you agree with my point that the Bible gives examples in which full knowledge of God's existence doesn't negate choice.
So to me, this dismisses the argument that "the reason there's no evidence for Christianity is that God must remain at least partially hidden to allow for Free Will."
I would say that the best reason for Christianity's lack of evidence of Divinity is that it's just another man-made creation: same category as Islam, Scientology, etc.
But this is a point I believe we'll just have to agree to disagree on!
I believe you're saying that clear evidence of God means everyone would have to believe in His existence, but would still be free to worship or ignore/reject Him.
Let's say for argument's sake that the First Cause and Design argument are "clear evidence" for the existence of a Higher Power.
But these arguments tell us NOTHING about which religion is correct, if any. There could be a mysterious Higher Power, but all religions could still be 100% man-made guesswork.
This then becomes a matter of faith. It may seem man-made to you but to me the historical existence of Jesus is as real as the historical existence of Plato or Aristotle. Also, I am convinced of the Resurrection.
Above all I trust in Jesus' teachings. Salvation in Islam seems very works-oriented: God will weigh our actions on the Last Day and if our good actions outweigh our bad you get into Heaven.
The Christian gospel of God's grace is much more powerful to me.
> to me the historical existence of Jesus is as real as the historical existence of Plato or Aristotle ... The Christian gospel of God's grace is much more powerful to me
If Christianity is where your research into the matter has led you, and this is where you find contentment, then I don't really have anything else to say. Best wishes!
@ToddAllenGates "Yes, so that eliminates the argument that knowledge would negate choice" I think it was in responce to this comment. It woud seem knowledge, absolute knowledge anyway, does negate choice. But I jumped in the middle of your convo here, I probably took it out of context. My apologies if that's the case.
> I agree that absolute knowledge seems to negate choice. But the context of that statement was with a Christian who said that the evidence for God has to be partially hidden b/c otherwise people wouldn't be free to reject God. My point was that this argument is inconsistent with the Bible itself--for the Bible describes plenty of people having crystal-clear evidence of God, yet still worship golden calves, etc. (But I agree with your point, so no offense taken!!)
@ToddAllenGates Lol, well that's good. And I agree with yours as well.
It's interesting, it seems for christians belief replaced what was faith for the jewish people and their ancestors. It used to be you had faith IN god, now the challenge is believe he exists in the first place. I wonder when that transition occcured?
> ... now the challenge is believe he exists in the first place. I wonder when that transition occurred?
My guess is that once science began to answer some of the "unanswerable" questions: weather, astronomy, origins, etc. (discoveries which revealed how often religion got it wrong).
> the author of this video is a skeptic of religion and most probably an atheist or agnostic.
Hi Redfingers. I happen to be an atheist, but I tend to discuss atheism only with fellow atheists. With believers (and in my videos), I focus more on skepticism of revealed religion rather than skepticism of "A Creator" (as discussed in my video 7 of 7 on "Using the Socratic Method with Christian Proselytizers").
You know, you're not really refuting anything, here. In essence, this is an appeal to popularity: "These other religions all have scapegoating as principles, too!"
But that doesn't make it any less dopey or any more TRUE. And maybe this is just a personal quirk of mine, but I care about what's true; maybe every religion in the entire Western Universe believes you can put your sins on another to atone for you, but if religion itself is false, so is the practice.
> You know, you're not really refuting anything, here. In essence, this is an appeal to popularity: "These other religions all have scapegoating as principles, too!"
Again, I'm surprised by your response--your interpretation that I'm trying to defend the bible by "appealing to popularity." By comparing the belief in the scapegoat sacrifice of Jesus to the scapegoat sacrifice beliefs in other ancient & primitive religions, does it *really* sound like I'm saying I believe that
> But that doesn't make it any less dopey or any more TRUE.
Agreed. And I thought that was so obvious it didn't even need to be stated. In my mind, it's as obvious as if I had compared God's reward/punishment of heaven/hell to Santa Claus's rewards/punishments of toys/coal.
I would think I wouldn't need to state that, "by the way, Santa's not real either."
By NOT making a direct statement of your own position on the matter, you leave the question open to interpretation. Now, we've spoken before and I got the impression that you were much closer to the atheist camp than any religious camp. But watched objectively, this video sounds like you're defending christianity by pointing out its similarities to other faiths, and by NOT explicitly addressing the truth of ANY faith's beliefs.
You have grasped his stance PERFECTLY, but don't seem to recognize the benefits to his approach. As he is NOT asserting a polarizing view of "there is no god(s)" he leaves the religoius person able to hear his notoin that christianity is nothing new or special. It can be viewed as a powerful blow to the 'uniqueness' of one religion. A simple way to sum it up is "Hey, dumbass christian, your religion is obviously like every other one, how can your's be the true one?"
But see, I think there needs to be more of a one-two punch with this approach. First, soften them up with this history, then follow it up with actually asking the question about christianity's uniqueness.
The problem is, when confronted with this question, many christians simply fall back on the notion that the devil went back and preemptively created these false religions with similarity to create doubt. They have an answer for EVERYTHING, no proof required.
I really understand your perspective. I sort of feel that if someone is willing to go so far as to think "the devil did it" there really is no hope for these types, and NO reasonable persuasion could alter them. These videos are for a little more open minded religious individual, or casual believer.
If they aren't willing to question their religion then they certainly aren't going to be searching youtube for arguments against it. To me these videos inform those who can have a personal conversation with a Christian they know.
Also, watch his older video called "Using the Socratic Method w/ Christian Proselytizers" to more fully understand his methods. I suppose it is useful to know that watching his videos is about as vital as not beginning a book in the middle. If he were to recap previous thoughts in every video, his entire videos would be recaps.
This has been flagged as spam show
@ToddAllenGates
> Good point to keep in mind -- still, I do think that a fair look at both sides shows that the evidence on the side of non-theism is overwhelming!
I overwhelmingly agree.
Blevowski 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ToddAllenGates
> Sometimes yes ... but when I hear about thousands of people joining Rick Perry to pray for rain, it can be discouraging!
Wow, that is discouraging. You know what I find encouraging? All the YouTube parody's on Rick Perry's 'Strong' add!
Blevowski 1 month ago
that affirms what we believe to be right. Regardless, keep it up!
Blevowski 1 month ago
@Blevowski
> maybe we only surround ourselves with everything that affirms what we believe to be right.
Good point to keep in mind -- still, I do think that a fair look at both sides shows that the evidence on the side of non-theism is overwhelming!
ToddAllenGates 1 month ago
Great video's Todd! It might just be me, but I feel like people are moving toward a conscious or intellectual awakening. Do you feel that as well? Social media & the internet might have been a catalyst for that (connecting people, making our world smaller, providing endless info to our fingertips; i.e. videos like yours). I was a "Christian" up to a little over a year ago but find it inconceivable to have faith in any kind of 'Religion' now. But maybe we only surround ourselves with everything
Blevowski 1 month ago
@Blevowski
> Great video's Todd!
Thanks!
> It might just be me, but I feel like people are moving toward a conscious or intellectual awakening. Do you feel that as well?
Sometimes yes ... but when I hear about thousands of people joining Rick Perry to pray for rain, it can be discouraging!
ToddAllenGates 1 month ago
Yep, religion is retarded and mad. Maybe that's why most sane and intelligent people have ditched it
winterstellar 11 months ago
@winterstellar
> Maybe that's why most sane and intelligent people have ditched it
What's truly amazing is that how many sane and intelligent people have *not* ditched it! And the creativity of their arguments--the way they attempt to portray primitive writings from a harsh era as the work of Omniscience & Goodness--is often impressive.
ToddAllenGates 11 months ago
good video :D
bellyzbad 1 year ago
@bellyzbad
> good video :D
Thanks!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
religious manuals are at best metaphors about aspects of the self (mankind as a whole)
Lotusflowerism 1 year ago
@Lotusflowerism
> religious manuals are at best metaphors about aspects of the self
And at worst, they're books that people believe are the Word of God, and every command must be obeyed: the adulteress must be stoned, the apostate executed, the Untouchable persecuted, homosexuals condemned, women stifled, etc.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
keep on rolling! keep this world alive! dont let it drown in a total madness! change will come. it must come. i hope we gonna see a new age of a healthy reason and responsibility. cheers
TheAtheistworld 1 year ago
religion-mental disorder.
situation when person cant find a way anymore to healthy evaluate how far from a reality he is. its a total perverted delusional reality.look at this guy. he is mentally ill. its not a joke,nor insult. people r goin insane. their thinking and sense of reality is sick.religion-mistake. it was created to increase morals of sheeple. but people stopped questioning and drowning in madness.apocalypse of a human reason.religious society is goin to be a real resident evil movie
TheAtheistworld 1 year ago
@TheAtheistworld
> [Religion is] a total perverted delusional reality.look at this guy.
If "this guy" refers to me, I don't why you're saying that. This video series does not defend theism. I'm an atheist, and this series just looks at the Jesus story from the perspective of comparative mythology, and traces the different components back to their primitive roots.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates sorry. its not about u. its just an unedited copy/paste mistake. best wishes, todd.
TheAtheistworld 1 year ago
@TheAtheistworld
> its just an unedited copy/paste mistake.
No prob ... these things happen. And somehow this same comment got posted on about a dozen of my videos. Hope you don't mind that I deleted most of them!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates thanks.
TheAtheistworld 1 year ago
@TheAtheistworld i say it to all religious lunatics
TheAtheistworld 1 year ago
Overall, I enjoy your video. I was agnostic so both hot-headed annoying fundamentalists and atheists alike irritated me. If we can agree to disagree we can still have enjoyable talks, and (ironically) maybe even come to eventually agree on something.
linkvashflcl 1 year ago
@linkvashflcl
> Overall, I enjoy your video.
Thank you!
> If we can agree to disagree we can still have enjoyable talks
Agreed!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
Comment removed
linkvashflcl 1 year ago
Comment removed
linkvashflcl 1 year ago
Comment removed
linkvashflcl 1 year ago
Comment removed
linkvashflcl 1 year ago
Comment removed
linkvashflcl 1 year ago
Then we compare Jesus to the prophets or centerpieces of other faiths and we see how vastly different Jesus is in his teachings and claims he makes about himself (Jesus claimed to be God for one thing: "I and my Father are one") and his claims ultimately gets him killed for blasphemy. Furthermore, the power of God working in human lives is not outward but inward.
Heart-change from depraved sinner to repentant child of God is the miracle of the cross and the work of the Holy Spirit.
linkvashflcl 1 year ago
@linkvashflcl
> [Jesus'] claims ultimately gets him killed for blasphemy.
But of course if He really was our All-Knowing All-Powerful God in human form, then this was His Plan all along. Make humans who will fall short of standards (after all, 100% are sinners), set up eternal hellfire for their crime of being born, but then offer the escape route of heaven to those who believe He tortured Himself as a sacrifice to appease His anger against humans for the sins they were born into.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates
God initially made Adam and Eve without flaw or sin. God even warned the first humans not to sin by eating from just one tree out of the whole garden of Eden or they will surely die. If Adam and Eve, or any human being, didn't even have the POSSIBILITY to commit sin, if humans were perfectly "good", we'd be puppets.
Original sin is a person's innate nature to disobey God's commands even though God's commands are for his/her own protection/good like a parent warning a child.
linkvashflcl 1 year ago
1 of 2:
> God even warned the first humans not to sin by eating from just one tree out of the whole garden of Eden or they will surely die.
The observation that people die, get sick, suffer from natural disasters was apparent to people throughout the world—and accordingly, people throughout the world have made up stories to explain suffering.
Its not like there's a God out there who directly communicated His Story by writing it across the sky in some undeniably supernatural manner.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
2 of 2:
All we have are ancient contradictory tales recorded by people: from India, China, Saudia Arabia, Africa, Japan, etc. The Greek myth of man stealing fire from the gods (via Prometheus), and Zeus sending down sickness and pain (via Pandora) runs parallel to the Hebrew myth of The Garden of Eden.
The difference between you & I is that you believe man just made up all these tales *except* the Hebrew version, whereas I believe man made up *all* the tales.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates
No one knows what the torment in Hell will be like besides the vague descriptions we have in the Bible, like gnashing of teeth, that may literally or figuratively describe a person's condition in Hell.
The ONLY thing that makes Heaven paradise and Hell torment is in Heaven we are fully in God's presence for eternity, while in Hell we are completed separated from his presence and grace eternally.
linkvashflcl 1 year ago
@linkvashflcl
> No one knows what the torment in Hell will be like besides the vague descriptions we have in the Bible
The Koran gets more graphic: your skin gets roasted, and then grows back so it can be roasted again. And the Hindus tell us that punishment for misdeeds comes via a miserable reincarnation: coming back as a cockroach or an outcaste.
If you dismiss the Muslim and Hindu Holy Books as the baseless guesswork of ancient humans, well, I agree. It was typical of ancient humans!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates
Physical death is the separation of body and soul while spiritual death, which is the worse of the two, is separation from God.
So we get God making humans with the desire that we will grow in love and goodness towards God and each other like a parent wishes their children to be loving and good, but we disobey and sin against God and others as human children disobey and hurt themselves and others.
God sacrifices himself to save his children as any loving parent would.
linkvashflcl 1 year ago
@linkvashflcl
> God sacrifices himself to save his children as any loving parent would.
If I throw myself in front of a car to save my child, its because I have no other choice. But an all-powerful god would have *infinite* choices. No need to throw Himself in front of a car: He could just wave His hand and the car would stop. If there was really an Almighty God, He would have no worthy opposition to force Him to have to sacrifice.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
Poor Mr. Goat.
rationalmuscle 2 years ago
lol, I have 5 Todds talking simultaneously to me now. (unvotebotting)
MrFacet 2 years ago
> I have 5 Todds talking simultaneously to me now. (unvotebotting)
Thanks for the support and all your effort---*much* appreciated!!
- Todd
ToddAllenGates 2 years ago
comment
RabidAp3 2 years ago
The sacrifice of Jesus makes unbelievable sense to me, but then again, I'm a Christian, a college-educated, philosopher Christian. I guess the Bible is right when it says that the spirit will reveal the truth only to those God chooses to reveal Himself to.
sheknowsprose 3 years ago
1 of 2:
> I guess the Bible is right when it says that the spirit will reveal the truth only to those God chooses to reveal Himself to.
Yet would you accept that same argument from a Hindu or Muslim apologist? That the deeper justifications for the caste system / executing apostates may seem to defy logic, but the [Hindu / Muslim / etc. /] spirit only reveals the truth only to those the Higher Power chooses to reveal Himself to?
ToddGates 3 years ago
2 of 2:
The belief that Divine Truths are communicated through the spirit--and communicated selectively--is an argument most theists will accept for their *own* religion . . . few will see that same argument as valid when applied to the *other* 99,999 [give or take] religions that humans have come up with ever since mankind started inventing religions. (And few theists will disagree with the notion that mankind *does* indeed invent religions--all, of course, but their own!)
ToddGates 3 years ago
Why, then, waste your time with all of this? Why do you feel the need to argue against religion? Just go about your business. It is a Christians' job to spread the gospel, however, not argue people into accepting it. We just put the truth out there. Why is an atheist's job spreading disbelief? It's like people that make a hate-website for a band they dislike. What a waste of energy and thought!! Just go on with your life and we'll go on with ours.
sheknowsprose 3 years ago
1 of 8:
> It's like people that make a hate-website for a band they dislike... Just go on with your life and we'll go on with ours.
First of all, my apologies if my previous reply to you gave you the impression that my channel's purpose is anything similar to a "hate-website." The written word, void of body language & tone of voice, can be interpreted a number of ways ... reviewing my above comment, I can see how it might be interpreted to contain an aggressiveness that I did not intend.
ToddAllenGates 3 years ago
2 of 8:
My only intention was to point out that an argument that seems acceptable to defend one's own religion (such as "it's a matter of FAITH") will often seem much less valid when applied to foreign religions.
> Why do you feel the need to argue against religion? Just go about your business.
I feel your analogy with musical groups is useful here---for it's certainly possible to "ignore" a band you don't like, and just, as you said, "go about your business."
ToddAllenGates 3 years ago
3 of 8:
But when it comes to religious belief, people take actions based on those beliefs that have real-life consequences. Now, I fully agree that many of those consequences are positive! Even though I believe the effects are placebo, I acknowledge that many are nonetheless genuine: religion can provide believers with a feeling of community, unconditional love, and the sense that their lives have a divine place in God's plan;
ToddAllenGates 3 years ago
4 of 8:
it can help people cope with the loss of loved ones and alleviate their own fears of death; and faith can give people extra incentives to be charitable (and with regular church attendance, probably more built-in opportunities for charity).
And if religion were nothing more than this, I would keep my skepticism completely to myself.
ToddAllenGates 3 years ago
5 of 8:
Yet because many people have so many clashing ideas about which religion is the "right" one, and even believers within one religion disagree with each other over key points about what "God" has instructed us (Shiites vs. Sunnis, Catholics vs. Protestants, etc.), religious belief can also be the cause of great suffering---suffering that affects believers and non-believers alike.
ToddAllenGates 3 years ago
6 of 8:
For religion's positive traits notwithstanding, religion also stifles critical thought, breeds contempt & intolerance, fuels terrorism & helps to start wars. Even here in America, religion affects laws on education & marriage & medicine. So unlike a band that I don't like, religion has a direct affect on "my business."
ToddAllenGates 3 years ago
7 of 8:
> It is a Christians' job to spread the gospel . . . We just put the truth out there.
As well you should! After all, if you had information that an asteroid was going to strike our planet, you absolutely SHOULD spread that message! And if Christianity's premises are correct---that, for example, we need to accept Jesus as Savior to avoid eternal hellfire---that's even more important news to spread than an asteroid that's on a collision course with the earth.
ToddAllenGates 3 years ago
8 of 8:
So I don't at all mind proselytizers. If I thought Christianity were correct, I'd be one myself.
But are Christianity's premises correct? If indeed (1) there is a God, and (2) this God gave humanity Divine Instructions, and (3) of our thousands of religions to choose from, only *one* is from God, and the rest were made up by people, then (4) how do we distinguish the ONE religion from God from the MANY from man? These are the questions I ask.
ToddAllenGates 3 years ago
Yeah that's what I said. Why would a loving god give us less than a one in a hundred chance of guessing which religion is true just to avoid the lake of fire? Does he assume that we automatically know that christianity is the only true religion? Or does Allah assume that we automatically know that Islam is true. Or does Krishna assume that we automatically know that hinduism is true. Or maybe Zeus assumed that we knew Greek mythology was true. I give up. Any idea? We really have to hedge a bet?
jityr2 3 years ago 3
@ToddAllenGates That's where Jesus comes in. Historical evidence of his existence and arguments for his resurrection, eyewitness testimonies of his Deity and miracles, history of early Church, and testimonies of apostles and church fathers.
Of course, absolute undeniable proof is not possible because then there would be no room for choice or faith.
We'd pretty much be forced to "believe" in the biblical God. It's like "believing" light comes from the sun.
linkvashflcl 1 year ago
1 of 3:
@linkvashflcl
> Of course, absolute undeniable proof is not possible because then there would be no room for choice or faith.
The "knowledge would negate choice" argument is something I often hear from apologists, but it's inconsistent with all the Bible stories in which God's presence was absolutely clear, yet people were still free to choose:
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
2 of 3:
- the Israelites who watched God part the sea still chose to worship a golden calf;
- Jesus supposedly made His Divinity clear via assorted miracles yet people still rejected Him;
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
3 of 3:
- Moses even had enough Free Will to argue AGAINST a hot-headed Yahweh and even got His Almightiness to change His mind—twice—when the good Lord was set on slaying all the Israelites for their lack of gratitude (Exodus 32:9-14 and Numbers 14:11-20).
So the argument "undeniable proof of God = no room for choice" doesn't seem to match up with the Bible itself.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates
Sorry, your right there still is choice since even Romans ch. 1 says all of creation testifies to God's invisible qualities that have been seen and understood so men are without excuse.
We can still choose to rebel even in the midst of God's revelation. If God revealed himself there would be no choice as to God's EXISTENCE. The question would be on whether we choose to put our faith in God's Word and follow, or trust ourselves to know what's good and right. God or men.
linkvashflcl 1 year ago
@linkvashflcl
> We can still choose to rebel even in the midst of God's revelation.
Yes, so that eliminates the argument that knowledge would negate choice. According to the Bible, God could part the sea before our very eyes, yet we would still be free to worship or reject Him.
And according to Exodus 32:9-14 and Numbers 14:11-20, God could appear and we would even have enough choice to *challenge* Him when Hes being immoral, and get Him to see the error of His ways.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
\@ToddAllenGates
But I said after:
"We can still choose to rebel even in the midst of God's revelation. If God revealed himself there would be no choice as to God's EXISTENCE."
Given the examples you cite, even if God revealed himself it may not do much in leading people to repentance. So it may do little to save people anyways
linkvashflcl 1 year ago
1 of 2:
> Given the examples you cite, even if God revealed himself it may not do much in leading people to repentance. So it may do little to save people anyways
Hi again linkvashflcl,
So you agree with my point that the Bible gives examples in which full knowledge of God's existence doesn't negate choice.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
2 of 2:
So to me, this dismisses the argument that "the reason there's no evidence for Christianity is that God must remain at least partially hidden to allow for Free Will."
I would say that the best reason for Christianity's lack of evidence of Divinity is that it's just another man-made creation: same category as Islam, Scientology, etc.
But this is a point I believe we'll just have to agree to disagree on!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates
It negates choice for God's existence but not choice to worship God.
linkvashflcl 1 year ago
@linkvashflcl
I believe you're saying that clear evidence of God means everyone would have to believe in His existence, but would still be free to worship or ignore/reject Him.
Let's say for argument's sake that the First Cause and Design argument are "clear evidence" for the existence of a Higher Power.
But these arguments tell us NOTHING about which religion is correct, if any. There could be a mysterious Higher Power, but all religions could still be 100% man-made guesswork.
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates
This then becomes a matter of faith. It may seem man-made to you but to me the historical existence of Jesus is as real as the historical existence of Plato or Aristotle. Also, I am convinced of the Resurrection.
Above all I trust in Jesus' teachings. Salvation in Islam seems very works-oriented: God will weigh our actions on the Last Day and if our good actions outweigh our bad you get into Heaven.
The Christian gospel of God's grace is much more powerful to me.
linkvashflcl 1 year ago
@linkvashflcl
> to me the historical existence of Jesus is as real as the historical existence of Plato or Aristotle ... The Christian gospel of God's grace is much more powerful to me
If Christianity is where your research into the matter has led you, and this is where you find contentment, then I don't really have anything else to say. Best wishes!
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates
Alrighty then it's been good chatting. Same to you!
linkvashflcl 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates Wrong, omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive concepts.
humanistheart 1 year ago
@humanistheart
> Wrong, omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive concepts
I agree that they're mutually exclusive, and don't remember saying otherwise--what did I say that made you write this comment?
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates "Yes, so that eliminates the argument that knowledge would negate choice" I think it was in responce to this comment. It woud seem knowledge, absolute knowledge anyway, does negate choice. But I jumped in the middle of your convo here, I probably took it out of context. My apologies if that's the case.
humanistheart 1 year ago
@humanistheart
> I agree that absolute knowledge seems to negate choice. But the context of that statement was with a Christian who said that the evidence for God has to be partially hidden b/c otherwise people wouldn't be free to reject God. My point was that this argument is inconsistent with the Bible itself--for the Bible describes plenty of people having crystal-clear evidence of God, yet still worship golden calves, etc. (But I agree with your point, so no offense taken!!)
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
@ToddAllenGates Lol, well that's good. And I agree with yours as well.
It's interesting, it seems for christians belief replaced what was faith for the jewish people and their ancestors. It used to be you had faith IN god, now the challenge is believe he exists in the first place. I wonder when that transition occcured?
humanistheart 1 year ago
@humanistheart
> ... now the challenge is believe he exists in the first place. I wonder when that transition occurred?
My guess is that once science began to answer some of the "unanswerable" questions: weather, astronomy, origins, etc. (discoveries which revealed how often religion got it wrong).
ToddAllenGates 1 year ago
FYI, Bio, the author of this video is a skeptic of religion and most probably an atheist or agnostic.
Watch some of his other videos, such as "using the socratic method against a christian proselyrizer.
Redfingers 4 years ago
> the author of this video is a skeptic of religion and most probably an atheist or agnostic.
Hi Redfingers. I happen to be an atheist, but I tend to discuss atheism only with fellow atheists. With believers (and in my videos), I focus more on skepticism of revealed religion rather than skepticism of "A Creator" (as discussed in my video 7 of 7 on "Using the Socratic Method with Christian Proselytizers").
ToddAllenGates 4 years ago
You know, you're not really refuting anything, here. In essence, this is an appeal to popularity: "These other religions all have scapegoating as principles, too!"
But that doesn't make it any less dopey or any more TRUE. And maybe this is just a personal quirk of mine, but I care about what's true; maybe every religion in the entire Western Universe believes you can put your sins on another to atone for you, but if religion itself is false, so is the practice.
BionicDance 4 years ago
1 of 3:
> You know, you're not really refuting anything, here. In essence, this is an appeal to popularity: "These other religions all have scapegoating as principles, too!"
Again, I'm surprised by your response--your interpretation that I'm trying to defend the bible by "appealing to popularity." By comparing the belief in the scapegoat sacrifice of Jesus to the scapegoat sacrifice beliefs in other ancient & primitive religions, does it *really* sound like I'm saying I believe that
ToddAllenGates 4 years ago
2 of 3:
(a) there really ARE angry gods?, and
(b) that human sacrifice is a legitimate way to appease the tantrums of these [non-existent] tyrants?
ToddAllenGates 4 years ago
3 of 3:
> But that doesn't make it any less dopey or any more TRUE.
Agreed. And I thought that was so obvious it didn't even need to be stated. In my mind, it's as obvious as if I had compared God's reward/punishment of heaven/hell to Santa Claus's rewards/punishments of toys/coal.
I would think I wouldn't need to state that, "by the way, Santa's not real either."
ToddAllenGates 4 years ago
By NOT making a direct statement of your own position on the matter, you leave the question open to interpretation. Now, we've spoken before and I got the impression that you were much closer to the atheist camp than any religious camp. But watched objectively, this video sounds like you're defending christianity by pointing out its similarities to other faiths, and by NOT explicitly addressing the truth of ANY faith's beliefs.
BionicDance 4 years ago
You have grasped his stance PERFECTLY, but don't seem to recognize the benefits to his approach. As he is NOT asserting a polarizing view of "there is no god(s)" he leaves the religoius person able to hear his notoin that christianity is nothing new or special. It can be viewed as a powerful blow to the 'uniqueness' of one religion. A simple way to sum it up is "Hey, dumbass christian, your religion is obviously like every other one, how can your's be the true one?"
BayerLexan 4 years ago 2
But see, I think there needs to be more of a one-two punch with this approach. First, soften them up with this history, then follow it up with actually asking the question about christianity's uniqueness.
The problem is, when confronted with this question, many christians simply fall back on the notion that the devil went back and preemptively created these false religions with similarity to create doubt. They have an answer for EVERYTHING, no proof required.
BionicDance 4 years ago
I really understand your perspective. I sort of feel that if someone is willing to go so far as to think "the devil did it" there really is no hope for these types, and NO reasonable persuasion could alter them. These videos are for a little more open minded religious individual, or casual believer.
BayerLexan 4 years ago 2
@BayerLexan yea, when one stops to question and use reason, they are under the influence of "The devil." makes sense..
redeemer61190 1 year ago
If they aren't willing to question their religion then they certainly aren't going to be searching youtube for arguments against it. To me these videos inform those who can have a personal conversation with a Christian they know.
Discharg3 4 years ago
Also, watch his older video called "Using the Socratic Method w/ Christian Proselytizers" to more fully understand his methods. I suppose it is useful to know that watching his videos is about as vital as not beginning a book in the middle. If he were to recap previous thoughts in every video, his entire videos would be recaps.
Discharg3 4 years ago
I not only watched that video, I responded to it extensively; I disagreed with this soft approach there, too.
BionicDance 4 years ago