วีดีโอ

😂. What I said is what I said. I’m pretty sure you didn’t watch the other videos I made on this. I already addressed this.

@@JonathanCOwens lol yeah I won’t be watching them… but you could still answer my questions

🤣. You can watch them as it addresses it, but if you are stubborn, then no.

@@JonathanCOwens 😂 I can be stubborn… I won’t deny that. But my time is precious and I won’t spend a lot of time on things I see immoral and inexcusable. I’ve already spent countless hours of time researching the Bible. If god can’t make a book that is easy for ALL to understand then what does that say about god. If he created my mind and how it works and everything inside me tells me this is wrong along with soooo many other things in the Bible then what does that say about god. If you, as a Christian, don’t want to try to explain and help me understand when I’m directly asking you, then what does that say about you?

@Fierylove111 man. If only someone made a video for you to understand, instead of typing days at an end, since your time is so precious.

I hope you liked the joke 😂

Thanks!

Appreciate it. It’s probably because this is a little different from the content I usually post.

What are you referencing from the video?

@@JonathanCOwens that you don’t understand the legal difference between killing and murder. Killing can be justified, as in war, so is not murder and so is not immoral. If a killing is viewed as a murder then it is an illegal act and so is immoral.

But again, what are you referencing from the video. This seems irrelevant.

What does this have to do with the video

@@JonathanCOwens - It’s more evidence that the Bible condones slavery.

@@JonathanCOwens - It’s evidence that if “god” wanted to outlaw or abolish slavery, he had multiple opportunities, and even an absolutely perfect one and still did not take it.

Again, what does that have to do with what I said in the video? If anything, I alluded to why it’s irrelevant.

@@JonathanCOwens - It’s irrelevant that “god” had a perfect opportunity to abolish the single most disgusting practice in human history, and CHOSE NOT TO? Ok. Sure man. Whatever you have to say to make yourself feel better.

@@ethanguy82 okay

Finally, a comment that addresses the points in the video. It appears that you’ve made two claims that contradict my conclusion. Minor: “It’s a common misconception that a slave could simply convert to Judaism and thereby be covered under the Sabbath and Jubilee year release. However, this is never the case.” Major: “Anyone who converts to join the covenant could not benefit from the 7th year release on the sabbatical year.” Firstly, it seems that your research about Ancient Israel is based on the Talmud, which leads to a separate discussion about the authority of the Talmud in ancient Israel. We can have that discussion, but we need to acknowledge this first. Do you have any scriptural support for your claim that the sabbatical year deals with land release, similar to the jubilee year? If it’s solely based on the Talmud, that’s a different conversation. Also, could you elaborate on what you believe the differences are between proselytes and foreigners/sojourners? More specifically, why do you think these distinctions exist in the Bible?

@@JonathanCOwens Your Minor and major seem to be the same thing to me. If there's a distinction to you can you elaborate? And I've never looked into the Talmud. Just the scholarship on the issue. "Do you have any scriptural support for your claim that the sabbatical year deals with land release, similar to the jubilee year?" The Sabbatical year does not involve land releases. I never claimed that. Simply that the people released, as ALL the passages in Ex, Deu. and Lev. make clear, was only for Hebrews. The land works for 6 years and is free on the seventh. Hebrew indentured debt servants do the same. Seven Sabbath Years is a Jubilee year. They go hand in hand. In the seventh, the land isn't returned to the family ownership, but the people are. And in the Jubilee year both are. It's Lev. 25. If you're looking for a verse that specifically says that there isn't one. As to proselytes and foreigners? You have to give me the Hebrew. Typically it's just "תּוֹשָׁב" or "toshab" as it's typically written in English. Which specific verses and the Hebrew please. But generally it means foreigner, or tenant farmer. Can be someone who follows some laws but has not coverted. But don't get confused. I mean you can't simply convert to Judaism and then be allowed to own land in Israel. No. And as I said, the Sabbath and Jubilee years were all about the land.

1. //Your Minor and major seem to be the same thing to me. If there's a distinction to you can you elaborate?// The terms "minor" and "major" were used to indicate the significance or importance of the issue, not to differentiate between two distinct points. This isn't the main focus of our discussion. We can skip that. 2. //And I've never looked into the Talmud. Just the scholarship on the issue// You mentioned that you haven't delved into the Talmud, but could you share your specific sources, quotes, data, etc that state these laws were only applicable to Israelites with land? 3. //The Sabbatical year does not involve land releases. I never claimed that// //The whole purpose of the Sabbath and Jubilee year release was to return those native Hebrews to their land, and to return the land to those native Hebrews (in the case that the land had been leased out for a period of time).// Is there a typing error here? It seems you did state that. The rest of your comment in the second paragraph seems irrelevant as I don't disagree with that part. 3. //Simply that the people released, as ALL the passages in Ex, Deu. and Lev. make clear, was only for Hebrews// I believe this is a separate conversation, but it's worth noting that there is a distinction between Hebrews and Israelites. For instance, Abram is referred to as a Hebrew, but I've come to realize that these terms shouldn't be used interchangeably. I plan to stop doing so. Do you disagree with the verses I provided that indicate the law applies to both proselytes and Israelites? Note: The LXX uses "prosēlutos - προσήλυτος" for the term "strangers" in these verses. 4. //As to proselytes and foreigners? You have to give me the Hebrew. Typically it's just "תּוֹשָׁב" or "toshab" as it's typically written in English.// Regarding proselytes and foreigners, are you familiar with the LXX and how these individuals are differentiated in the text? I refer to the LXX as we don't have access to the original text or any versions predating the LXX, except for fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls that may or may not be older. 4. //I mean you can't simply convert to Judaism and then be allowed to own land in Israel // Let's not conflate Ancient Israelites with Judaism. Also, I'm a bit confused here. I'm not claiming that Ancient Israelites can or can't own land, but that proselytes can be released and are subject to other parts of the laws.

Do you have an accurate point about the video or just spamming?

@@JonathanCOwens I made my accurate point. Do you have a rebuttal, or were you just lying?

Your only rebuttal is saying no and not addressing the reasoning I gave.

@@JonathanCOwens Your reason was something you made up, unsupported by scripture.

-_-

💯 Exactly!

Cool story

@@JonathanCOwens just a story though. And it’s not that cool of a story as it suggests we are just some being’s play things

Cool

What does this have to do with the video?

@@JonathanCOwens you said the slavery is the most cited reason people use to prove this supposed god is immoral. Even if you were to justify owning people(which is ridiculous) there are plenty of other ways to show this god is immoral

Can you show how you came with that conclusion of what I supposedly said? It’s seems it’s a strawman on my actual premises.

44 seconds in. You said some may “try” to use this quote to prove this god is immoral. As if it wasn’t obviously immoral.

@americanearthling9671 I assumed it was there but I want you to understand. 1. Me saying “some might come up to another and try to provide this verse as evidence (for the Bible being immoral) or at least God being immoral” and “slavery is the most cited reason people used to prove this supposed god is immoral.” Are two different claims. My claim is basically people may used this verse as evidence to say God is immoral. You claimed I stated slavery is the most cited reason for people to say God is immoral. Having the verse being used as evidence vs it’s the most citied reason are you two different things. Thats why it seems your original comments about there being other reasons for saying God is immoral is kind of irrelevant to the topic. 2. “Try”. Yes. People try to use this verse as evidence for saying god is immoral. 3. Obviously immoral? That’s a big claim.

What are you addressing from the video?

@@JonathanCOwens I time stamped it. You said that at the time they had slaves... yeah and? Couldn't god just tell them to knock that off?

@DeconvertedMan why

@@JonathanCOwens Because slavery is bad? Duh.

@DeconvertedMan can you expand?

I think you have the wrong video to comment under.

Already did. And strawman? It’s seems you’re just responding to the title and not understanding my position. But hey.🤷Do you.

?

Another atheist who didn’t listen to what I said. 😂

@@JonathanCOwens no need. I was pointing out the error in your premise. We have already had this conversation and again you still don’t understand what is a positive or negative claim. That is why you don’t understand why a theist has the burden of proof

@@JonathanCOwens I steel manned your argument last time and you didn’t care about my evidence for atheism. The burden of proof wasn’t mine. You said it was because I was making a claim. I explained the difference between hard and soft atheism, and you didn’t seem to understand the difference. You think atheists are all just making a claim that there is no god instead understanding the difference. Again I will make a hard claim that the Christian god does not exist or cannot exist. And I can provide evidence. And again a soft atheist doesn’t have the burden of proof. The theist making the positive claim has the burden of proof. An atheist making a hard claim also has some burden of proof, of which I can provide. The first provable error in the Bible is in Genesis where it claims the earth was made before the sun. It is impossible for a Tri-Omni god to exist if there is suffering in this world. It breaks the law of contradiction

@@americanearthling9671 don’t even know the premise🤦

@@JonathanCOwens the title of your video should be your premise

Okay? What does that have to do with the video.

In description

That’s the funny thing. This literally shows the issue there but some individuals don’t see it.

1. you may need to reread my claim again. The claim you gave isn’t accurate. 2. You may also need to watch the Atheos part again. The claim you gave isn’t accurate. 3. I used the philosophical definitions of Anti-theism which stated what I said.

There's no downside to using the common, dictionary definition.

​@@Sean-fo8kg Yes, I know. You think the merely 'lack belief' usage represents your position accurately: you don't have an ontological view about God. So, sure - you can use that if you want to. The perceived "downside" (for me) is that the merely 'lack belief' usage doesn't represent my position accurately. I have an ontological view about God - no gods exist.

@@christaylor6574 it’s more concise to say it doesn’t describe your entire position. Only partially. If you believe no gods exist, then you necessarily lack belief that any gods exists. So under my definition, you are still an atheist. But I have no problem with you only applying the label to hard atheism.

@@Sean-fo8kg *"it’s more concise to say it doesn’t describe your entire position. Only partially."* Yup - if I were to use 'atheism' as merely lacking belief God exists, then it doesn't describe my entire position. That's the "downside" (for me), which is why I don't use the 'lack belief' definition. I prefer to use the 'belief no gods exist' usage. It clearly represents my ontological view. I apply it to 'atheism', so I don't need to term like 'hard atheism'.

@@christaylor6574 that’s fair.

Cool

@JonathanCOwens atheism is just not being convinced. Their might be one but no evidence or reason to think so has been presented yet.

If that’s your definition then…

Don’t tell other atheists that 😂

Burden of proof 😅

@@JonathanCOwens Yes. I know theists hate hearing those words, but it’s just a matter of common sense. If you make a claim about reality, and you want to convince others of the truth of your claim, then you must provide evidence sufficient to justify the claim. It’s basic epistemology.

@djhwty8725 everyone who thinks I’m shifting the burden of proof never heard my argument. They just ASSUME that.

@@JonathanCOwens If you say that you believe there is a god, then you are, by implication, making a claim about reality. That claim is “a god exists”. You therefore adopt a burden of proof after professing your belief in a god.

Have you even listened to my position or are you assuming it?

What do you think the proposition is?

@@JonathanCOwens a god or gods exists.

@jameshoward3rd if P is God exist is true. And -p is God exists is false. Can someone give a third answer?

The question isn't "does a God exist" the question is "Do you you think a God exists" I'll agree "God exists" is either true or false. However "I don't have enough evidence to make a decision either way." Is a valid answer. Do you not believe it's possible to withhold judgement on a truth claim until you have enough evidence?

I asked you for the proposition. That’s the proposition you gave. 🤔 There is a third answer. I don’t know. Understood as agnostic in philosophy.

Well I don’t believe the claim there is no god.

This is false, atheism does not incorporate belief. It’s fundamental to understanding the position.

How is the statement false? I’m sure you both agree.

Me and steve had about a short five min talk a while ago off stream about setting this up to address the comment section . We agreed on the logic I presented in the first video. Would been a waste to record both us agreeing without others.

@@JonathanCOwens wait wait -- he agreed with your logic (on your first vid)? ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT? O_o;;;

@DeconvertedMan Yeah. 1. He stated in his review in the first 5 min of the video. 2. We spoke on discord privately that he agreed 3. It was a brief talk about it I messaged him again about it The only thing he said he disagreed was my conclusion but I do state that atheism can be defined as lack of belief there is a god but saying atheism can be defined as JUST is lack of belief there is a god is where I disagreed. I mean it made sense and looked similar to his logic.

@@JonathanCOwens OK. I would have thought he would have tried to correct the numerus logical errors you made in that video. :/ Ah well. ????? *"The only thing he said he disagreed was my conclusion but I do state that atheism can be defined as lack of belief there is a god but saying atheism can be defined as JUST is lack of belief there is a god is where I disagreed. "* ?????? No idea what your conclusion here means. I think you need to learn informal/formal logic. :) or perhaps learn more. (or) relearn it. IDK but yeah I have no idea what your saying.

@DeconvertedMan He only disagreed with my conclusion. I did state that atheism can be defined as a lack of belief in a god. However, I disagreed with the assertion that atheism can be defined as JUST a lack of belief in a god

You don’t know my position if you are saying things I agree with and some that’s not reference. But then again, I gave evidence to support my claim.

In fairness, words don't have intrinsic meanings and the term "atheist" is used both ways. But the title does (appear) to state as *fact* in the wording, "atheism IS..." - and that's wrong as well. I think the pushback from theists is wanting to avoid the burden of proof. But they cannot saddle us with a position we don't hold by arguing semantics.

@Sean-fo8kg is this statement true or false: A bat is something that is used by baseball players.

@@JonathanCOwens it is absolutely true that that is a common usage of “bat.” It is not *intrinsically* true.

​@@JonathanCOwens it could be false. When my definition is "to hit" and when I tell you I mean "to hit", why would you say I mean "the wooden stick baseball players use"? Don't assume, ask. (and all this while I leave the flying mammal out of it...)

No

@@JonathanCOwens Cool deal. Hope your day is good, no ill intent. Discussion is key to understanding. Thanks for having me

Chill

I don't think theists are saying it is a belief. They just mean that *if you are interested in having a discussion with a theist about it, then your end of being part of that discussion is to explain *why you think your position is more rational than theism. i.e. how would you convince a theist he/she should give up on theism and take your position? Presumably you *believe your position is the most rational/reasonable? Yes? No? If so, then being part of the conversation to is explain why you believe your position is more rational than being a theist. If no - then you're conceding your position isn't rationally held. That's all they mean by this.

​@@JonathanCOwens He's right tho

@@rogerx1979 No. Atheists are not making a claim of belief one way or another. It is not a system of belief. There is simply no evidence. The burden of proof is on the theist.

How is everyone defining belief?

?

@@JonathanCOwens Steve mentioned not wanting chicken.

Okay?

Are you good? That’s not the video