16:21 Alex seems to have reached to the boundaries of everything in this word, and he seems to have understood everything that leads to to the conclusion that if people are becoming christians then it must be a political reason or some kind of force pressing by christians. This guy is stilk in a developing state, because he came to a conclusion the everything must have happened within the capacity of his understanding and nothing could have happened and nothing will happen outside of his notion of knowing the world. How can that be possible? How can we just limit everything in this world to that which he can perceive??? Why can't they be existed beyond human comprehension??? This proves that atheist's way on thinking is limited.
@rawan3435 Anything outside of our comprehension MUST be proven REAL first. Meaning, it's useless to insist something is REAL unless we COMPREHEND it. Many big mistakes have been made in history because of rushed certainty.
@@goodquestion7915 but how can we know that this brain we have can perceive that which is outside of its ability?? Inorder to understand anything we have to be outside of that thing. Inorder to understand the absence of time we have to be outside of time, but that is impossible. We cannot figure out even the gravity for so long, there's a number of other basic questions not yet solved even by mathematics. How can we believe there is nothing outside of our comprehension??
@rawan3435 Your questions are good. The problem starts when we MAKE decisions based on GUESSES on the answers to those questions. And even worse, when we LEGISLATE on those dubious answers.
I absolutely love to see a civil and open conversation like this. It’s refreshing in a world of “dunking on” and sensational click bait titles about people being over or destroyed by the same old sound bites that’s been around forever. Thank you both for this very insightful conversation.
I think it’s important to note that Islams growth is based purely on birth rates and also a lot of ex Muslims don’t have a voice because of the threat of leaving Islam.
@@km0262 I partly follow. Many young people with muslim parents leave this 1400 year old very limited worldview behind them. But two years ago, an investigation was conducted by the Federal government in my country Belgium. We now have more practicing muslims than practicing christians. But also true. christianity, meanwhile, is falling lower and lower.
I am so far from being religious and I often have a hard time listening to religious people, because so much of it just sounds to me with the undertone of "we are better than you, we have the answer and you just don't understand" (I know partly this might be my bias, but I don't think it is only my bias). I never got that from Justin, I think he just seems like a wonderful human being who is honest in conversations and actually willing to listen. Much appreciated. Obviously I really love listening to Alex as well, thank you for this and great job all 3 of you.
My friend try to read this comment section. You'll see atheists more often have that tone, after all, atheism is supposedly an enlightenment. Most atheists seem they have the answer here
Then you haven't been listening. Because a genuine theist doesn't hoard god from others, they share it. You sound like you've been part of terrible religious communities. I'm sorry to hear that.
I feel like a lot of that comes from him having hosted conversations between Christians and atheists for years. It’s easier to be more empathetic when you’re listening to different perspectives all the time and not just living in an echo chamber, and also witnessing and aiding in creating calm intellectual discussions as a host. Alex also recently said that in his private life he gets into some heated debates with people and isn’t always cool and collected, but when on camera he knows that his audience will notice when people are dishonest in conversation so he doesn’t need to worry about it and might as well stay calm. So it could be like that with Justin as well.
LSD takes away the brain's ability to filter out the peripheral stimuli that would otherwise prevent you from functioning in an efficient and focused way. My experience of God has deepened with age. I would describe it more like a deeply personal , calming relationship which is deeply affecting. It is not really anything like a sensory overload. sensory
I felt actually somewhat sorry for Alex craning his flexible neck on essentially a tiny loveseat in an undoubtedly complicated attempt at addressing the individual he came to this event to dialogue with. Two chairs. Two would do.
The fact that they can both sit in a room for over an hour and a hald and have a conversation with a single microphone is by itself an accomplishment. Without denying or accepting a Christian rebirth, this is definetely a rebirth in intellectual communication.
Justin and Alex both have my respect for being able to discuss their differences without resorting to attacking each other. If only that could catch on.
I'll save you a bit of time. Justin wrote a book on a feeling he had after talking to a few people and because some men went to church in Finland. And he reiterates this feeling in every bloated and unnecessarily long winded response by saying that he "genuinely believes" what he genuinely believes in.
I'll also save you some time. Alex will simply repeat every made-up nonsense about Christianity he ever heard without questioning any of it. And he'll probably repeat some nonsense about "slavery and genocide" and how "good people do evil things because of religion" or how religion is always the bad guy that fights against good science (completely ignoring all of the horrible stuff we have because of science, like weapons of mass destruction, etc. Or how a lot of scientific progress was based on highly unethical experiments). Then he will go on to strawmaning Christianity and "debunking" fundamentalist evangelicals while at the same time showing zero knowledge about religion or the Bible despite his claims of having studied theology. 😂
Yep. Tedious stuff. I remember when I first came across Unbelievable and was excited at some of the debates. Justin impressed me as a moderator, seemed open, and courteous, to the atheists. Then, when I sat down to him about to explain why he thinks Xtianity is the more reasonable option I was expecting something special. Nope. He had nothing. Same old. Now it reeks of a racket, a way to flog books and make money online etc.
Thanks for this, someone (Christian) told me about this guy and I thought "this has gotta be bs" so I thought I'd check him out. Thanks for summing him up.
Why is it that Christians accuse us non-believers of “reading the Bible like a fundamentalist” only when we take seriously the passages that they don’t like? When it comes to the slavery and violence passages, there’s always “nuance” and “progressive revelation” and whatnot, and we can’t just “take it at face value.” And yet, they’re perfectly happy to take the “God is love” and “love your enemies” parts at face value. Is Justin not “reading like a fundamentalist” when he takes those parts seriously? This is why it’s my contention that any good you claim to get FROM the Bible is actually just what you already believe to be good, and then you find the scattered places where it agrees and then you claim that this is what it’s REALLY about.
cos they are needy and insecure. and it's hard having to maintain lies all the time, like "there;s no slavery in the bible" and "god never committed genocide imagine having to constantly make excuses for all that crap.
You must let scripture interpret Scripture and see the whole picture of the Bible, not just pick and choose. Of course there are troubling passages, but if you look to Christ and His example, you will find truth
Christians, like myself, criticize some atheists on Bible interpretation because much of it is childish. Few atheists have any knowledge of the ANE, know Hebrew, or factor in the contexts of a particular passage. Most implore an eisegesis approach to the Bible and cherry-pick passages to make a point. If you don't know the historical background of the Bible, then you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Bible interpretation. I will sadly admit that many Christians do similar things concerning Bible interpretation as well.
@@clayw70literally just described 99.999 of christians, pastors, and apologists. they only understand the language, historical context etc in the way their particular seminary/institution/denomination has approved
What you're describing is exactly what "reading the Bible like a fundamentalist" means. Obviously there are parts of it that are more reasonably taken at face value than others. Reading it "like a fundamentalist" is taking every part of it at face value, quote by quote. Reading it "not like a fundamentalist" would be recognizing that some parts are more compatible with that way of reading than others.
@@8o86 of course it could be. I think it depends on the person and what God gives them to work with. The Bible is so long because not one size fits all. We just don’t all look alike. No accident.
Psychedelics when done right are the fast track to transcendental experience. You don’t get more religious than that. But it’s personal. There is no real fellowship in that. So it’s insufficient for what church provides. Consider, it’s the priest that takes the drug.
The New Atheists face a lot of criticism, much of which I believe is undeserved. Linking atheism to “wokeness” or civil unrest in today’s political and economic climate seems disingenuous. These polemics were not responsible for creating a new cultural crutch to replace religion but to highlight its falsehoods, shortcomings, and hypocrisy, showing that it is not necessarily a positive influence. Their work was exactly what I needed at the time because I wanted to know if Christianity’s truth claims were valid. I didn’t realize I was in an information bubble, believing I had convincing evidence for Christianity. However, reading the Bible filled me with doubts, making it seem more like a human creation than divine. Watching debates by Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Bart Ehrman, and others has helped me immensely. I’ve grown as a person and no longer feel bound by the guilt and limitations of my old religion. I now live a much more fulfilling and productive life, and I’m thankful for the contributions of the New Atheists.
Great comment. I was having similar thoughts. Athiests alone are not responsible for remagining our world absent of religious delusions. Apologists always try to misrepresent athiests. Athiests are just people who don't believe your religious shit because you don't have any proof. Athiests make no claims about things beyond our understanding. Thus, there is no claim about a divine moral code. However, we are all humans. Thus, as humans living in a shared space, it's logical that we should have a humanistic moral code. This is something we should aspire to. Religions have warped our minds and dominated the psychological insecurities of people for long enough. I'm so bored with it. Can we please evolve on.
“Its logical that we should have a humanistic moral code” I agree, so who gets to set the rules? What if one man’s humanism is another man’s hatred? How have state atheist experiments a la USSR, PRC, and DPRK turned out? You should read a little Nietszche, me thinks.
@@scottfrost7792 * “it's logical that we should have a humanistic moral code” Sorry but “LOGICAL” according to who? or what absolute, universal, objective standard of measure exactly? “LOGICAL” according to the standard of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur? Or “LOGICAL” according to nothing more substantive than an ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE WHO SHARES HALF THEIR DNA WITH A POTATO? Logic is an illusion (Nietzsche) “Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions.” - (Nietzsche, Reference from: On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense). “Should I k.ill myself?” is the essential philosophical question.” (Albert Camus). Life is an “horror” and “truth” is “illusory”. (Nietzsche) “Storytellers continue their narratives late into the night to forestall death and to delay the inevitable moment when everyone must fall silent.” (Foucault). Merry chaps but at least they are “logically” consistent with their strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism - right? Imagine telling all of these little stories to someone as a “wholesome” Christmas bed time story!! And you look down on our beliefs!!
All respect to Conner and Brierly. Both have invested a lot of time and work into their platforms and are genuinely well meaning and good spirited individuals when it comes to those "public" platforms. Conner is an interesting one to me, and he's someone i wish i could have direct dialogue with. I think so much of his work is compelling, but he consistently gets trapped in his own reductionist assumptions. I often cite Adam Grant's book Think Again when it comes to understanding how we reason, and I often find that Conner is someone who wants both the cake and the eating in terms of his reasoning towards opposition to belief in God, and what he often ends up doing is masking or hiding his working assumptions in arguments that attempt to reach far beyond their limitations. It helps that he is also very good at taking opposition arguments and turning them into pithy rhetoric or slogans or cliches. The problem being that this automatically reduces your own arguments to those same things while controlling any ability to actually get behind those superficilities. A couple examples. He brilliantly undermined Brierleys appeal to empirical evidenc for a shift in the tide by quickly grabbing on to that word "anectdotal". Some of it was, much of it wasn't, but he controlled that entire part of the conversation by making it seem like the anecdotal evidence was the only thing on the table and in view. His conflating of the argument between arguing for the idea of god versus arguing for the idea of christianity. They are interconnected but not the same, but he constantly collapses the two together. He consistently, here and on his show, argues from the postion of a fundamentalist. He uses appeals to a strident kind of literalism or plain readings with the same vigor as much of conservative and fundamentalist christianity. This includes using words like "contradictory", or the common assumption that the old is different than the new, or that it is appropriate to read his own context back into the world of the text as a way of suggesting the text is pro this or pro that on basis of those plain readings. And he props up the scriptures in the way sola scriptura enthusiasts might. It's not how the scriptures should be read if one really wants to understand how it functioned and what it said in its world (and no, suggesting that the OT sanctions slavery and genocide is just an example of poor readings of the text and history). He consistently fluctuates between an appeal to progress as a proper narrative, getting trapped in this inconsistent assumption that the enlightenment is somehow better than the past, as though that's how history works. As though we have arrived at a better world or more aware of the facts or as though our society today is somehow able to be the lens through which we measure moral truth (all working fallacies, equally so when this is used by the Christian front). But then at the same time he appeals to arguments that want to undercut such ways of thinking, the problem being that one of his oppositions to belief in God is that God took an inordinate amount of time to get where the world should be. He cited that it matters whether belief in God is true, but it doesn't matter if it is false. This is absolutely false. It assumes that the reasoning he uses to appeal to beauty and meaning and morality can't be challenged using a secular, materialist worldview. In fact, such a worldview deeply challenges it. He is no further ahead in saying suffering is a problem for the believer in a God (notice how he said "given the way christianity supposes such a God governs reality... and what way is that exactly?). In fact, logically speaking it ceases to become a problem in a godless reality in many respects. It just is reality, and there are a multitude of ways in which this reality undercuts the way he actually lives in concern for suffering with endless inconsistencies in reason and logic. One of the great points of awareness for me in my time as an atheist was realizing that there was no good, rational reason why I should not kill myself, an answer to my question posed to reason at a time when I was suicidal (I had an experience that changed my worldview in that moment, but that is what I posed to reason at the time and the answer that came back). So to suggest it doesn't matter if its false is not really accurate or aware. I'd have some similar criticism for Brierly. I think he allowed his reasoning to be reduced by the oppositions, which in turn made him double down on some superficial rhetoric. He has an equal problem in his appeal to progress and the enlightenment as evidence for God. I think both parties miss a crucial point in that if we aren't free to actually name Death, the primary marker of this reality and the very thing that throws things into tension and question, we aren't just talking about nonexistence, we are talking about the much broader picture of decay and suffering and entropy and fundamental laws that govern our existence. Which is why Conners appeal to beauty as somehow valuable or meaningful apart from illusionary and irrarional viewpoints is so easy to dismantle. It's not an observation of reality, it is an interpretation of reality and one that is categorically false and ignorant of suffering and death.
I've been trying to have conversations for decades about God. I've slowly learned, it's not about logic. Most people want to believe in God and create whatever circumstances in their mind to believe in a God. It's not a head problem.
The christians i know will happily say everything good in their life comes from God. Any question about any evidece will allways be,"i feel it in my heart." Never any evidence. As a child I thought they must know something i don't. After a while i understood it is just make belief. They just belief without question. Any question will break down the facade.
@@jamesjones11301994 When I talk to people who don't believe in God, they have a chain of logic leading to their belief God doesn't exist. When I talk to people who believe in God, there is always the faith component that allows them to not use logic. I don't have enough faith to believe in a God.
@@jamesjones11301994 I doubt you've talked to many non-believers. The notion of: "They just want to sin." "You wouldn't believe even with evidence." Is false for so many of us. So many of us live good lives and beg for evidence. Yet when we have conversations, believers can't give their evidence that lead them to believe. The ones who are honest usually say, "It's faith". I can accept that it's faith but faith isn't logic and reason. Faith is what you do when you don' have good evidence. I want good evidence. What's your evidence?
I love your conversations with Alex. The sharing of one microphone is a perfect demonstration of how you both approach these talks with respect and genuine curiosity. I'm admittedly in Alex's camp, but you've got a fan in me, Justin.
Alex does a good job of questioning the self-affectation purpose of thinking and developing beliefs about anything, in my opinion. And as Orson Scott Card pointed out "this is how humans are: we question all our beliefs except the ones we really believe in, and those we never think to question." Like our autobiographical memory sense-of-self and reality or the way neuroscience research continues to debunk that confused sense of the nature of language and reality, while simultaneously providing the information that is evolving our consciousness, by 'affecting' the imaginal realm we use the reality-labeling word 'mind' to imaginatively define, through the well-practiced feeling of the abstract being real. Arguably, beyond the circus of social media and it's 'attention' economy, far more people are implicitly in agreement with Einstein’s "only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity," than the 'relatively' small number of people who think they are seeing the 'appearance' of a rebirth of belief in God?
Exactly 17 years of pain & suffering with M.E./CFS and Fibromyalgia makes zero sense to the one suffering but can be explained if there is no God, doesn't leave me much hope but it makes sense that gives a certain peace.
Diseases come from deterioration of the human genome. There is a growing number of new cancer types and we know that cancer is in the genes. Evolution does not support that
Ah, yes, "the surprising rebirth of Christianity". England and Wales: 2001 census: Christianity 72% No religion 15% Other 10% 2021 census: Christianity 46% No religion 37% Other 14% On current trends by 2031 Christianity will be less than a third, 'no religion' more than half (Scotland is already that bad). "Rebirth of Christianity" seems to mean "some of my Oxbridge chums whom I invite on my show like to chat about spiritual topics".
Belgium: 60% without a belief in a god. Two years ago, an investigation was conducted by the Federal government in my country Belgium. We now have more practicing muslims than practicing christians. There isn't much room for christianity anymore, it is. And don't forget the religion that is brought back in by immigrants (by former USSR countries, for example).
I think the difference is, in the past people said they were religious culturally but were atheist in practice. Now and in future I think the number of people who say they're religious are more likely to actually be so than before so the figures will only really every tell part of the story
Justin keeps saying "I genuinely think that ..." as if that would add credibility to his claim. It doesn't. Without statistical evidence to back it up, his intuition that there is a rebirth of belief in God is just his intuition.
Today people are less grounded than they were 10 years ago. Many people are searching for meaning. Some find identity politics others find religion of some sort. The way people do talk about God has changed over the 15 years as there is a far greater level of uncertainty.
This is a discussion about whether something is happening that's just started. It would be about Justin's intuitions vs. Alex's intuitions by definition. There wouldn't be statistics to back either side up at this point...
@@deschain1910 No, it's not about Justin's intuition vs. Alex's intuitions. It's simply about whether Justin is warranted to make that generalized claim as expressed by his new book based on his anecdotal evidence. Alex never made a comparable generalized claim about the changes of atheism landscape based on his experiences.
@@andrewtsai777 If you're actually wondering about the truth claim behind the question rather than the idea that the positive claim has the burden of evidence and the negative claim does not, then yes it would be intuition vs. intuition. This entire discussion is about speculation about the future and whether something has just begun which is foreshadowed by these public atheists becoming non-atheists (or non-believing proponents of Christianity?) whatever you might call them. This speculation would be just that, speculation. You can't have statistics about what this question is about.
@@deschain1910you should easily be able to have statistics about this kind of thing, or at the very least analysis from sociologists. This isn’t the first time places have become less religious and then there was a rise in religious again.
th-cam.com/video/xIHMnD2FDeY/w-d-xo.html Richard Dawkins sits mute/deaf/sub-moronic as ACTUAL ACHIEVED biologists, two Nobel laureates & Craig Venter, ALL say, "it is impossible that humans will EVER know life's origin". WATTHE PHUK?!? It's Dawkins' SINGLE distinction: "discernible natural abiogenesis" YET HE SAYS NOTHING?!!? 'Cause "science atheism" is an utter fraud. Einstein said: "Thermodynamics is THE ONE law of universal content which will NEVER BE OVERTHROWN" IT HASN'T BEEN! "Anyone whom challenges thermodynamics has no hope...only utter humiliation" Arthur Eddington... the man whom made Einstein Einstein 1st LAW--'Heat NEVER comes from cold"...THIS universe of heat DID NOT BEGIN 2nd LAW--"Heat goes ONLY to cold"...THIS universe WILL equalize its heat, it hasn't...IT CAN'T BE ETERNAL DATA DOES NOT GET "HARDER" THAN THAT...LEAVING charlatans like Dawkins wealthy, but intellectually bankrupt
Right, God just won't 'show up' will he? Most likely because it's the humans that create gods and goddesses, not the other way around, as you can discover from reading anthropology........ Every group of humans creates its own god for many reasons, such as group identity and structure...........
@@TenMinuteTrips That was a case of Dinesh being wholly arrogant and unprepared. Alex is a major league mind, and if you're not in his arena he's gonna bowl over you. And mind you: I'm a Christian. I watched the first few minutes and I could literally feel my respect for Dinesh seeping out through my eyes and ears.
From all my lame defeats and oh! much more From all the victories that I seemed to score; From cleverness shot forth on Thy behalf At which, while angels weep, the audience laugh; From all my proofs of Thy divinity, Thou, who wouldst give no sign, deliver me. Thoughts are but coins. Let me not trust, instead Of Thee, their thin-worn image of Thy head. From all my thoughts, even from my thoughts of Thee, O thou fair Silence, fall, and set me free. Lord of the narrow gate and the needle’s eye, Take from me all my trumpery lest I die. CS Lewis
I can't stand listening to other Atheists because they are Woke and make ridiculous statements. I refuse to listen to people who don't know what a man or a woman is and uses terms like "pregnant person".
@@TotalAnalyst2 "Atheism is literally the rejection of religion all of it for the same or similar reasons you reject others" No, that's what atheist indoctrination and manipulation sells you so that you don't see the blind faith where you are!
After hearing the whole thing, I think there are many things to consider, but I will stick with this one. Even if it were true that the "atheist" pro Christians Justin loves to quote like Tom Holland were not just promoting Christian identity politics (racism, using Christianity as an excuse, which is a tradition that comes from the XIX century), it would not change that 1) It is mostly false. Not everything that has transpired in the West (if such a term is valid and can be extended anachronistic centuries into the past, and was not a creation of modern European imperialism) is a product of Christianity or is Christian. That is nonsense, and is the death of historical thinking (mono causality) and 2) It is arrogant and close minded to pretend that everything good we have is just the product of one religion, or CAN ONLY be a product of one religion. Even with the best intentions at hearth - which I don't think people like Holland have - that is a very dangerous way of thinking.
I do not think you have read Tom Holland’s book, heard his argument, or thought critically about it. I have never heard Holland say the West gets everything from Christianity. He says certain important and fundamental things are taken mainly from Christianity which seems to be true. Christianity has dominated the West since around 325 AD. Getting some one’s argument right is very important. If you do not then you cannot really object to it properly.
@@deschain1910 Not directly. I am saying that he may inadvertently, by identifying the West with Christianity, promote a racist trope (which identified Europe with Christianity, or more precisely, The Reformation).
@@carlpeterson8182 I am reading that book now, but my concern is more of what Justin is saying. I also have seen interviews of Holland, and for what I gather of him, I think he has a double standard regarding the nature of historical change. So, Holland thinks Christianity, which he recognizes was the product of the blending of different cultures (Judaism, the Hellenistic Greco Roman world etc), developed into something unique, with some supposedly moral qualities that have endured to our days within the West. But for some reason, he seems to have a hard time accepting that from modernity or modern descended philosophical thought (like the Enlightenment). How much does the philosophical thought and the modern political order need to differ from Christianity to start being its own thing and not just an eternal offspring of that religion, dependent on it? If it conceptualizes God, freedom and political order differently from Christianity, how it is just an extension of that religion? And if not, why should we not think of Christianity as an extension of Judaism and Greco-Roman philosophy? It seems to me he, as Americans say, want to have his cake and eat it.
@@mendez704 I think first you have to understand that Holland is a historian. Thus, he is making a historical argument first. and it is very historical and humanism and othe3r forms of atheism and other worldviews are indebted massively to Christianity. Some atheists and others do not like that, but I think he proves it. That is the first point. I do not think he argues for a belief in the Christian God at all since he is not Christian. I believe he is an atheist. What I have heard is that he thinks in the future the West will move from a Christian worldview into something else. This might have some positive and negative effects. I do not see Holland is against the movement away from Christianity itself per se. I do think he warns against a total riddance of any and all portions of the Chrisitan worldview. I think you are somewhat correct when you say Christianity is a blend of cultures (Judaism, the Hellenistic Greco Roman world, etc). I think with the etc you mean other cultures also especially as time move along. the rediscovery of Aristotle and many more things influenced Christianity and Christianity influenced many other worldviews and cultures. But I think what is missing is that Christianity is also majorly influenced by a belief in the gospel and what Jesus did while on earth. the gospel and the NT is very tied up with the OT but there is a belief that God did something new in the NT or fulfilled the OT in the NT and the gospel. So that has to be added. You do not have to believe that occurred, but it is historical fact that Christianity is influenced greatly by the belief that it did occur.
This is how science would work if it followed the religious way of thinking... We can't demonstrate this is true but think of the implications if it was true.
Is it worth noting that as the atheistic side of the conversation has changed, the religious side has changed as well? Proving God or arguing for one seemed the goal of religious presenters in the past. Now, it is less about outright proof or even the best evidence and more for emotion, utility, and lack of utility of the alternative. This conversation being an example.
Mmm, as a former atheist I disagree. Alex O Connor is definitely the most sophisticated atheist around at the moment. But what converted my heart in 2021 was the experience of evil in myself and seeing it very clearly in another, Augistine and Aquinas converted my intellect with logical arguments for God and supranational nature of faith & my burning desire to be the man my soon to be wife needs converted my will. When I was an atheist I wanted evidence and proof that was in the realm of empirical facts only but I’ve come to find out that’s only one aspect to reality and there are different schools of evidence.
@@Nrev973 lol, alex is NOT the "most sophisticated" he might be the most toffee nosed but there are HOARDS of counter apologists doing a great job. apparently it's not just religists who need to get out more.
@@stevenwizzle533 the only hing i can say in favour of jordan peterson is that at the time of the four horsemen peterson raised the bar for religious debate, he may have degenerated into incoherent psycho-babble now, but at the time both sides had to come up with better reasoning and better reasons and nothing has been the same. harris, dawkins, dennett and hitchens all improved their viewpoints during those early days and nothing has been the same since, other than the religists are losing cos they can't hide the fact god has never been demonstrated - and never will be.
Actually, I have always felt that up until recently all of the arguments for God for the last few thousand years have been based on emotional appeals. Now that more and more people want evidence for these claims and "faith" doesn't seem to cut it anymore, now they are making appeals to reason, logic, and (pseudo) science. The church leaders and apologists know full well that their institutions are bleeding membership at a seemingly irreversible, rapid pace. They are desperate to stop the bleeding, lest they perish (figuratively speaking).
Justin's perspective seems just like the apostles perspective. A lot of faith and enthusiasm fueled by the DESIRE of THAT (whatever IT is) to become true.
Your desire is to defend a. default position that supports u r intelligence coming from a nonintelligent first cause. Keep defending that as it's totally irrational just from logic.
@davidjanbaz7728 Things coming from non-things have been proven True even in your worldview. My worldview: - Water from non-water - Walls from non-walls. - Stars frm non-stars. - .... a universe of etceteras ... Your worldview: - Everything from nothing - Non-smart people from smart people. - Christians from non- Christians. - etc.
Who knows what Peterson believes since he refuses to answer. He is the master of lengthy word salads. I don’t think anyone should give him any attention, he has nothing to offer.
My journey to faith in Christ was not influenced by my political beliefs. My pursuit of truth began in 2014, when I was in the eighth grade, through questioning and studying philosophy and science. At that time, I had limited understanding of politics. Therefore, it is inaccurate to suggest that my search for truth and my acceptance of Christ as my Lord were influenced by political considerations.
Of course there were Christians arguing against slavery, but do you know who were also Christian? The slave owners. And they were also using the Bible to argue their points. We should also point out that neither side were solely using the Bible. They were also using secular, universal arguments for slavery (economics, white supremacy) and against slavery (humanism, consistent legal framework). Luckily, abolition won those arguments, and Justin gets to live in a world of abolition, where he gets to think the Bible only argues against slavery.
The fact is that slave owners actually created a new abridged version of the Bible specifically for slaves? This was aimed at hiding the anti slavery passages from slaves that were clearly in the Bible? And so slavers purposely edited out all of the anti slavery parts for fear that reading the Bible in full context might encourage a slave uprising - right? Furthermore, the fact is that the anti slavery passages that emphasised equality between different groups of people were also excised. This included: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither SLAVE nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). The [Slave Bible] purposely excluded there is NEITHER SLAVE NOR MASTER and was obviously created to hide the fact that the Bible clearly condemns slavery particularly when read in full context. Interestingly, the [Slave Bible] also edited out the Book of Revelation, which tells of a new heaven and a new Earth in which evil doers will face consequences for their actions. Also in the book of Exodus the warning against slavery is very severe as it clearly states that… “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16, ESV) If the Christian central belief system involved directly encouraging and supporting slavers and was so pro slavery why were slave keepers so keen to edit out those parts in Christian texts about punishing evil and punishing slavery? Why were slavers a o uncomfortable with allowing their slaves to read the Bible unedited? Me doth think atheists “doth protest too much” about the slavery passages in the Bible when it is actually communist, atheist regimes that have lead to more slavery in the whole of history and the demeaning of human life!! “Death is the solution to all problems, no man no problem.” - [Joseph Stalin].
@@georgedoyle2487 Of course you have to misinterpret multiple verses in order to make them fit your worldview. Exodus 21:16 says not to STEAL a slave because slaves are someone's property. Leviticus is clear that slaves are property: "As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you and from their families who are with you who have been born in your land; they may be your property. " -Leviticus 25:44-45 Also, Galatians 3:28 says that there is no MALE or FEMALE, and I suspect you wouldn't claim that men and women don't exist. Ephesians very clear that slaves should still exist, and not even dare think about being free: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." - Ephesians 6:5 You have the gall to say "the Bible clearly condemns slavery" without ever providing one verse to prove your claim. Meanwhile, I have provided multiple verses that explicitly condone slavery, and there are more.
"Today we believe that slavery is wrong"....but apparently God didn't 2000 years ago? Guess that makes us today better than God, from a moral standpoint, right?
@@EG1994-fr Unfortunately for your sake, the facts we use when making these "assumption" are the supposed words of God, as spelled out in His holy book. Those are the facts we refer to, and I think we have them quite straight. Straight from the proverbial horse's mouth, if the majority of Christians are to be believed. If God did in fact think slavery was wrong, I think He should have said so. Apparently, no Christian was listening well enough to write it down in the all-important holy book if God ever said a word against slavery.
So Justin's thesis is that "something" is changing, but he doesn't have any statistics to support that? It's hard to imagine how he filled up an entire book about it in that case.
i always found the problem of suffering one of the strongest evidence for the existence of God at the personal level. Reducing suffering, facing struggles, overcoming pain, is the primary thing the brought me to God. Trying to grow up without becoming a bad, resentful person is the main challenge in Life. Saying that God probably doesn't exist because of the suffering in the world, sounds to me like saying that Hideo Kojima probably doesn't exist because Metal Gear Solid is too difficult.
This remains the most secular age ever, and the nones have continued to grow year on year. What’s the definition he gives for rebirth? Is it something statistically significant?
The rebirth he talks about is in intellectual circles and it probably precedes dissemination to wider audience. So we would see it in statistics few years delayed.
Remember, he didn't say 'revival', but 'rebirth'. He sees society becoming open to birthing a people turned toward Christianity. That's different than already reborn people being revived into the best followers of Jesus they can be.
Where the new atheists spend their entire careers arguing that religion isn't rational, the religious response used to be "yes, it is." Now, it seems to be more like "yeah, I know." - Alex
I am not convinced any particular god is a reality, for I have never encountered any credible evidence suggesting such a reality. So,until I do encounter sufficient credible evidence that such a reality exists, I will continue to suspend any acknowledgment concerning the truth of _your_ claim that one does. Do you believe that I am _rationally justified_ in my position?
rational in the sense that it makes groups operate more efficiently with a common goal, not that there’s any truth in a man who came back to life paired with zombies rising up on Jerusalem
@@Theo_Skeptomai, I make a silly analogy iydm : remember back in school, when you liked a girl, but you kinda think she's out your league.. A good thing to do was send your friend, to talk to her friend, "my friend says he likes your friend, can you ask her, if she likes my friend??" If the answer was "yes"... Obviously you will approach her, confidently knowing you won't be rejected, right??... Well, you clearly had cheated! There's a lot of meaning in the passage when Christ says to Thomas ; because you saw is that you believe?... Blessed are those who without seeing believe ".....
I think the single mic setup is a good self-moderating debate format. If I could add a modification, it would be a mic that becomes progressively hotter and uncomfortable to hold until it gets passed to another speaker.
Just to be clear, Christianity is about working on myself. Christianity as a top down approach is never going to work to "fix" society. The solution is for me to work on myself and to help others as I am able. Love God. Love my neighbor. Love my enemy. Love myself? Be my own god? A god is anything I orient my life towards. And if I focus on myself, I will reap the twisted and disoriented fruits. It's just the way it is. It's as real as gravity.
@harlowcj I support what you said if "helping others" or "fixing society" does NOT include: - Converting or indoctrinating as a condition for help. - Fixing others' beliefs. Given that, you are talking about humanism, which is what we need regardless of "otherworldly" satellite ideas.
@@goodquestion7915 Just would like to point out that you are "attempting to fix others beliefs" here. Can you name somebody who converted to humanism and completely changed how they live their life and relate to those around them? Christianity has a long history of exacting real change from within in a way that I'm very skeptical secular humanism ever could.
Ummm… you realize you said this right? 1.Christianity is about working on myself. 2. And if I focus on myself, I will reap the twisted and disoriented fruits I don’t think that’s what you mean, but it looks like it lol It’s funny though that focusing on yourself is put in a negative light…. To many Christians want to focus on every one else’s sins lately to the point that they are hurting more ppl then helping themselves. Maybe leave lgbt ppls alone and quit trying ban their marriage, maybe understand that some women need an abortion for some other reason than birth control, maybe quit damning others who don’t believe the way you do. If I want to be my own god what is it to you? Why should you care? You can follow your religion but don’t force me to follow your gods rules.
@@harlowcj the church failed me as a kid. I would have died alone if I hadn't discovered the beauty and truth of existentialism. A very different path to a similar conclusion as you 😹
@harlowcj Just one example? Every atheist is a Humanist unless they declare another idealism. They stopped being jerks, which is a big change. The Christians Hitler and Stalin were not atheists, read real history. The psychopth Mao Zedong was not Humanist.
Rising church attendances would suggest a rising belief in god. I would venture to guess they are not and are continuing to decline. There must be figures for this.
I'd suggest one is only slightly correlated to the other. I'm a Bible believing Christian and even studied theology and religious studies but am not part of any church and never visit one. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. Matthew:6:6
As with many things pertaining to true Christianity, putting our faith in the forefront is not optional - it's a requirement. Believers are called to “let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:16). Took me one second to find that on Google.
If 20% of the population is Christian, and 13% of that 20% attends Church, and that 13% grows to 20%, the rising "belief in God' has not changed unless the incidence of Christian conversion/belief increases as well.
Alex is 100% correct about these new "conversions". I'm a devout Christian and it sickens me that the Conservative right is seemingly the tunnel of people coming to faith.
In his first statement Alex is actually making a good point when he questions conversions on thr basis of political beliefs. I speaks for him that he doesn't take the topic of faith lightly.
Commenting as a lower middle class northerner, I have personally seen exactly what Justin is describing. After many years of atheism I have come back to faith and many of my friends have too. The atmosphere around religion has changed
Well then, I look forward to a better world with all the newly religious people out there. Now we'll be seeing less greed, less worship of money, less war, fewer homeless, etc. It's going to be winderful!!!😊
@@drsatan9617 “Countless” Oh the irony!! The lady doth exaggerate too much me thinks!! The irony is that Richard Dawkins right hand man, Josh Timonen, recently had an enormous epiphany and actually totally rejected atheism. That is Josh Timonen, Richard Dawkins right hand man, who was a committed atheist for decades, recently totally rejected atheism/fatalism and epistemological nihilism and became a follower of Christ!! The double irony is that Richard Dawkins previously dedicated his book [THE GOD DELUSION] to Josh Timonen because of Josh’s enormous input in promoting new atheism but josh has recently totally rejected the premises of Dawkins book and became a follower of Christ - right? The fact is that Josh totally rejected the claims made in Dawkins books including his famous book the “God Delusion” because he had become unconvinced by Dawkins straw man fallacies and philosophically illiterate attacks on Christianity! That is Josh totally rejected the same book that has Josh’s name printed in it as a dedication to Josh for his help in deconstructing religious expression. This total rejection of atheism was due to the fact that Josh had a change of heart because he had actually made the effort to study the arguments for theism properly and with an open mind and and a open heart and as a result Richard Dawkins right hand man converted to Christianity. The irony is that Josh Timonen’s name was honoured in the book [The God Delusion] because Josh worked relentlessly with Richard Dawkins for years and was his right hand man and was committed to spreading atheism and undermining religious expression. The fact is that when Josh Timonen was recently interviewed about his reasoning for becoming a follower of Christ he pointed out that….. “Atheism is a really useful worldview for weak men." [Josh Timonen: Richard Dawkins former technical aide and former protege].
This was quite fun. I think what may be going on here is that you are feeling the rise of the none of the above group. They are the fastest growing movement and while many of them don’t believe in a god they also won’t call themselves atheist. The fact there are so many of them reconverting so quickly leads to the older more hardcore atheists getting lost in the sea.
What is your evidence that "so many of them (are) reconverting so quickly"? Got any? No atheists I know feels the least bit "lost at sea", young or old. It takes some courage to call yourself an atheist, so many folks who would actually fit that description may not self-identify as such. Your attempt to wrangle the data on the "none of the above" group reeks of desperation, or at least wishful thinking. But then again, almost all of religion is based on wishful thinking. Well, that and the fear of death.
Many people do not believe in a man in the sky of the Bible or organized religion which asks for money but they believe in superstitions, like the 'Universe', or other unknown powers. Personal spirituality that does not require donations to believe.
29:14 Justin, seeing young atheists maturing to the point that they're not just screaming that they don't believe in God, but actually discussing why they don't believe. As an atheist I now talk with Christians and read more Christian literature than ever. I'm looking at churches to go to... But not because I believe but because I enjoy the conversation
Same here buddy. Do you find the same frustration that outside of Christian spaces there is almost no opportunity to converse about it? I excluded myself from a really good discussion group simply because I could see that my presence and points were only going to be a hinderance to people who are in great need of the love, acceptance and support of the church to keep them on a path that is helpful. I wish this kind of conversation was more commonplace in wider society. People can't understand that I'm an atheist when I get so excited when talking about the Bible!
You'll find Christians don't actually "enjoy the conversation" like you do, unless they think you're reaffirming the "virtues" of their faith at the same time. That isn't to say that there aren't virtues to their faith. But the predictable behavior by the overwhelming majority will leave you having to find those for yourself, because they sure don't know what they are.
Fear of losing your human form leads to belief in a higher power called the supernatural or "God". Unfortunately this god is a fabrication of human desire, offering salvation in exchange for submission.
The same could be said about "The World" (not the planet earth, but the world) The Greek philosophical tradition call it κόσμοςor in English, cosmos(the 2000+ years old word from words like cosmetic comes from) and is also mentioned in the gospel manuscripts
Is Atheism "a fabrication of human desire, offering salvation in exchange for submission"?... The issue isn't being christian or non-christian - it's about humility, honesty and openness to truth. To many people waste their time to try and convince people of their fundamental views. Truth therefore falls astray.
so i assume you don't submit to anything at all right? you don't listen to the state, police, scientist, schools, even Alex himself or anything at all telling you what you should believe right? i'm sure you didn't get the jab at all cause you don't submit to nothin cause you just so gosh darn free
Truth for it's own sake can be and is the best reason for searching out belief. This is a strawman to this conversation but good for masses who just want security.
@@NathanGuerraTV I don't know who and what you're refering to. But how can seaking out truth be a strawman to this conversation? And how does it provide "security"? "The price of understanding is letting go what you know" is a saying that in order to seek out the truth you need to challenge your current beliefs. Engaging in questions and beliefs outside your own, can often times be unpleasant. A genuin interest in seeking out truth can therefore provide a feeling opposite of security. But that doesn't mean you don't submit to what you believe to be truly meaningful, at the innermost level. We have to challenge our beliefs from a standpoint of "security" - or all truth will be "relative". Jan Patocka writes that in a society where which the truth becomes "relative" is a state of "security" where "seeking truth" ceases to exist. It ceases the problemacity between "myth" and "faith" (he doesn't use the religous term of faith, but from greek tradtition - you can use religious faith aswell). My point is this, people who genuinly seek the truth (both christians and non-christians) needs to do this by challenging their own beliefs - but out of the security of your innermost beliefs of meaning - this is what people of genun interest of the truth agrees on. This is something called "care for the soul" which means, we are allways on a journey to somewhere we don't yet know is. It would be interesting where Alex's journey takes him - if he at some time will start to believe in God - and thereafter called a hoax and a traitor by his followers.
Thanks for the thoughtful conversation, gentlemen. Alex, I can understand why the problem of suffering is a roadblock to belief in God for you, but I don’t quite understand why “the problem of good” isn’t a roadblock to atheism. Would it be unfair to say that there’s a bit of asymmetry in your thinking on this?
Thanks so much for the comment. I don’t quite understand why one would need to posit an evil god to encounter the problem of good. It seems to me that, on the basis of logical consistency, goodness is a problem for any system that struggles to adequately explain it.
I very much enjoyed the conversation but I do want to point one thing out. Justin, you aren't swayed by facts or evidence, you are swayed by what you WANT to believe is true. If you are an honest person you'll have to admit that. Why do you think you feel compelled to push back on the slave bible, and passages that clearly contradict themselves just that particular topic? Sir, you seem like a great intellectual person but I can't see past that you are arriving at "logic" by what you want to believe is true, but not what is evidently not true. A simple rebuttal to the slavery conversation - Do you think that you could re-write the Bible in a better way? If so, do you think there's a possibility that it was written by group of confused group of humans that by no fault of their own, knew very little? The answer is yes, and everything leads to that.
I was raised Christian and I was never told that the Bible wasn't written by humans for humans. That (the idea that it is written directly by God through humans) is more a fundamentalist stance. Obviously there were different versions of the Bible throughout history with different edits and translations. Atheists seem to think that contradictions in the Bible are a stronger argument than they really are, especially since it's clearly true if you just read the Bible that different parts of it are meant to be read very differently than other parts of it, including the fact that the New Testament is just very different from the Old Testament. Insisting that everything written in the Bible MUST be interpreted as God's word exactly and otherwise the entire Christian argument falls apart strikes me as the much more intellectually dishonest argument here...
@@deschain1910 Catholicism teaches the Bible was inspired by God but written by men. We know this. For example, Moses prays to God and asks him to forgive the Israelites by remembering his promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Does anyone think for a second that God really said, "hey that's a good idea, why didn't I think of it?" For a God, being outside of time and space, who sees past, present and for all eternity at once, could man really give him a good idea to change his mind? It is clearly his projection. It is impossible for the eternal to change; only temporal things change.
@@Shawn-nq7du What about the dignity of a human person? What if a person wanted to be a slave? If the person offered to sell themselves into slavery...surely there's no dignity argument to be made there.
When Justin uses words like “new atheists” he is attempting to poison the well before he addresses any argument. It reminds me of when people address an argument against religion by suggesting someone is using a “gotcha” argument. It seems to be avoiding the need to make an argument or to pose your opponent as some sort of confused person going through some sort of fad.
New atheists are defined as the early group around the 2000’s like the 4 horsemen, Silverman, Atkinson, etc. Many of them have commented how the woke movement has made their movement spiral out of control into ridiculousness. And they can’t figure out why.
@@lotsofstuff9645 no, I said it spiraled into ridiculousness. The four horsemen thought everyone could be civil without God and maintain morality, and they are seeing and admitting THEIR actions brought about the ridiculousness of woke because not everyone thinks like that after all. For reference see what Dawkins and Silverman admit about their role in wokeism.
@@afiron4856 Ok… I’ll just move on from that discussion then because I don’t think it’s going to go anywhere… So most atheists aren’t all that interested in the opinions of “the four horsemen” or if a god can be used to maintain a particular type of morality. Most atheists are simply interested to know if gods are a real or possible thing that exists in reality. When someone try’s to suggest the people need a god to have a particular system of morality, or to avoid what ever this scary “woke” culture is it feels like it’s a deflection from the discussion. Well before anyone has a discussion about what is or isn’t a good morality system, people just want to know if this god thing is real or is it just a tool people are using to attempt control, or something people believe in because they are afraid of death… or something else. It would be great if instead of giving people a new label like “new atheist” or “woke” or what ever new term they would like to come up with, if they would just frankly and openly discuss the topic. Forget about the character of the person asking the question for a second and just discuss the topic. The person asking could be a complete arse, I don’t care. So my original point was stop getting so caught up in playing the man and just play the ball.
@@afiron4856 Ahh…? ok. Let’s move on… “The Four Horsemen” aren’t some leadership of an atheist movement. Most atheists won’t know who they are or what they’ve said. Most atheists aren’t interested in whether morality exists outside of a god belief (which I’m sorry but that is a bizarre argument), or do they care about the term woke. My original point was about not using diversion like this and just talking about if a god actually can or does exist. Personally I would just like to know if god genuinely exists, or are people just believing because they are afraid of death, or because they are under the impression a god is just a useful tool to keep people civil?
a fair amount of Muslims are starting to leave Islam now, there´s better data for it in the US, than in the UK, but it seems that the trends in Christianity over the 20th century are hitting Muslims now, just a fair bit later.
Ye it look us quite a few years of education to get people to abandon christianity but islam has just joined civilization so it might take a bit for the education to reach them too
@@GoldenMechaTiger We're not out of the woods yet. But young people from Muslim families are leaving that 1400-year-old worldview behind as well. The pull of the 21st century is much stronger. Especially in Northern Europe.
Why do religious people ask "how can an atheist possibly know what is right and what is wrong?" In fact the question should be how can a believer possibly know what is right and wrong? Every religion gives totally different moral instruction. In the case of Christianity, the moral instruction is self-contradictory, noticeably between the Old Testament and the New. There is no requirement within religions for moral consistency. What justice could I for instance, as an atheist, expect from a court whose judges adhere to a religion of 'death to non-believers'? By contrast, without the random proclamations of imaginary gods, the philosophical principles of justice are universal. Would we not, all of us, rather submit ourselves to the judgement of a court whose guiding philosophy is reason?
In regard to Christianity being the "source" of morals, it's like claiming no one thought deeply until the more widely known philosophers came into existence. It also ignores the paradoxes within Christianity that too often get hand waved as an unread/simple take.
The whole cultural Christian thing reminds me of someone whose loved one has gone missing holding onto hope that the loved one may turn up. While that sort of hope might help provide a sense of purpose and cohesion and comfort amongst the searchers in the initial days and weeks after the disappearance, there does come a point where the healthy thing to do is to say “ok, this is my reality now - my loved one is not here, and I need to figure out life without them”. I’d be very curious about whether anyone who has become a Christian recently in order to address a crisis of meaning or to heal the culture in some way would have an answer for two questions. Firstly, how would you know that the time has come to move on from Christianity and try to build something new? And secondly, would you still identify as a Christian in a hypothetical world where Christianity seemed to have either a neutral or a negative effect on civil cohesion?
@@HeIljumperI agree. The original poster seemed to immediately assume that Christianity is becoming lost and that seems to assume it has no ability to come back to prominence
With the decline of Christianity comes social chaos - look no further than the nation you live in today. Christianity builds social cohesion; it is a natural side effect.
I find it exceedingly annoying when anyone suggests the idea that slavery was considered acceptable… at anytime. This is to completely disregard the opinions and concerns of the enslaved as if they never mattered then or now. It's attempting an historic rationalization for the moral bankruptcy of it. It was deemed acceptable by those who profited from it... not the victims.
It sounds like you've never been really, really, really hungry, nor have you read the histories of those who were.......... let's say maybe 20,000 years ago and you lived in a small hunting and gathering group that suddenly somehow lost their main food supply........ What little food there was would have been given to the hunters, those who needed it to help bring in more food.
@@charlescoryn9614 : There are desperate people today. They're given aid and comfort and paid wages for their labor. Such excuses and rationalizations to defend this biblical cruelty is unjustifiable. "Thou shalt not own human beings" would have been an easy and obvious commandment and woefully absent as are banning rape, child abuse, torture, and genocide, all of which are at least as important as not bearing false witness but these "commandments" were written by people who stole land, and killed and enslaved the dispossessed... not some mythical deity.
You are not perceiving slavery as it was hundreds and thousands of years ago, before it was called slavery, before government handouts and 'big brother'.......when to eat meant you had to work.
@@charlescoryn9614 : You don't need to be owned to provide labor for wages or food. There is no justification for it's acceptance in the bible whatsoever. It's one of the worst things people can do to each other and it's actually codified.
@@charlescoryn9614 "You are not perceiving slavery as it was hundreds and thousands of years ago" "I don't have a real problem with ignorance. We are all ignorant about a variety of subjects we are not currently aware of. The real problem is when that ignorance is wilful, intentional and used as a weapon against anyone who disagrees with you, or anyone who has the nerve to present facts you don't want to accept." - anyone who actually cares about verifiable reality “If you can’t beat ‘em with brilliance, baffle their brains with BS.” - BS artists/religious apologists/trump magats/poutine shills/brexiters/zionist extremists/genocide apologists/neo-nazis/“white replacement” fear mongers/gender critical science deniers/anti-vaxers/flerfs/sovereign citizens/MRA zealots/red pilled sociopathic trolls all over the world
@@umbraemilitos how so? That is highly subjective don’t you think? That assumes that there is no possibility of any type of purpose behind a circumstance doesn’t it?
@@rickbaker261 Does the purpose behind evil make it not evil? If a child dies slowly, suffering in pain under a collapsed building from a war... does some "grand design" make that okay, and not evil?
@@umbraemilitos if I am reading your question correctly, and I may not be, I would answer that God having a purpose for your scenario, does not make the circumstance, in and of itself, good, or less “evil.” God is capable of having a greater glory/good going into and out from such events. Us not knowing it (having not been revealed) or being able to comprehend such does not in any way make it less likely or problematic. We don’t know all things. We cannot see all ends, nor all means. We cannot even see the few means rightly, and we almost never see the ends. “Blind unbelief is sure to err and scan His work in vain, God is his own interpreter and will make it plane…” (William Cowper). God can sovereignly and providentially bring things about which are incomprehensible to us, but the appropriate response on our part is humility, not blame and shaming our fists.
@rickbaker261 Seems like you've defined a "good god" to be a mystery box that takes no responsibility for the evil in the world, and yet assures us that they are themselves acting in a grand goodness... this honestly sounds like a god that either doesn't care, which is evil, or can't stop evil, making him useless as a god, or perhaps simply doesn't exist. I'm not seeing a way out of those options here.
My lack of belief in any god has both intellectual and emotional components. To date, I haven't heard any god claim that convinced me that such a god exists. I also don't need a god to understand how to interact with others, or to generate and sustain meaning in my life, and I am quite comfortable without knowing everything about the universe. Specifically to Christianity, its arguments are even less convincing than the argument of a general god. Christian theology also requires the eternal torture of non-Christians, and you would have to convince me that my friends and family deserve eternal torture because they disagree, and that would require me to be a terrible person..
Atheistm is a religion for the autonomous hyper individualistic society, religio means re-binding, so today everyone is about the authenticity of the self, the expressive individual and liberating from gender and even human as universal category. The worship of the ego/self. Man finally freed from all institutionalised social coercions, every man/women as the measure of everything including reality. Man transforms himself to become god.
atheists don't actually exist, i am atheist because of what YOU believe, on a planet with no god and no notion of god, what would an atheist be called? you're very ignorant.
and why not? you want god as a best friend, i want to be god, i think i have ambition and you want to be a slave. and you're ignorant, you haven't a clue chum.
"Is There a Rebirth of BELIEF IN GOD?" No, there isn't. There is a rebirth of grift by god believers on social media. We're living through the modern reimagining of the god/christ cult belief.
There is a rebirth in GOD. I can attest, as a former atheist of 20 years, and many of my friends were former atheists. Within the last couple years we have all been touched by the hand of GOD. The number of new Christians, and people returning to their faith with new fire and passion is unlike anything I have seen in my lifetime. Of course you deny this because you are still a godless atheist and you hate GOD. Secular society has always been a temporary movement because it came out of the framework and laurels that Christian society built.
@@GIGADEV690kalam to fine tuning to privileged planet to information in the base of all life to Bible to practical effects of Christianity in one's life. Write it down, stop spamming
I am dismayed when people make the excuse that "Well... The Bible had to accept the reality of slavery." No it didn't. The Bible promoted slavery and it is shockingly absent from the 10 commandments. As in: " Thou shalt not own slaves nor any human as property." That should be way above coveting, honoring parents, and perjury.
That's great , apart from there was no social welfare and to indenture oneself as a slave meant a chance at survival and dignity and to earn ones way back. This was a regulated practice that did not look like the Atlantic slave trade, or modern day slavery in which 40-50 million people are stuck in. The bible says ultimately that there is no one who is slave or free, we are all one in Jesus. If people could master the 3 commandments you gave above, then their approach to slavery in that day would mean a slave who is honoured, looked after and supported with integrity until they paid off their debt. Denial of those commandments gives you the exact character of a morally defunct human, whom we all would know how they would treat their slave - Lack of honour - gaslighting and misleading them with false statements - theft of their possessions etc...
@@SeanathanCreek : It may not have looked like the confederacy but it was still slavery and could have been rejected easily. If you analyze the meaning, the Bible doesn't say no one actually is a slave. They most obviously were. It didn't mean there was actually no men or women either. It says... it means... it doesn't matter to god if you're free or slave, man or woman. So don 't confuse that. No one suggests that some of the commandments are at least common sense. Killing, stealing, and perjury but the rest are unconstitutional as laws... but mind you , these were and are ubiquitous in every culture and in this context they only applied to other Israelites. They were ordered to kill the people who's land they were stealing. Not in self-defense but for land and power.
@@lrvogt1257 Of course, it meant that their ultimate value as human beings came from their identity in Christ. As God is the giver of all life and death, its within his right to judge those who were beyond saving, which is the level these tribes were at before Israel were tasked with driving them out of the land. We know they weren't all killed because they are mentioned later in the books.
@@SeanathanCreek : The biblical god was an excuse to keep people in line and plunder the region. If it were true it would be evil... fortunately it's a myth based on previous myths.
@@SeanathanCreek : People who wanted slaves made up rules that allowed them to have slaves. There is nothing more to it except they told people god made the rules to rationalize their depravity.
Alex makes a basic logical mistake it seems to me, when says "It could be the case that Christianity is true.... but I still think the motivation here is less theological than we'd like to sort of label it the Christian revival..."; because if Christianity IS true, then the world is a very different place than if it is not true. What might appear to the "neutral" observer to be going on, is not what is really going on. Alex thinks in terms of people being theologically motivated, but he is a philosopher. God is not a philosopher wondering about HIs own existence, He's God, interested in people finding their way to Him... (Even people like Alex, who are interested in theology ; )
Congratulations Justin, you wrote a book from just your feels. Why should anyone read it? 'It seems to me' 'It feels like' 'One time a dude came into my church'
14:02 “What is emerging here?” R: We are leaving this pernicious protestant literalism to go back to a more traditional perspective that is closer to Thomas Aquinas intellectual view of God.
I have the same gut feeling that Justin has, that at a grassroots level Christianity is sparking fresh again. My church is 80% 20-30 year olds and very enthusiastic about serving our community. Alex is rare, because most people who think as deeply philosophically as he does come to believe in some sort of idealism at the very least. Physicalism just seems so implausible and insufficient as an explanation for our reality.
I'm a new Christian at 38. I have a feeling a lot of people are coming to Christ. Christianity is TRUE, and doesn't have to hide behind lies, distortions, and power games.
@@someonesomeone25 Amongst educated? That's a good question. Do you mean those that are educated in the ivory tower of academia, or those outside and in the work force? I have a suspicious that those in the ivory tower are the majority. I'm curious if the same goes for philosophers? And do you mean doctorate level philosophers, or those who are uncredentialed? I'm not trying to be pendantic... i just believe the context matters. For instance, you can't say most scientists are atheist. It actually matters how you qualify it, because physicist believers are more prevalent than biologists (Ross, 20-20something lol)
@user-bz1pe9xm2h I didn't have a more specific demographic in mind, but it would be interesting to see it broken down. Where can I find the statistics to show, say, how many professors of philosophy in US and Europe are some form of physicalist/materialist?
It’s so interesting that Alex has a very dogmatic sense of what belief in God is and how one should come to it. It is his new atheism foundations coming through in large part but it is really a reflection of his modernity, i.e. his foundational beliefs in individual authenticity and scientific rationalism as the highest values and thus the only true or real or legitimate way to arrive at Christian (or any) belief.
The main action of Jesus (Christ is an invention) was to get himself killed needlessly by the Romans. I pass on talking up nonsense as a willful act of strength. It wasn't back then and it still isn't.
He's intellectual. But he's not god absolutely he's wrong on lots of things but seems like u r that because U r not politically agree with him. Read his book 'maps of meaning'.
@@narendrasomawat5978I don’t disagree with because I have no idea what his position is. He won’t commit to anything. I’ve seen far too much of him already. I have no intention of reading anything from him. I’d rather read someone whom I totally disagree with, but actually states what they believe (or don’t believe) and argues their case.
When people say something like “it’s not about logic” it really hurts my brain. Logic isn’t a thing you switch on and off depending on the argument. Otherwise you are just abandoning reason. It amazes me that we have gotten to a point where people are so tied to a belief they want to be true that they suggest it doesn’t matter if it makes sense or is illogical. Once we get to that point of a conversation we aren’t talking about if something is true or real. We are just arguing about what we want to be true. Its not a healthy path to go down.
@@williamschlass6371 When you say “is it real”, what exactly are you asking? It’s an emotion. Emotions exist. They are a process that your body (mostly your brain) goes through. So of course it’s real. Are you perhaps trying to get at something you’re trying not to say?
It feels weird to be defending Justin as I didn't find his arguments terribly compelling, but I don't think he argued that it isn't about logic. He (and even Alex) argued that it isn't about reason. Since love was brought up already in this comment thread, I'll use it as an example. People don't tend to reason themselves into loving someone. Love is an emotion that isn't dependent on a person's ability to reason. There are a number of factors that go loving another person, but whether or not it makes sense to do so does not tend to be a one of them. The argument here is that most religious people don't reason their way into belief. They have a religious experience that to them is as real as the emotion of love. Personally I have never had such an experience (and I doubt I'm built in a way that makes me capable of having one), but I think trying to reason most people out of (or into) a God belief probably makes much sense as reasoning them out of (or into) loving someone.
@@binkey3374 Yes, people can come across ideas via methods that are poorly thought through. I agree with that. Our instinct is to use a simple method such as instinct, an emotional response, or perhaps more of a hope. However since civilisation and probably more so since the enlightenment, we have attempted to fight our natural instinct to try and use more reliable methods. I agree that people don’t always, but if we want to find out how things work or what is or isn’t real then the methods we use to determine love or what we feel about things isn’t a good method to use. Religious arguments are ultimately about things that are supposed to exist in reality. Whether in this reality or some other supernatural one (to whatever extent that means). Either gods or supernatural things exist or they do not. Surely if we want to propose gods as a possible option to explain anything we would need to know if gods are a possible thing. I’m not aware of a good way to test that. Talk about how lots of people are generally convinced about things is all well and good, but if I’m honest it sounds like people are using poor methods. Encouraging better methods would probably be better. If we use better methods and they point to gods then great. If we use poor methods and they point to gods then I really don’t know what to do with that information.
I have to add a comment to emphasize on the respect shown in this discussion. My goal is to communicate with opposing views in this manner. Thank you for a great example
Alex is right on. Theists try to pin atheism to cultural/political/ethical matters when atheism has nothing to do with those. It only says there’s no good reason to think a Creator exists yet. And that remains. Theists only complain about our moral handicap but offer no solutions. As a human, not an atheist, I then give an answer that we study and deliberate. That’s the best we can do with subjectivity and it helps. Theists just want to give up just because no Creator exists. It is irresponsible and lazy.
I understand your point. I think the issue is more nuanced. For instance: 1) For theists - “What is God? Define it please.” While a very small percentage will have the old man in the sky version, I suspect most will be vastly more nuanced… to the point that many may privately admit to not understanding why Jesus dying for our sins… makes much sense… from their nuanced impression of what god is perspective. 2) For atheists - “If we remove religion (Christianity, Islam, etc) from the discussion of god, and if we - in good faith - try to understand the 1st mover/Platonist argument for a creator (not god, per se) outside of religious dogma… can you appreciate the argument?”
@@BruceWing1.) I think the definition of a thing ought to be a prerequisite for a belief in that thing. This line of thought is where igntheism / theological non-cognitivism comes from. 2.) What even is a prime mover or unmived mover? Is it not a contradictory concept? Does nature need a "first cause" at all?
@@umbraemilitos - I don’t disagree that people should attempt to better define their terms. That said, it is such a big topic, it’s understandable that it’s hard to define. Think about a unified field theory in physics. At a high level, we understand what it means. Digging deeper however, physicists have a difficult time discussing details.. because they don’t understand how things fit together. Also, like discussions of a god/creator, we have theories of a multiverse… or of the universe being a simulation. They are hypotheses that some people believe are true, but there is no evidence that they are true. Even if they are true, one can reasonably still hypothesize a first mover. As to your other questions, they are reasonable. So are questions relating to a first mover. If the universe created itself, that’s wild. Magical even. And if a first mover (whatever that even means) did it, that’s wild. Magical, too. Either direction one goes, one is in a supremely weird situation.
@@BruceWing 2. Sure but arguments for Deism go in the trash because positing a first cause and such helps nothing. It remains in that case we have no supernatural help and must create heaven and immortality ourselves. Theism stunts that progress. 1. Yeah certainly because vicarious redemption via theatre of human sacrifice is abominable and blatantly unjust. That’s why theologians will admit it’s a “gift” they say. So that’s not justice.
lol why? Atheists love talking about morals all the time. Always talking about the horrors in Palestine or Ukraine or whatever. But they can't ground any of there moral beliefs so its ultimately just how they feel.
@@TheGogogwoIt's telling because rather than using any of the arguments related to external evidence, like the FTA or argument from miracles, he thinks the strongest is the one that ultimately rests on feelings and desires - that he feels as though some things are truly evil and desperately wants it to be the case that goodness and evil exist in some objective form. But the moral argument is very weak because of this reliance on subjective feelings. It shows that he has a strong sense of empathy and justice, but is willing to go with feeling over evidence in order to appease his desires in a way that is psychologically comfortable. When I was a believer I was the same - I desperately wanted it to be true. But I had to face the fact that it isn't. And that's ok.
@@someonesomeone25 You know what honestly I kinda agree with that. Moral argument isn't an argument you should be mainly using to prove the existence of God. I believe the FTA, resurrection, kalam and prophecies are better arguments Christians should be using more. I will stand by though that in this culture where athiests are obsessed with social justice the moral argument can be very attractive to them once they understand that they can't justify there morals past there feelings.
@@TheGogogwo I'm glad we can agree that the moral argument is not a particularly strong one. It's interesting that you think it has utility for those atheists who are progressive or concerned with justice and social change. I would fall into that category: I am liberal, socialist, democratic, progressive etc. But I am also a moral nihilist. I don't think the MA is as effective as you think in getting justice minded atheists to reconsider theism.
@@someonesomeone25 Just one question last question as a moral nihilist how do you reconcile the fact you can't justify any of the justice you want in the world other than a preference. Essentially the horrors happening in Palestine is about as relevant as someone not liking the colour purple in that worldview. Or getting other moral nihilists who have different preferences to care about these social justices? The only way that can be done is appealing to there feelings of empathy hoping they have some because if they don't not much else can get them to care.
If the rebirth of GOD is political, then that means atheism is political. If atheism loses by politics, then that proves atheism is weak and has nothing more than politics propping it up. The truth is, the rebirth of GOD is people starving for SPIRITUAL TRUTH in a spiritually bankrupt society. And atheism is largely to blame for our spiritually bankrupt society. The people have awoken to the realization that atheism is a false and hopeless philosophy, and it is evil. Spiritual truth is what people thirst for now, something atheism does not and cannot provide. ❤✝️
Agrree with much of that. But perhaps way too broad to say “the people have awoken…..”. Something does seem to be going on but declaring it to be a general movement among “the people” is an unsupportably broad statement of the kind that can impede the conversation.
How can Atheism largely be to blame for our society when Atheists aren't in control and only make up about 3% of the world population? If anyone is to blame for society, look at Islam and Christianity who make up the majority of society.
@@gregsimmons7981Agreed. Making fairly grandiose leaps here. Also, awoken to which specific “truth,” and can anyone really say that an unprovable thing is somehow undeniably true?
In a hypothetical world where Christianity seemed to have a negative influence on social cohesion, similar to the one you attribute to atheism, would you remain a Christian? Try to really imagine yourself in such a world and think of what you’d do if you truly believed Christianity was causing your society to unravel. If you would remain a Christian despite believing it was actively harmful to social cohesion, you’re probably a real Christian. If you wouldn’t, you’re a LARPer.
brierly's mob aren't interested in jesus, i have a saying "if you want to be a good christian, be atheist" i don't need gits like the apologists mob to direct me how to be a decent human. watch some apologists videos, it's ENTIRELY about winning arguments and atheist bashing, check the time spent on jesus then atheists.....
Around 00:48:00 | It's funny that people are turning to mind-altering substances and experiences as opposed to getting more involved in their community (maybe that's happening). Like religion, it offers an "escape", but fixes very little, unless that are intended to help with coping to the unavoidable. Hopefully people continue smartening up, and engage in meaningful ways, and, at the same time, identify the tricks that have been used between humans to benefit only one, and not both.
Justin is the one apologist who I actually still view as honest, inquisitive and not as biased as other apologists. A great respite from the *less honest* ones
Generally when moderating talks, yes. But when he's not moderating and making his own points, it's kinda the same fundamentally dishonest theist talking points (made worse when you realize he *knows* the faults to those arguments, because they've been discussed around him!).
@@majmage Couldn't agree more. Justin is very good as a moderater, even though it's noticeable to tell where he really stands on the issues being discussed. But when he talks without being a moderator he ticks of the entire bingo-fallacy-card 😂
Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don’t understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God. 2CORINTHIANS 4:4
@@S.D.323 we have methods that work better than others. Novel predictions has worked. Lucky rabbit foot hasn’t…for example. With that in mind, do you have a method?
I was an Atheist for over 10 years. I researched Jesus and his existence and the eye witness accounts. I also don't fear if there's nothing after death. It's not why I believe now. Someone special was born 2000 years ago and changed the world. People definitely witnessed something remarkable.
No, people are seeing with their own eyes what type of evil comes pouring down on us absent God and His law, most are unable to name such a perception accurately due to the weakness of the church but it is the deep instinct to repent.
@@ssppo4703 Keep telling yourself that. There's more proof of Jesus' existence, life, teachings and crucifixion through the eye witness accounts and other sources even outside the bible than anyone else in antiquity.
Praying for Alex. He would love to believe and he knows he needs to suspend his logic and reason to open the door. I think Christians need to stop trying to avoid this fact. There are some logical reasons to accept a creator, but relationships need some willingness to engage and an openness to experience and it is very often on our knees either physically or philosophically that we encounter divinity. This shouldn’t be glossed over. It is the basis of the Christian story to suffer and be redeemed
Alex is very sensitive to animal suffering. Do you think he would "want" to believe that billions of humans will burn in hell? He actually says that is not his objection, but that sounds hard to believe that Alex, or anyone, would want to believe that. A loving God that forgives and saves everyone? I think he might want to believe in that. No being should torture any other being, ever. That seems right to me. Sad that the two biggest religions believe this, perhaps this is why they are taking over the world? Fear? I hope love wins.
He tends to have a more accurate reading and understanding of the Bible and theology than most Christians. But maybe you meant something a little different. He has a theology degree from Oxford, I believe.
@@someonesomeone25 u will see it in the future don't worry sir the genz are waking up to the woke culture and gender delusional which is byproduct of new age athiesm there are young man who believe in building families and family values and athiesm doesn't offer that it just promotes individualism
@@skateVlogger a snake has 12 eyes and 13 limbs. Do you see how I just claimed complete utter bs without supporting my claim. And that just saying shit in no way makes it true. Your vile unintellectual opinions are sadly exactly what makes YT tick. Thanks for not thinking zealot
Briefly specifically did not say there was a rebirth of Christianity. Listen again. He says it 20-30 times it seems in the conversation. The book title does not even say it. Get the argument right at least.
What the heck? The guy wrote a book on the topic and he has no clear idea what he's arguing for here? And Alex doesn't have anything to add? Is there a rebirth or not? I don't know either really pushed many points to make their point. They simply agreed, there are some people who have drawn toward belief in God or religion and some people who haven't. So?
Whether there's a rebirth of believe in god, or islam is growing fast... what's important to me is whether or not the god claims and the baggages that come with it are can be satisfactorily proven to be true. I couldn't bring myself to believe in something im not convinced of being true
Hope you enjoy the conversation! Visit my website at justinbrierley.com
16:21 Alex seems to have reached to the boundaries of everything in this word, and he seems to have understood everything that leads to to the conclusion that if people are becoming christians then it must be a political reason or some kind of force pressing by christians. This guy is stilk in a developing state, because he came to a conclusion the everything must have happened within the capacity of his understanding and nothing could have happened and nothing will happen outside of his notion of knowing the world.
How can that be possible? How can we just limit everything in this world to that which he can perceive??? Why can't they be existed beyond human comprehension???
This proves that atheist's way on thinking is limited.
@@justinbrierley I enjoyed it. Alex was brilliant.
@rawan3435 Anything outside of our comprehension MUST be proven REAL first. Meaning, it's useless to insist something is REAL unless we COMPREHEND it. Many big mistakes have been made in history because of rushed certainty.
@@goodquestion7915 but how can we know that this brain we have can perceive that which is outside of its ability?? Inorder to understand anything we have to be outside of that thing. Inorder to understand the absence of time we have to be outside of time, but that is impossible. We cannot figure out even the gravity for so long, there's a number of other basic questions not yet solved even by mathematics. How can we believe there is nothing outside of our comprehension??
@rawan3435 Your questions are good. The problem starts when we MAKE decisions based on GUESSES on the answers to those questions. And even worse, when we LEGISLATE on those dubious answers.
I absolutely love to see a civil and open conversation like this. It’s refreshing in a world of “dunking on” and sensational click bait titles about people being over or destroyed by the same old sound bites that’s been around forever.
Thank you both for this very insightful conversation.
I think it’s important to note that Islams growth is based purely on birth rates and also a lot of ex Muslims don’t have a voice because of the threat of leaving Islam.
Oh and open borders let's not forget those
No it’s not. Islam actually has a lot a converts too, Christianity also has a lot of converts but also a lot of people leave Christianity as well.
@@km0262 Islamic converts are very less than birth rates.
And in Northern Europe sponsored by a generous child benefit system.
@@km0262 I partly follow. Many young people with muslim parents leave this 1400 year old very limited worldview behind them.
But two years ago, an investigation was conducted by the Federal government in my country Belgium. We now have more practicing muslims than practicing christians.
But also true. christianity, meanwhile, is falling lower and lower.
I am so far from being religious and I often have a hard time listening to religious people, because so much of it just sounds to me with the undertone of "we are better than you, we have the answer and you just don't understand" (I know partly this might be my bias, but I don't think it is only my bias).
I never got that from Justin, I think he just seems like a wonderful human being who is honest in conversations and actually willing to listen. Much appreciated.
Obviously I really love listening to Alex as well, thank you for this and great job all 3 of you.
It's not just a bias from your side. Some of us are indeed Pharisees.
My friend try to read this comment section. You'll see atheists more often have that tone, after all, atheism is supposedly an enlightenment. Most atheists seem they have the answer here
Then you haven't been listening. Because a genuine theist doesn't hoard god from others, they share it. You sound like you've been part of terrible religious communities. I'm sorry to hear that.
I feel like a lot of that comes from him having hosted conversations between Christians and atheists for years. It’s easier to be more empathetic when you’re listening to different perspectives all the time and not just living in an echo chamber, and also witnessing and aiding in creating calm intellectual discussions as a host.
Alex also recently said that in his private life he gets into some heated debates with people and isn’t always cool and collected, but when on camera he knows that his audience will notice when people are dishonest in conversation so he doesn’t need to worry about it and might as well stay calm. So it could be like that with Justin as well.
LSD takes away the brain's ability to filter out the peripheral stimuli that would otherwise prevent you from functioning in an efficient and focused way. My experience of God has deepened with age. I would describe it more like a deeply personal , calming relationship which is deeply affecting. It is not really anything like a sensory overload. sensory
This might be the friendliest, calmest debate I’ve ever seen. I love it
I felt actually somewhat sorry for Alex craning his flexible neck on essentially a tiny loveseat in an undoubtedly complicated attempt at addressing the individual he came to this event to dialogue with. Two chairs. Two would do.
Why are we so uncomfortable with closeness? Your comment puzzles me.
@@Shawn-nq7du I'm more uncomfortable with visible discomfort rather than closeness. It appears a somewhat awkward position.
@@aaronscheuman understand
Or at least a bigger couch amiright lol
The dudes are one inch from playing with ones other’s feet
The fact that they can both sit in a room for over an hour and a hald and have a conversation with a single microphone is by itself an accomplishment. Without denying or accepting a Christian rebirth, this is definetely a rebirth in intellectual communication.
Justin and Alex both have my respect for being able to discuss their differences without resorting to attacking each other. If only that could catch on.
Why, such a low bar you are setting here...
lol.
@@PoppysPrints lol. you need to get out more. brierly a pond scum in my estimation.
My respect to them accepting the set-up: small sofa, they barely both fit on it, one mic. WT? Who dropped the ball on this one?
Next time have them sit on a smaller couch. Lol, jk. Looking forward to an insightful conversation!
It gets smaller each time the camera cuts away until one is on the other’s lap.
It's not logic tho
@@loganappenfeller113😂 that’s a hilarious image
It’s not a couch, it’s a love seat 🙂
A Love-Your-Neighbors-Seat
Always a delight to listen to Alex speak.
Because?
You glazing this man
In the very brief moments that he actually spoke, you mean. "Always a delight to see Alex sit and nod his head".
@@meej33 The truth he spoke and that, too. ✝️🙏
I'll save you a bit of time. Justin wrote a book on a feeling he had after talking to a few people and because some men went to church in Finland. And he reiterates this feeling in every bloated and unnecessarily long winded response by saying that he "genuinely believes" what he genuinely believes in.
spot on. - feeling and genuinely believing being the modus operandi - and that’s the problem. because when reason sleeps…
I'll also save you some time. Alex will simply repeat every made-up nonsense about Christianity he ever heard without questioning any of it. And he'll probably repeat some nonsense about "slavery and genocide" and how "good people do evil things because of religion" or how religion is always the bad guy that fights against good science (completely ignoring all of the horrible stuff we have because of science, like weapons of mass destruction, etc. Or how a lot of scientific progress was based on highly unethical experiments). Then he will go on to strawmaning Christianity and "debunking" fundamentalist evangelicals while at the same time showing zero knowledge about religion or the Bible despite his claims of having studied theology. 😂
Yep. Tedious stuff. I remember when I first came across Unbelievable and was excited at some of the debates. Justin impressed me as a moderator, seemed open, and courteous, to the atheists. Then, when I sat down to him about to explain why he thinks Xtianity is the more reasonable option I was expecting something special. Nope. He had nothing. Same old. Now it reeks of a racket, a way to flog books and make money online etc.
Thanks for this, someone (Christian) told me about this guy and I thought "this has gotta be bs" so I thought I'd check him out. Thanks for summing him up.
Thanks for writing your feelings.
Alex makes some totally valid points in his introductory discussion.
Why is it that Christians accuse us non-believers of “reading the Bible like a fundamentalist” only when we take seriously the passages that they don’t like? When it comes to the slavery and violence passages, there’s always “nuance” and “progressive revelation” and whatnot, and we can’t just “take it at face value.” And yet, they’re perfectly happy to take the “God is love” and “love your enemies” parts at face value. Is Justin not “reading like a fundamentalist” when he takes those parts seriously?
This is why it’s my contention that any good you claim to get FROM the Bible is actually just what you already believe to be good, and then you find the scattered places where it agrees and then you claim that this is what it’s REALLY about.
cos they are needy and insecure. and it's hard having to maintain lies all the time, like "there;s no slavery in the bible" and "god never committed genocide imagine having to constantly make excuses for all that crap.
You must let scripture interpret Scripture and see the whole picture of the Bible, not just pick and choose. Of course there are troubling passages, but if you look to Christ and His example, you will find truth
Christians, like myself, criticize some atheists on Bible interpretation because much of it is childish. Few atheists have any knowledge of the ANE, know Hebrew, or factor in the contexts of a particular passage. Most implore an eisegesis approach to the Bible and cherry-pick passages to make a point. If you don't know the historical background of the Bible, then you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Bible interpretation. I will sadly admit that many Christians do similar things concerning Bible interpretation as well.
@@clayw70literally just described 99.999 of christians, pastors, and apologists. they only understand the language, historical context etc in the way their particular seminary/institution/denomination has approved
What you're describing is exactly what "reading the Bible like a fundamentalist" means. Obviously there are parts of it that are more reasonably taken at face value than others. Reading it "like a fundamentalist" is taking every part of it at face value, quote by quote. Reading it "not like a fundamentalist" would be recognizing that some parts are more compatible with that way of reading than others.
-- was dropping acid a religious experience?
-- i really appreciated the carpet
@@8o86 of course it could be. I think it depends on the person and what God gives them to work with. The Bible is so long because not one size fits all. We just don’t all look alike. No accident.
Psychedelics when done right are the fast track to transcendental experience. You don’t get more religious than that. But it’s personal. There is no real fellowship in that. So it’s insufficient for what church provides. Consider, it’s the priest that takes the drug.
The New Atheists face a lot of criticism, much of which I believe is undeserved. Linking atheism to “wokeness” or civil unrest in today’s political and economic climate seems disingenuous. These polemics were not responsible for creating a new cultural crutch to replace religion but to highlight its falsehoods, shortcomings, and hypocrisy, showing that it is not necessarily a positive influence.
Their work was exactly what I needed at the time because I wanted to know if Christianity’s truth claims were valid. I didn’t realize I was in an information bubble, believing I had convincing evidence for Christianity. However, reading the Bible filled me with doubts, making it seem more like a human creation than divine.
Watching debates by Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Bart Ehrman, and others has helped me immensely. I’ve grown as a person and no longer feel bound by the guilt and limitations of my old religion. I now live a much more fulfilling and productive life, and I’m thankful for the contributions of the New Atheists.
Great comment. I was having similar thoughts. Athiests alone are not responsible for remagining our world absent of religious delusions. Apologists always try to misrepresent athiests. Athiests are just people who don't believe your religious shit because you don't have any proof. Athiests make no claims about things beyond our understanding. Thus, there is no claim about a divine moral code. However, we are all humans. Thus, as humans living in a shared space, it's logical that we should have a humanistic moral code. This is something we should aspire to. Religions have warped our minds and dominated the psychological insecurities of people for long enough. I'm so bored with it. Can we please evolve on.
“Its logical that we should have a humanistic moral code”
I agree, so who gets to set the rules? What if one man’s humanism is another man’s hatred? How have state atheist experiments a la USSR, PRC, and DPRK turned out? You should read a little Nietszche, me thinks.
@@scottfrost7792
*
“it's logical that we should have a humanistic moral code”
Sorry but “LOGICAL” according to who? or what absolute, universal, objective standard of measure exactly?
“LOGICAL” according to the standard of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur? Or “LOGICAL” according to nothing more substantive than an ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APE WHO SHARES HALF THEIR DNA WITH A POTATO?
Logic is an illusion (Nietzsche)
“Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions.”
- (Nietzsche, Reference from: On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense).
“Should I k.ill myself?” is the essential philosophical question.” (Albert Camus).
Life is an “horror” and “truth” is “illusory”. (Nietzsche)
“Storytellers continue their narratives late into the night to forestall death and to delay the inevitable moment when everyone must fall silent.” (Foucault).
Merry chaps but at least they are “logically” consistent with their strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism - right?
Imagine telling all of these little stories to someone as a “wholesome” Christmas bed time story!! And you look down on our beliefs!!
All respect to Conner and Brierly. Both have invested a lot of time and work into their platforms and are genuinely well meaning and good spirited individuals when it comes to those "public" platforms.
Conner is an interesting one to me, and he's someone i wish i could have direct dialogue with. I think so much of his work is compelling, but he consistently gets trapped in his own reductionist assumptions. I often cite Adam Grant's book Think Again when it comes to understanding how we reason, and I often find that Conner is someone who wants both the cake and the eating in terms of his reasoning towards opposition to belief in God, and what he often ends up doing is masking or hiding his working assumptions in arguments that attempt to reach far beyond their limitations.
It helps that he is also very good at taking opposition arguments and turning them into pithy rhetoric or slogans or cliches. The problem being that this automatically reduces your own arguments to those same things while controlling any ability to actually get behind those superficilities.
A couple examples. He brilliantly undermined Brierleys appeal to empirical evidenc for a shift in the tide by quickly grabbing on to that word "anectdotal". Some of it was, much of it wasn't, but he controlled that entire part of the conversation by making it seem like the anecdotal evidence was the only thing on the table and in view.
His conflating of the argument between arguing for the idea of god versus arguing for the idea of christianity. They are interconnected but not the same, but he constantly collapses the two together.
He consistently, here and on his show, argues from the postion of a fundamentalist. He uses appeals to a strident kind of literalism or plain readings with the same vigor as much of conservative and fundamentalist christianity. This includes using words like "contradictory", or the common assumption that the old is different than the new, or that it is appropriate to read his own context back into the world of the text as a way of suggesting the text is pro this or pro that on basis of those plain readings. And he props up the scriptures in the way sola scriptura enthusiasts might. It's not how the scriptures should be read if one really wants to understand how it functioned and what it said in its world (and no, suggesting that the OT sanctions slavery and genocide is just an example of poor readings of the text and history).
He consistently fluctuates between an appeal to progress as a proper narrative, getting trapped in this inconsistent assumption that the enlightenment is somehow better than the past, as though that's how history works. As though we have arrived at a better world or more aware of the facts or as though our society today is somehow able to be the lens through which we measure moral truth (all working fallacies, equally so when this is used by the Christian front). But then at the same time he appeals to arguments that want to undercut such ways of thinking, the problem being that one of his oppositions to belief in God is that God took an inordinate amount of time to get where the world should be.
He cited that it matters whether belief in God is true, but it doesn't matter if it is false. This is absolutely false. It assumes that the reasoning he uses to appeal to beauty and meaning and morality can't be challenged using a secular, materialist worldview. In fact, such a worldview deeply challenges it. He is no further ahead in saying suffering is a problem for the believer in a God (notice how he said "given the way christianity supposes such a God governs reality... and what way is that exactly?). In fact, logically speaking it ceases to become a problem in a godless reality in many respects. It just is reality, and there are a multitude of ways in which this reality undercuts the way he actually lives in concern for suffering with endless inconsistencies in reason and logic. One of the great points of awareness for me in my time as an atheist was realizing that there was no good, rational reason why I should not kill myself, an answer to my question posed to reason at a time when I was suicidal (I had an experience that changed my worldview in that moment, but that is what I posed to reason at the time and the answer that came back). So to suggest it doesn't matter if its false is not really accurate or aware.
I'd have some similar criticism for Brierly. I think he allowed his reasoning to be reduced by the oppositions, which in turn made him double down on some superficial rhetoric. He has an equal problem in his appeal to progress and the enlightenment as evidence for God. I think both parties miss a crucial point in that if we aren't free to actually name Death, the primary marker of this reality and the very thing that throws things into tension and question, we aren't just talking about nonexistence, we are talking about the much broader picture of decay and suffering and entropy and fundamental laws that govern our existence. Which is why Conners appeal to beauty as somehow valuable or meaningful apart from illusionary and irrarional viewpoints is so easy to dismantle. It's not an observation of reality, it is an interpretation of reality and one that is categorically false and ignorant of suffering and death.
I've been trying to have conversations for decades about God. I've slowly learned, it's not about logic. Most people want to believe in God and create whatever circumstances in their mind to believe in a God. It's not a head problem.
A lot of people want to believe that there isn’t a God. What’s your point?
The christians i know will happily say everything good in their life comes from God. Any question about any evidece will allways be,"i feel it in my heart." Never any evidence.
As a child I thought they must know something i don't.
After a while i understood it is just make belief. They just belief without question.
Any question will break down the facade.
@@jamesjones11301994a lot of people can't find any evidence for god and don't just accept something without it.
@@jamesjones11301994 When I talk to people who don't believe in God, they have a chain of logic leading to their belief God doesn't exist.
When I talk to people who believe in God, there is always the faith component that allows them to not use logic.
I don't have enough faith to believe in a God.
@@jamesjones11301994 I doubt you've talked to many non-believers. The notion of:
"They just want to sin."
"You wouldn't believe even with evidence."
Is false for so many of us.
So many of us live good lives and beg for evidence. Yet when we have conversations, believers can't give their evidence that lead them to believe. The ones who are honest usually say, "It's faith".
I can accept that it's faith but faith isn't logic and reason. Faith is what you do when you don' have good evidence.
I want good evidence.
What's your evidence?
I love your conversations with Alex. The sharing of one microphone is a perfect demonstration of how you both approach these talks with respect and genuine curiosity. I'm admittedly in Alex's camp, but you've got a fan in me, Justin.
Alex is the GOAT
@Treesandmountains odd as he seems to be the most successful hitch critic.
@@mikeshivakmaybe he's referring to Alex's interview with Peter Hitchens lol
Generally Overrated Atheist Turd
I think he conducts himself well in recent years (before that, not so much). But if you think he’s the GOAT you must not be broadly read.
What does GOAT mean?
Alex does a good job of questioning the self-affectation purpose of thinking and developing beliefs about anything, in my opinion. And as Orson Scott Card pointed out "this is how humans are: we question all our beliefs except the ones we really believe in, and those we never think to question." Like our autobiographical memory sense-of-self and reality or the way neuroscience research continues to debunk that confused sense of the nature of language and reality, while simultaneously providing the information that is evolving our consciousness, by 'affecting' the imaginal realm we use the reality-labeling word 'mind' to imaginatively define, through the well-practiced feeling of the abstract being real.
Arguably, beyond the circus of social media and it's 'attention' economy, far more people are implicitly in agreement with Einstein’s "only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity," than the 'relatively' small number of people who think they are seeing the 'appearance' of a rebirth of belief in God?
Yawn!! The APEIST doth protest too much, methinks!
*
Oh the irony!! The APEIST doth protest too much, methinks!
We need a fact checker on the facts that Justin says he hasn’t looked up before believing or learning from large stretches of his arguments
surely god wouldn't let him -lie- make mistakes? hasn't he had revelation?
Justin is disingenuous
I as an atheist always will tell the truth
I have seen Justin lie and manipulate the truth on many occasions
@@aroemaliuged4776'I as an atheist will always tell the truth.....' 😶
@@aroemaliuged4776who the hell are you??! You never lie… my arse
@@matthewstokes1608
How very Christian of you
Exactly 17 years of pain & suffering with M.E./CFS and Fibromyalgia makes zero sense to the one suffering but can be explained if there is no God, doesn't leave me much hope but it makes sense that gives a certain peace.
Diseases come from deterioration of the human genome. There is a growing number of new cancer types and we know that cancer is in the genes. Evolution does not support that
Ah, yes, "the surprising rebirth of Christianity".
England and Wales:
2001 census: Christianity 72% No religion 15% Other 10%
2021 census: Christianity 46% No religion 37% Other 14%
On current trends by 2031 Christianity will be less than a third, 'no religion' more than half (Scotland is already that bad).
"Rebirth of Christianity" seems to mean "some of my Oxbridge chums whom I invite on my show like to chat about spiritual topics".
Whaddya mean "Scotland is already that 'bad'?" Surely you mean "Scotland has already woken up to this obvious con-game"
Belgium: 60% without a belief in a god.
Two years ago, an investigation was conducted by the Federal government in my country Belgium. We now have more practicing muslims than practicing christians.
There isn't much room for christianity anymore, it is.
And don't forget the religion that is brought back in by immigrants (by former USSR countries, for example).
Did you listen to the entire conversation? Justin clearly said he doesn't believe there is a revival happening right now.
I think the difference is, in the past people said they were religious culturally but were atheist in practice. Now and in future I think the number of people who say they're religious are more likely to actually be so than before so the figures will only really every tell part of the story
@@alexjames9942that’s exactly it.
Justin keeps saying "I genuinely think that ..." as if that would add credibility to his claim. It doesn't. Without statistical evidence to back it up, his intuition that there is a rebirth of belief in God is just his intuition.
Today people are less grounded than they were 10 years ago. Many people are searching for meaning. Some find identity politics others find religion of some sort. The way people do talk about God has changed over the 15 years as there is a far greater level of uncertainty.
This is a discussion about whether something is happening that's just started. It would be about Justin's intuitions vs. Alex's intuitions by definition. There wouldn't be statistics to back either side up at this point...
@@deschain1910 No, it's not about Justin's intuition vs. Alex's intuitions. It's simply about whether Justin is warranted to make that generalized claim as expressed by his new book based on his anecdotal evidence. Alex never made a comparable generalized claim about the changes of atheism landscape based on his experiences.
@@andrewtsai777
If you're actually wondering about the truth claim behind the question rather than the idea that the positive claim has the burden of evidence and the negative claim does not, then yes it would be intuition vs. intuition.
This entire discussion is about speculation about the future and whether something has just begun which is foreshadowed by these public atheists becoming non-atheists (or non-believing proponents of Christianity?) whatever you might call them. This speculation would be just that, speculation. You can't have statistics about what this question is about.
@@deschain1910you should easily be able to have statistics about this kind of thing, or at the very least analysis from sociologists. This isn’t the first time places have become less religious and then there was a rise in religious again.
Pretty wild to write a whole book about a resurgence in Christianity, and then admit there's no hard data to support your claims.
Good discussion
In fact the data, even from xtian sources like Pew, show numbers are falling.
th-cam.com/video/xIHMnD2FDeY/w-d-xo.html
Richard Dawkins sits mute/deaf/sub-moronic as ACTUAL ACHIEVED biologists,
two Nobel laureates & Craig Venter, ALL say, "it is impossible that humans will EVER
know life's origin". WATTHE PHUK?!? It's Dawkins' SINGLE distinction: "discernible natural abiogenesis"
YET HE SAYS NOTHING?!!? 'Cause "science atheism" is an utter fraud.
Einstein said: "Thermodynamics is THE ONE law of universal content which will NEVER BE OVERTHROWN"
IT HASN'T BEEN! "Anyone whom challenges thermodynamics has no hope...only utter humiliation" Arthur Eddington...
the man whom made Einstein Einstein
1st LAW--'Heat NEVER comes from cold"...THIS universe of heat DID NOT BEGIN
2nd LAW--"Heat goes ONLY to cold"...THIS universe WILL equalize its heat, it hasn't...IT CAN'T BE ETERNAL
DATA DOES NOT GET "HARDER" THAN THAT...LEAVING charlatans like Dawkins wealthy, but intellectually bankrupt
Right, God just won't 'show up' will he? Most likely because it's the humans that create gods and goddesses, not the other way around, as you can discover from reading anthropology........ Every group of humans creates its own god for many reasons, such as group identity and structure...........
“Pretty wild” for you. Par for the course for me, painfully so.
😂
Nice couch
Maybe next time Alex can sit on Justin's lap
I had the same initial reaction. Why a couch? For novelty? Bad decision.
Maybe to convey the symbolism of them being together or the same in some way, rather than separate and opposed.
I’m laughing in real time. Killer comment.
I think that after Alex had his way with Dinesh D’Souza, perhaps one might want to rethink who will be sitting on who’s lap.
@@TenMinuteTrips That was a case of Dinesh being wholly arrogant and unprepared. Alex is a major league mind, and if you're not in his arena he's gonna bowl over you.
And mind you: I'm a Christian. I watched the first few minutes and I could literally feel my respect for Dinesh seeping out through my eyes and ears.
From all my lame defeats and oh! much more
From all the victories that I seemed to score;
From cleverness shot forth on Thy behalf
At which, while angels weep, the audience laugh;
From all my proofs of Thy divinity,
Thou, who wouldst give no sign, deliver me.
Thoughts are but coins. Let me not trust, instead
Of Thee, their thin-worn image of Thy head.
From all my thoughts, even from my thoughts of Thee,
O thou fair Silence, fall, and set me free.
Lord of the narrow gate and the needle’s eye,
Take from me all my trumpery lest I die.
CS Lewis
Alex is absolutely 💯
I can't stand listening to other Atheists because they are Woke and make ridiculous statements. I refuse to listen to people who don't know what a man or a woman is and uses terms like "pregnant person".
Nothing says "I'm an apologist" like writing a book about a subject that you yourself recognise you haven't researched.
fAlex is an apologist for a different faith. What is the difference?
@@nemrodx2185Atheism is literally the rejection of religion all of it for the same or similar reasons you reject others
@@TotalAnalyst2 "Atheism is literally the rejection of religion all of it for the same or similar reasons you reject others"
No, that's what atheist indoctrination and manipulation sells you so that you don't see the blind faith where you are!
@@nemrodx2185so would you say NOT being convinced that Islam is true is a religion in itself?
@@Dume_Guy Not being convinced is an emotional/psychological state. It has nothing to do with the truth of a hypothesis or worldview.
After hearing the whole thing, I think there are many things to consider, but I will stick with this one. Even if it were true that the "atheist" pro Christians Justin loves to quote like Tom Holland were not just promoting Christian identity politics (racism, using Christianity as an excuse, which is a tradition that comes from the XIX century), it would not change that 1) It is mostly false. Not everything that has transpired in the West (if such a term is valid and can be extended anachronistic centuries into the past, and was not a creation of modern European imperialism) is a product of Christianity or is Christian. That is nonsense, and is the death of historical thinking (mono causality) and 2) It is arrogant and close minded to pretend that everything good we have is just the product of one religion, or CAN ONLY be a product of one religion. Even with the best intentions at hearth - which I don't think people like Holland have - that is a very dangerous way of thinking.
Are you saying Tom Holland is promoting racism? I'm not sure how to interpret the parenthetical statement there...
I do not think you have read Tom Holland’s book, heard his argument, or thought critically about it. I have never heard Holland say the West gets everything from Christianity. He says certain important and fundamental things are taken mainly from Christianity which seems to be true. Christianity has dominated the West since around 325 AD. Getting some one’s argument right is very important. If you do not then you cannot really object to it properly.
@@deschain1910 Not directly. I am saying that he may inadvertently, by identifying the West with Christianity, promote a racist trope (which identified Europe with Christianity, or more precisely, The Reformation).
@@carlpeterson8182 I am reading that book now, but my concern is more of what Justin is saying. I also have seen interviews of Holland, and for what I gather of him, I think he has a double standard regarding the nature of historical change. So, Holland thinks Christianity, which he recognizes was the product of the blending of different cultures (Judaism, the Hellenistic Greco Roman world etc), developed into something unique, with some supposedly moral qualities that have endured to our days within the West. But for some reason, he seems to have a hard time accepting that from modernity or modern descended philosophical thought (like the Enlightenment). How much does the philosophical thought and the modern political order need to differ from Christianity to start being its own thing and not just an eternal offspring of that religion, dependent on it? If it conceptualizes God, freedom and political order differently from Christianity, how it is just an extension of that religion? And if not, why should we not think of Christianity as an extension of Judaism and Greco-Roman philosophy? It seems to me he, as Americans say, want to have his cake and eat it.
@@mendez704 I think first you have to understand that Holland is a historian. Thus, he is making a historical argument first. and it is very historical and humanism and othe3r forms of atheism and other worldviews are indebted massively to Christianity. Some atheists and others do not like that, but I think he proves it. That is the first point.
I do not think he argues for a belief in the Christian God at all since he is not Christian. I believe he is an atheist. What I have heard is that he thinks in the future the West will move from a Christian worldview into something else. This might have some positive and negative effects. I do not see Holland is against the movement away from Christianity itself per se. I do think he warns against a total riddance of any and all portions of the Chrisitan worldview.
I think you are somewhat correct when you say Christianity is a blend of cultures (Judaism, the Hellenistic Greco Roman world, etc). I think with the etc you mean other cultures also especially as time move along. the rediscovery of Aristotle and many more things influenced Christianity and Christianity influenced many other worldviews and cultures. But I think what is missing is that Christianity is also majorly influenced by a belief in the gospel and what Jesus did while on earth. the gospel and the NT is very tied up with the OT but there is a belief that God did something new in the NT or fulfilled the OT in the NT and the gospel. So that has to be added. You do not have to believe that occurred, but it is historical fact that Christianity is influenced greatly by the belief that it did occur.
About to start watching, confident that the discussion will be intelligent and respectful. I would expect nothing less from these two gentlemen.
I am a formerly super faithful Christian now agnostic... I absolutely love your channel. Justin
This is how science would work if it followed the religious way of thinking...
We can't demonstrate this is true but think of the implications if it was true.
Is it worth noting that as the atheistic side of the conversation has changed, the religious side has changed as well? Proving God or arguing for one seemed the goal of religious presenters in the past. Now, it is less about outright proof or even the best evidence and more for emotion, utility, and lack of utility of the alternative. This conversation being an example.
Mmm, as a former atheist I disagree. Alex O Connor is definitely the most sophisticated atheist around at the moment. But what converted my heart in 2021 was the experience of evil in myself and seeing it very clearly in another, Augistine and Aquinas converted my intellect with logical arguments for God and supranational nature of faith & my burning desire to be the man my soon to be wife needs converted my will. When I was an atheist I wanted evidence and proof that was in the realm of empirical facts only but I’ve come to find out that’s only one aspect to reality and there are different schools of evidence.
@@Nrev973interesting. And I’m not intending to discount this… but that doesn’t seem to be the nature of the majority of these debates anymore.
@@Nrev973 lol, alex is NOT the "most sophisticated" he might be the most toffee nosed but there are HOARDS of counter apologists doing a great job. apparently it's not just religists who need to get out more.
@@stevenwizzle533 the only hing i can say in favour of jordan peterson is that at the time of the four horsemen peterson raised the bar for religious debate, he may have degenerated into incoherent psycho-babble now, but at the time both sides had to come up with better reasoning and better reasons and nothing has been the same. harris, dawkins, dennett and hitchens all improved their viewpoints during those early days and nothing has been the same since, other than the religists are losing cos they can't hide the fact god has never been demonstrated - and never will be.
Actually, I have always felt that up until recently all of the arguments for God for the last few thousand years have been based on emotional appeals. Now that more and more people want evidence for these claims and "faith" doesn't seem to cut it anymore, now they are making appeals to reason, logic, and (pseudo) science. The church leaders and apologists know full well that their institutions are bleeding membership at a seemingly irreversible, rapid pace. They are desperate to stop the bleeding, lest they perish (figuratively speaking).
Justin's perspective seems just like the apostles perspective. A lot of faith and enthusiasm fueled by the DESIRE of THAT (whatever IT is) to become true.
Your desire is to defend a. default position that supports u r intelligence coming from a nonintelligent first cause.
Keep defending that as it's totally irrational just from logic.
The 'that', and I think Justin made this clear, is for Jesus to resolve everything we need as 'the best shot' we got.
@@davidjanbaz7728 "Just from logic" has been debunked as a smart method. Examples: epicycles, flat earth, geocentrism, humors, witchcraft, gods, etc.
@davidjanbaz7728 Things coming from non-things have been proven True even in your worldview.
My worldview:
- Water from non-water
- Walls from non-walls.
- Stars frm non-stars.
- .... a universe of etceteras ...
Your worldview:
- Everything from nothing
- Non-smart people from smart people.
- Christians from non- Christians.
- etc.
@davidjanbaz7728 Your worldview is useless. You borrow from my worldview to express the ideas from your retrograde worldview.
Not sure we can call Peterson an atheist when recently he said that he believes Jesus walked out of the tomb.
Who knows what Peterson believes since he refuses to answer. He is the master of lengthy word salads. I don’t think anyone should give him any attention, he has nothing to offer.
My journey to faith in Christ was not influenced by my political beliefs. My pursuit of truth began in 2014, when I was in the eighth grade, through questioning and studying philosophy and science. At that time, I had limited understanding of politics. Therefore, it is inaccurate to suggest that my search for truth and my acceptance of Christ as my Lord were influenced by political considerations.
Alex, this was incredible. You are becoming such a skilled orator and I’m so lucky to have witnessed your growth.
Of course there were Christians arguing against slavery, but do you know who were also Christian? The slave owners. And they were also using the Bible to argue their points.
We should also point out that neither side were solely using the Bible. They were also using secular, universal arguments for slavery (economics, white supremacy) and against slavery (humanism, consistent legal framework).
Luckily, abolition won those arguments, and Justin gets to live in a world of abolition, where he gets to think the Bible only argues against slavery.
There are more slaves in the world today than during the transatlantic slave trade.
The fact is that slave owners actually created a new abridged version of the Bible specifically for slaves? This was aimed at hiding the anti slavery passages from slaves that were clearly in the Bible? And so slavers purposely edited out all of the anti slavery parts for fear that reading the Bible in full context might encourage a slave uprising - right?
Furthermore, the fact is that the anti slavery passages that emphasised equality between different groups of people were also excised. This included:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither SLAVE nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).
The [Slave Bible] purposely excluded there is NEITHER SLAVE NOR MASTER and was obviously created to hide the fact that the Bible clearly condemns slavery particularly when read in full context.
Interestingly, the [Slave Bible] also edited out the Book of Revelation, which tells of a new heaven and a new Earth in which evil doers will face consequences for their actions.
Also in the book of Exodus the warning against slavery is very severe as it clearly states that…
“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16, ESV)
If the Christian central belief system involved directly encouraging and supporting slavers and was so pro slavery why were slave keepers so keen to edit out those parts in Christian texts about punishing evil and punishing slavery?
Why were slavers a o uncomfortable with allowing their slaves to read the Bible unedited? Me doth think atheists “doth protest too much” about the slavery passages in the Bible when it is actually communist, atheist regimes that have lead to more slavery in the whole of history and the demeaning of human life!!
“Death is the solution to all problems, no man no problem.” - [Joseph Stalin].
@@georgedoyle2487 Of course you have to misinterpret multiple verses in order to make them fit your worldview.
Exodus 21:16 says not to STEAL a slave because slaves are someone's property. Leviticus is clear that slaves are property:
"As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you and from their families who are with you who have been born in your land; they may be your property. " -Leviticus 25:44-45
Also, Galatians 3:28 says that there is no MALE or FEMALE, and I suspect you wouldn't claim that men and women don't exist. Ephesians very clear that slaves should still exist, and not even dare think about being free:
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."
- Ephesians 6:5
You have the gall to say "the Bible clearly condemns slavery" without ever providing one verse to prove your claim. Meanwhile, I have provided multiple verses that explicitly condone slavery, and there are more.
"Today we believe that slavery is wrong"....but apparently God didn't 2000 years ago? Guess that makes us today better than God, from a moral standpoint, right?
Exactly, and that is a good thing.
Yeah, why wasn't there a commandment against slavery?
What makes you think that God didn't think it was wrong ? You make assomptions, better to get your facts straight.
@@EG1994-fr Perhaps because he never condemns it in the Bible. In fact, he gives quite a few instructions regarding how slavery should be practiced.
@@EG1994-fr Unfortunately for your sake, the facts we use when making these "assumption" are the supposed words of God, as spelled out in His holy book. Those are the facts we refer to, and I think we have them quite straight. Straight from the proverbial horse's mouth, if the majority of Christians are to be believed. If God did in fact think slavery was wrong, I think He should have said so. Apparently, no Christian was listening well enough to write it down in the all-important holy book if God ever said a word against slavery.
So Justin's thesis is that "something" is changing, but he doesn't have any statistics to support that? It's hard to imagine how he filled up an entire book about it in that case.
i always found the problem of suffering one of the strongest evidence for the existence of God at the personal level. Reducing suffering, facing struggles, overcoming pain, is the primary thing the brought me to God. Trying to grow up without becoming a bad, resentful person is the main challenge in Life. Saying that God probably doesn't exist because of the suffering in the world, sounds to me like saying that Hideo Kojima probably doesn't exist because Metal Gear Solid is too difficult.
This remains the most secular age ever, and the nones have continued to grow year on year. What’s the definition he gives for rebirth? Is it something statistically significant?
The rebirth he talks about is in intellectual circles and it probably precedes dissemination to wider audience. So we would see it in statistics few years delayed.
@Treesandmountains doubt about christianity probably islam yeah. Most people on the planet live in asia and thy give f all
Remember, he didn't say 'revival', but 'rebirth'. He sees society becoming open to birthing a people turned toward Christianity. That's different than already reborn people being revived into the best followers of Jesus they can be.
@@mioszbies903 lol.
I hope not
Where the new atheists spend their entire careers arguing that religion isn't rational, the religious response used to be "yes, it is." Now, it seems to be more like "yeah, I know." - Alex
I am not convinced any particular god is a reality, for I have never encountered any credible evidence suggesting such a reality. So,until I do encounter sufficient credible evidence that such a reality exists, I will continue to suspend any acknowledgment concerning the truth of _your_ claim that one does.
Do you believe that I am _rationally justified_ in my position?
rational in the sense that it makes groups operate more efficiently with a common goal, not that there’s any truth in a man who came back to life paired with zombies rising up on Jerusalem
"do unto others, as you wish to be done with you"....
Point out the irrationality...
Please.
@@Theo_Skeptomai, I make a silly analogy iydm : remember back in school, when you liked a girl, but you kinda think she's out your league..
A good thing to do was send your friend, to talk to her friend,
"my friend says he likes your friend, can you ask her, if she likes my friend??"
If the answer was "yes"...
Obviously you will approach her, confidently knowing you won't be rejected, right??...
Well, you clearly had cheated!
There's a lot of meaning in the passage when Christ says to Thomas ; because you saw is that you believe?...
Blessed are those who without seeing believe ".....
@@anzawilldie4379 it is irrational to assume that others will want done to them what you want done to you.
Looking forward
I think the single mic setup is a good self-moderating debate format. If I could add a modification, it would be a mic that becomes progressively hotter and uncomfortable to hold until it gets passed to another speaker.
I have just found that the idea of one microphone is a really great idea😊
Just to be clear, Christianity is about working on myself. Christianity as a top down approach is never going to work to "fix" society.
The solution is for me to work on myself and to help others as I am able. Love God. Love my neighbor. Love my enemy.
Love myself? Be my own god? A god is anything I orient my life towards. And if I focus on myself, I will reap the twisted and disoriented fruits. It's just the way it is. It's as real as gravity.
@harlowcj I support what you said if "helping others" or "fixing society" does NOT include:
- Converting or indoctrinating as a condition for help.
- Fixing others' beliefs.
Given that, you are talking about humanism, which is what we need regardless of "otherworldly" satellite ideas.
@@goodquestion7915 Just would like to point out that you are "attempting to fix others beliefs" here.
Can you name somebody who converted to humanism and completely changed how they live their life and relate to those around them? Christianity has a long history of exacting real change from within in a way that I'm very skeptical secular humanism ever could.
Ummm… you realize you said this right?
1.Christianity is about working on myself.
2. And if I focus on myself, I will reap the twisted and disoriented fruits
I don’t think that’s what you mean, but it looks like it lol
It’s funny though that focusing on yourself is put in a negative light…. To many Christians want to focus on every one else’s sins lately to the point that they are hurting more ppl then helping themselves. Maybe leave lgbt ppls alone and quit trying ban their marriage, maybe understand that some women need an abortion for some other reason than birth control, maybe quit damning others who don’t believe the way you do.
If I want to be my own god what is it to you? Why should you care? You can follow your religion but don’t force me to follow your gods rules.
@@harlowcj the church failed me as a kid. I would have died alone if I hadn't discovered the beauty and truth of existentialism. A very different path to a similar conclusion as you 😹
@harlowcj Just one example? Every atheist is a Humanist unless they declare another idealism. They stopped being jerks, which is a big change.
The Christians Hitler and Stalin were not atheists, read real history. The psychopth Mao Zedong was not Humanist.
Rising church attendances would suggest a rising belief in god. I would venture to guess they are not and are continuing to decline. There must be figures for this.
I'd suggest one is only slightly correlated to the other. I'm a Bible believing Christian and even studied theology and religious studies but am not part of any church and never visit one.
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Matthew:6:6
As with many things pertaining to true Christianity, putting our faith in the forefront is not optional - it's a requirement. Believers are called to “let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:16).
Took me one second to find that on Google.
If 20% of the population is Christian, and 13% of that 20% attends Church, and that 13% grows to 20%, the rising "belief in God' has not changed unless the incidence of Christian conversion/belief increases as well.
Alex is 100% correct about these new "conversions". I'm a devout Christian and it sickens me that the Conservative right is seemingly the tunnel of people coming to faith.
It seems to me that the bigot to xtian pipeline is mostly people trying to find ways to justify irrational prejudices they have.
In his first statement Alex is actually making a good point when he questions conversions on thr basis of political beliefs. I speaks for him that he doesn't take the topic of faith lightly.
Commenting as a lower middle class northerner, I have personally seen exactly what Justin is describing. After many years of atheism I have come back to faith and many of my friends have too. The atmosphere around religion has changed
I've noticed the opposite. Countless once devot religious people I know now no longer hold the faith they once did
Well then, I look forward to a better world with all the newly religious people out there. Now we'll be seeing less greed, less worship of money, less war, fewer homeless, etc. It's going to be winderful!!!😊
@@drsatan9617
“Countless”
Oh the irony!! The lady doth exaggerate too much me thinks!!
The irony is that Richard Dawkins right hand man, Josh Timonen, recently had an enormous epiphany and actually totally rejected atheism. That is Josh Timonen, Richard Dawkins right hand man, who was a committed atheist for decades, recently totally rejected atheism/fatalism and epistemological nihilism and became a follower of Christ!!
The double irony is that Richard Dawkins previously dedicated his book [THE GOD DELUSION] to Josh Timonen because of Josh’s enormous input in promoting new atheism but josh has recently totally rejected the premises of Dawkins book and became a follower of Christ - right?
The fact is that Josh totally rejected the claims made in Dawkins books including his famous book the “God Delusion” because he had become unconvinced by Dawkins straw man fallacies and philosophically illiterate attacks on Christianity!
That is Josh totally rejected the same book that has Josh’s name printed in it as a dedication to Josh for his help in deconstructing religious expression. This total rejection of atheism was due to the fact that Josh had a change of heart because he had actually made the effort to study the arguments for theism properly and with an open mind and and a open heart and as a result Richard Dawkins right hand man converted to Christianity.
The irony is that Josh Timonen’s name was honoured in the book [The God Delusion] because Josh worked relentlessly with Richard Dawkins for years and was his right hand man and was committed to spreading atheism and undermining religious expression. The fact is that when Josh Timonen was recently interviewed about his reasoning for becoming a follower of Christ he pointed out that…..
“Atheism is a really useful worldview for weak men." [Josh Timonen: Richard Dawkins former technical aide and former protege].
@@drsatan9617
*
@@drsatan9617
*
This was quite fun. I think what may be going on here is that you are feeling the rise of the none of the above group. They are the fastest growing movement and while many of them don’t believe in a god they also won’t call themselves atheist. The fact there are so many of them reconverting so quickly leads to the older more hardcore atheists getting lost in the sea.
What is your evidence that "so many of them (are) reconverting so quickly"? Got any? No atheists I know feels the least bit "lost at sea", young or old. It takes some courage to call yourself an atheist, so many folks who would actually fit that description may not self-identify as such. Your attempt to wrangle the data on the "none of the above" group reeks of desperation, or at least wishful thinking. But then again, almost all of religion is based on wishful thinking. Well, that and the fear of death.
The gods described in all these texts arent interested in agnosticism. It is believe or burn. That *is* what the texts say.
@@bertrandrussell894 oh i agree either put on the boy pants and say it’s made up or just pick a god.
Many people do not believe in a man in the sky of the Bible or organized religion which asks for money but they believe in superstitions, like the 'Universe', or other unknown powers. Personal spirituality that does not require donations to believe.
29:14 Justin, seeing young atheists maturing to the point that they're not just screaming that they don't believe in God, but actually discussing why they don't believe. As an atheist I now talk with Christians and read more Christian literature than ever. I'm looking at churches to go to... But not because I believe but because I enjoy the conversation
Same here buddy. Do you find the same frustration that outside of Christian spaces there is almost no opportunity to converse about it? I excluded myself from a really good discussion group simply because I could see that my presence and points were only going to be a hinderance to people who are in great need of the love, acceptance and support of the church to keep them on a path that is helpful. I wish this kind of conversation was more commonplace in wider society.
People can't understand that I'm an atheist when I get so excited when talking about the Bible!
You'll find Christians don't actually "enjoy the conversation" like you do, unless they think you're reaffirming the "virtues" of their faith at the same time. That isn't to say that there aren't virtues to their faith. But the predictable behavior by the overwhelming majority will leave you having to find those for yourself, because they sure don't know what they are.
You don't have to say you're an atheist, your face is a dead giveaway.
Fear of losing your human form leads to belief in a higher power called the supernatural or "God".
Unfortunately this god is a fabrication of human desire, offering salvation in exchange for submission.
The same could be said about "The World" (not the planet earth, but the world) The Greek philosophical tradition call it κόσμοςor in English, cosmos(the 2000+ years old word from words like cosmetic comes from) and is also mentioned in the gospel manuscripts
Is Atheism "a fabrication of human desire, offering salvation in exchange for submission"?... The issue isn't being christian or non-christian - it's about humility, honesty and openness to truth. To many people waste their time to try and convince people of their fundamental views. Truth therefore falls astray.
so i assume you don't submit to anything at all right?
you don't listen to the state, police, scientist, schools, even Alex himself or anything at all telling you what you should believe right?
i'm sure you didn't get the jab at all cause you don't submit to nothin cause you just so gosh darn free
Truth for it's own sake can be and is the best reason for searching out belief. This is a strawman to this conversation but good for masses who just want security.
@@NathanGuerraTV I don't know who and what you're refering to. But how can seaking out truth be a strawman to this conversation? And how does it provide "security"? "The price of understanding is letting go what you know" is a saying that in order to seek out the truth you need to challenge your current beliefs. Engaging in questions and beliefs outside your own, can often times be unpleasant. A genuin interest in seeking out truth can therefore provide a feeling opposite of security. But that doesn't mean you don't submit to what you believe to be truly meaningful, at the innermost level. We have to challenge our beliefs from a standpoint of "security" - or all truth will be "relative". Jan Patocka writes that in a society where which the truth becomes "relative" is a state of "security" where "seeking truth" ceases to exist. It ceases the problemacity between "myth" and "faith" (he doesn't use the religous term of faith, but from greek tradtition - you can use religious faith aswell). My point is this, people who genuinly seek the truth (both christians and non-christians) needs to do this by challenging their own beliefs - but out of the security of your innermost beliefs of meaning - this is what people of genun interest of the truth agrees on. This is something called "care for the soul" which means, we are allways on a journey to somewhere we don't yet know is. It would be interesting where Alex's journey takes him - if he at some time will start to believe in God - and thereafter called a hoax and a traitor by his followers.
Thanks for the thoughtful conversation, gentlemen. Alex, I can understand why the problem of suffering is a roadblock to belief in God for you, but I don’t quite understand why “the problem of good” isn’t a roadblock to atheism. Would it be unfair to say that there’s a bit of asymmetry in your thinking on this?
There’s no evil god in Alex’s belief system, so there’s no problem of good
Thanks so much for the comment. I don’t quite understand why one would need to posit an evil god to encounter the problem of good. It seems to me that, on the basis of logical consistency, goodness is a problem for any system that struggles to adequately explain it.
'Most people in the West who say they believe in God actually believe in belief in God.'
Daniel Dennett
I very much enjoyed the conversation but I do want to point one thing out. Justin, you aren't swayed by facts or evidence, you are swayed by what you WANT to believe is true. If you are an honest person you'll have to admit that. Why do you think you feel compelled to push back on the slave bible, and passages that clearly contradict themselves just that particular topic? Sir, you seem like a great intellectual person but I can't see past that you are arriving at "logic" by what you want to believe is true, but not what is evidently not true. A simple rebuttal to the slavery conversation - Do you think that you could re-write the Bible in a better way? If so, do you think there's a possibility that it was written by group of confused group of humans that by no fault of their own, knew very little? The answer is yes, and everything leads to that.
I was raised Christian and I was never told that the Bible wasn't written by humans for humans. That (the idea that it is written directly by God through humans) is more a fundamentalist stance.
Obviously there were different versions of the Bible throughout history with different edits and translations.
Atheists seem to think that contradictions in the Bible are a stronger argument than they really are, especially since it's clearly true if you just read the Bible that different parts of it are meant to be read very differently than other parts of it, including the fact that the New Testament is just very different from the Old Testament.
Insisting that everything written in the Bible MUST be interpreted as God's word exactly and otherwise the entire Christian argument falls apart strikes me as the much more intellectually dishonest argument here...
@@deschain1910 Catholicism teaches the Bible was inspired by God but written by men. We know this. For example, Moses prays to God and asks him to forgive the Israelites by remembering his promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Does anyone think for a second that God really said, "hey that's a good idea, why didn't I think of it?" For a God, being outside of time and space, who sees past, present and for all eternity at once, could man really give him a good idea to change his mind? It is clearly his projection. It is impossible for the eternal to change; only temporal things change.
Why is slavery wrong?
@@angusmcculloch6653 it is wrong because of the dignity of the human person, made in the image and likeness of God.
@@Shawn-nq7du What about the dignity of a human person? What if a person wanted to be a slave? If the person offered to sell themselves into slavery...surely there's no dignity argument to be made there.
When Justin uses words like “new atheists” he is attempting to poison the well before he addresses any argument. It reminds me of when people address an argument against religion by suggesting someone is using a “gotcha” argument. It seems to be avoiding the need to make an argument or to pose your opponent as some sort of confused person going through some sort of fad.
New atheists are defined as the early group around the 2000’s like the 4 horsemen, Silverman, Atkinson, etc. Many of them have commented how the woke movement has made their movement spiral out of control into ridiculousness. And they can’t figure out why.
@@afiron4856 Yeah so you’re say the “New Atheist movement” is a ridiculous movement then? So you consider it a pejorative
@@lotsofstuff9645 no, I said it spiraled into ridiculousness. The four horsemen thought everyone could be civil without God and maintain morality, and they are seeing and admitting THEIR actions brought about the ridiculousness of woke because not everyone thinks like that after all. For reference see what Dawkins and Silverman admit about their role in wokeism.
@@afiron4856 Ok… I’ll just move on from that discussion then because I don’t think it’s going to go anywhere… So most atheists aren’t all that interested in the opinions of “the four horsemen” or if a god can be used to maintain a particular type of morality. Most atheists are simply interested to know if gods are a real or possible thing that exists in reality. When someone try’s to suggest the people need a god to have a particular system of morality, or to avoid what ever this scary “woke” culture is it feels like it’s a deflection from the discussion. Well before anyone has a discussion about what is or isn’t a good morality system, people just want to know if this god thing is real or is it just a tool people are using to attempt control, or something people believe in because they are afraid of death… or something else. It would be great if instead of giving people a new label like “new atheist” or “woke” or what ever new term they would like to come up with, if they would just frankly and openly discuss the topic. Forget about the character of the person asking the question for a second and just discuss the topic. The person asking could be a complete arse, I don’t care. So my original point was stop getting so caught up in playing the man and just play the ball.
@@afiron4856 Ahh…? ok. Let’s move on… “The Four Horsemen” aren’t some leadership of an atheist movement. Most atheists won’t know who they are or what they’ve said. Most atheists aren’t interested in whether morality exists outside of a god belief (which I’m sorry but that is a bizarre argument), or do they care about the term woke. My original point was about not using diversion like this and just talking about if a god actually can or does exist. Personally I would just like to know if god genuinely exists, or are people just believing because they are afraid of death, or because they are under the impression a god is just a useful tool to keep people civil?
Belgium. Churches fall into ruins or become tourist attractions. But everywhere mosques pop up like mushrooms.
a fair amount of Muslims are starting to leave Islam now, there´s better data for it in the US, than in the UK, but it seems that the trends in Christianity over the 20th century are hitting Muslims now, just a fair bit later.
If only there was any Christianity in those churches in the first place
Atheism has brought about the decline of Europe in no less than a decade of rule. This is literally a grave mistake.
Ye it look us quite a few years of education to get people to abandon christianity but islam has just joined civilization so it might take a bit for the education to reach them too
@@GoldenMechaTiger We're not out of the woods yet.
But young people from Muslim families are leaving that 1400-year-old worldview behind as well. The pull of the 21st century is much stronger. Especially in Northern Europe.
Why do religious people ask "how can an atheist possibly know what is right and what is wrong?" In fact the question should be how can a believer possibly know what is right and wrong? Every religion gives totally different moral instruction. In the case of Christianity, the moral instruction is self-contradictory, noticeably between the Old Testament and the New. There is no requirement within religions for moral consistency. What justice could I for instance, as an atheist, expect from a court whose judges adhere to a religion of 'death to non-believers'? By contrast, without the random proclamations of imaginary gods, the philosophical principles of justice are universal. Would we not, all of us, rather submit ourselves to the judgement of a court whose guiding philosophy is reason?
In regard to Christianity being the "source" of morals, it's like claiming no one thought deeply until the more widely known philosophers came into existence. It also ignores the paradoxes within Christianity that too often get hand waved as an unread/simple take.
I find Alex annoyingly brilliant at what he does.
The whole cultural Christian thing reminds me of someone whose loved one has gone missing holding onto hope that the loved one may turn up. While that sort of hope might help provide a sense of purpose and cohesion and comfort amongst the searchers in the initial days and weeks after the disappearance, there does come a point where the healthy thing to do is to say “ok, this is my reality now - my loved one is not here, and I need to figure out life without them”.
I’d be very curious about whether anyone who has become a Christian recently in order to address a crisis of meaning or to heal the culture in some way would have an answer for two questions.
Firstly, how would you know that the time has come to move on from Christianity and try to build something new?
And secondly, would you still identify as a Christian in a hypothetical world where Christianity seemed to have either a neutral or a negative effect on civil cohesion?
@ecta9604 Cultural Christianity is the lasting effects of trauma. It's the equivalent of Religious PTSD.
@@ecta9604
Christianity is not like a lost love
Maybe to you but not to Christians
@@HeIljumperindeed.. the reality is many try to desperately make it difficult for them to find God when it’s not so difficult to find God.
@@HeIljumperI agree. The original poster seemed to immediately assume that Christianity is becoming lost and that seems to assume it has no ability to come back to prominence
With the decline of Christianity comes social chaos - look no further than the nation you live in today. Christianity builds social cohesion; it is a natural side effect.
I find it exceedingly annoying when anyone suggests the idea that slavery was considered acceptable… at anytime. This is to completely disregard the opinions and concerns of the enslaved as if they never mattered then or now. It's attempting an historic rationalization for the moral bankruptcy of it. It was deemed acceptable by those who profited from it... not the victims.
It sounds like you've never been really, really, really hungry, nor have you read the histories of those who were.......... let's say maybe 20,000 years ago and you lived in a small hunting and gathering group that suddenly somehow lost their main food supply........ What little food there was would have been given to the hunters, those who needed it to help bring in more food.
@@charlescoryn9614 : There are desperate people today. They're given aid and comfort and paid wages for their labor. Such excuses and rationalizations to defend this biblical cruelty is unjustifiable.
"Thou shalt not own human beings" would have been an easy and obvious commandment and woefully absent as are banning rape, child abuse, torture, and genocide, all of which are at least as important as not bearing false witness but these "commandments" were written by people who stole land, and killed and enslaved the dispossessed... not some mythical deity.
You are not perceiving slavery as it was hundreds and thousands of years ago, before it was called slavery, before government handouts and 'big brother'.......when to eat meant you had to work.
@@charlescoryn9614 : You don't need to be owned to provide labor for wages or food. There is no justification for it's acceptance in the bible whatsoever. It's one of the worst things people can do to each other and it's actually codified.
@@charlescoryn9614 "You are not perceiving slavery as it was hundreds and thousands of years ago"
"I don't have a real problem with ignorance. We are all ignorant about a variety of subjects we are not currently aware of. The real problem is when that ignorance is wilful, intentional and used as a weapon against anyone who disagrees with you, or anyone who has the nerve to present facts you don't want to accept."
- anyone who actually cares about verifiable reality
“If you can’t beat ‘em with brilliance, baffle their brains with BS.”
- BS artists/religious apologists/trump magats/poutine shills/brexiters/zionist extremists/genocide apologists/neo-nazis/“white replacement” fear mongers/gender critical science deniers/anti-vaxers/flerfs/sovereign citizens/MRA zealots/red pilled sociopathic trolls all over the world
I still don’t see how suffering at all tends toward evidencing that God doesn’t exist.
It might be evidence that an evil god exists, I suppose.
@@umbraemilitos how so? That is highly subjective don’t you think? That assumes that there is no possibility of any type of purpose behind a circumstance doesn’t it?
@@rickbaker261 Does the purpose behind evil make it not evil? If a child dies slowly, suffering in pain under a collapsed building from a war... does some "grand design" make that okay, and not evil?
@@umbraemilitos if I am reading your question correctly, and I may not be, I would answer that God having a purpose for your scenario, does not make the circumstance, in and of itself, good, or less “evil.” God is capable of having a greater glory/good going into and out from such events. Us not knowing it (having not been revealed) or being able to comprehend such does not in any way make it less likely or problematic. We don’t know all things. We cannot see all ends, nor all means. We cannot even see the few means rightly, and we almost never see the ends. “Blind unbelief is sure to err and scan His work in vain, God is his own interpreter and will make it plane…” (William Cowper).
God can sovereignly and providentially bring things about which are incomprehensible to us, but the appropriate response on our part is humility, not blame and shaming our fists.
@rickbaker261 Seems like you've defined a "good god" to be a mystery box that takes no responsibility for the evil in the world, and yet assures us that they are themselves acting in a grand goodness... this honestly sounds like a god that either doesn't care, which is evil, or can't stop evil, making him useless as a god, or perhaps simply doesn't exist. I'm not seeing a way out of those options here.
My lack of belief in any god has both intellectual and emotional components.
To date, I haven't heard any god claim that convinced me that such a god exists.
I also don't need a god to understand how to interact with others, or to generate and sustain meaning in my life, and I am quite comfortable without knowing everything about the universe.
Specifically to Christianity, its arguments are even less convincing than the argument of a general god. Christian theology also requires the eternal torture of non-Christians, and you would have to convince me that my friends and family deserve eternal torture because they disagree, and that would require me to be a terrible person..
If i have to look at the Sun the say it exits they tell me I will probably go blind.
Atheistm is a religion for the autonomous hyper individualistic society, religio means re-binding, so today everyone is about the authenticity of the self, the expressive individual and liberating from gender and even human as universal category. The worship of the ego/self. Man finally freed from all institutionalised social coercions, every man/women as the measure of everything including reality. Man transforms himself to become god.
Not true
nicely put.
atheists don't actually exist, i am atheist because of what YOU believe, on a planet with no god and no notion of god, what would an atheist be called?
you're very ignorant.
and why not? you want god as a best friend, i want to be god, i think i have ambition and you want to be a slave.
and you're ignorant, you haven't a clue chum.
Sounds great. I am a nascent God. Good stuff that atheism.
"Is There a Rebirth of BELIEF IN GOD?" No, there isn't. There is a rebirth of grift by god believers on social media. We're living through the modern reimagining of the god/christ cult belief.
There is a rebirth in GOD. I can attest, as a former atheist of 20 years, and many of my friends were former atheists. Within the last couple years we have all been touched by the hand of GOD. The number of new Christians, and people returning to their faith with new fire and passion is unlike anything I have seen in my lifetime. Of course you deny this because you are still a godless atheist and you hate GOD. Secular society has always been a temporary movement because it came out of the framework and laurels that Christian society built.
@@Tomonaroma1221 You're full of sh*t!
@@Tomonaroma1221Christianity came out of barbaric tribes so what's your point? We came from a mouse like mammal what's your point?
@@Tomonaroma1221What logical conclusion made your belief in God back please explain and enlighten me.
@@GIGADEV690kalam to fine tuning to privileged planet to information in the base of all life to Bible to practical effects of Christianity in one's life. Write it down, stop spamming
The issue is that people forget what the church/religion was like when it was strong.
I remember, but I can see what godlessness is like now that it is strong, and it's rapidly becoming exactly what the fundamentalists said it would be.
@@SeanusAureliusSo the problems in Sxandinavia or Japan are more like Pakistan or India?
I am dismayed when people make the excuse that "Well... The Bible had to accept the reality of slavery." No it didn't. The Bible promoted slavery and it is shockingly absent from the 10 commandments. As in: " Thou shalt not own slaves nor any human as property." That should be way above coveting, honoring parents, and perjury.
That's great , apart from there was no social welfare and to indenture oneself as a slave meant a chance at survival and dignity and to earn ones way back. This was a regulated practice that did not look like the Atlantic slave trade, or modern day slavery in which 40-50 million people are stuck in. The bible says ultimately that there is no one who is slave or free, we are all one in Jesus. If people could master the 3 commandments you gave above, then their approach to slavery in that day would mean a slave who is honoured, looked after and supported with integrity until they paid off their debt. Denial of those commandments gives you the exact character of a morally defunct human, whom we all would know how they would treat their slave - Lack of honour - gaslighting and misleading them with false statements - theft of their possessions etc...
@@SeanathanCreek : It may not have looked like the confederacy but it was still slavery and could have been rejected easily. If you analyze the meaning, the Bible doesn't say no one actually is a slave. They most obviously were. It didn't mean there was actually no men or women either. It says... it means... it doesn't matter to god if you're free or slave, man or woman. So don
't confuse that.
No one suggests that some of the commandments are at least common sense. Killing, stealing, and perjury but the rest are unconstitutional as laws... but mind you , these were and are ubiquitous in every culture and in this context they only applied to other Israelites. They were ordered to kill the people who's land they were stealing. Not in self-defense but for land and power.
@@lrvogt1257 Of course, it meant that their ultimate value as human beings came from their identity in Christ. As God is the giver of all life and death, its within his right to judge those who were beyond saving, which is the level these tribes were at before Israel were tasked with driving them out of the land. We know they weren't all killed because they are mentioned later in the books.
@@SeanathanCreek : The biblical god was an excuse to keep people in line and plunder the region. If it were true it would be evil... fortunately it's a myth based on previous myths.
@@SeanathanCreek : People who wanted slaves made up rules that allowed them to have slaves. There is nothing more to it except they told people god made the rules to rationalize their depravity.
Alex makes a basic logical mistake it seems to me, when says "It could be the case that Christianity is true.... but I still think the motivation here is less theological than we'd like to sort of label it the Christian revival..."; because if Christianity IS true, then the world is a very different place than if it is not true. What might appear to the "neutral" observer to be going on, is not what is really going on. Alex thinks in terms of people being theologically motivated, but he is a philosopher. God is not a philosopher wondering about HIs own existence, He's God, interested in people finding their way to Him... (Even people like Alex, who are interested in theology ; )
Congratulations Justin, you wrote a book from just your feels. Why should anyone read it?
'It seems to me'
'It feels like'
'One time a dude came into my church'
14:02 “What is emerging here?” R: We are leaving this pernicious protestant literalism to go back to a more traditional perspective that is closer to Thomas Aquinas intellectual view of God.
Have you read St. Thomas's books by any chance?
I have the same gut feeling that Justin has, that at a grassroots level Christianity is sparking fresh again. My church is 80% 20-30 year olds and very enthusiastic about serving our community.
Alex is rare, because most people who think as deeply philosophically as he does come to believe in some sort of idealism at the very least. Physicalism just seems so implausible and insufficient as an explanation for our reality.
Isn't physicalism the majority view amongst educated people, even amongst philosophers?
The only metaphysical position I'm 99% sure of is naturalism. When it comes to all other metaphysical positions, including materialism, I'm agnostic.
I'm a new Christian at 38. I have a feeling a lot of people are coming to Christ. Christianity is TRUE, and doesn't have to hide behind lies, distortions, and power games.
@@someonesomeone25 Amongst educated? That's a good question. Do you mean those that are educated in the ivory tower of academia, or those outside and in the work force? I have a suspicious that those in the ivory tower are the majority. I'm curious if the same goes for philosophers? And do you mean doctorate level philosophers, or those who are uncredentialed? I'm not trying to be pendantic... i just believe the context matters. For instance, you can't say most scientists are atheist. It actually matters how you qualify it, because physicist believers are more prevalent than biologists (Ross, 20-20something lol)
@user-bz1pe9xm2h I didn't have a more specific demographic in mind, but it would be interesting to see it broken down.
Where can I find the statistics to show, say, how many professors of philosophy in US and Europe are some form of physicalist/materialist?
It’s so interesting that Alex has a very dogmatic sense of what belief in God is and how one should come to it. It is his new atheism foundations coming through in large part but it is really a reflection of his modernity, i.e. his foundational beliefs in individual authenticity and scientific rationalism as the highest values and thus the only true or real or legitimate way to arrive at Christian (or any) belief.
Yes these new Christians are joining a culture. “Believing” in claims like virgin births isn’t the same as appreciating the actions of Christ.
The main action of Jesus (Christ is an invention) was to get himself killed needlessly by the Romans. I pass on talking up nonsense as a willful act of strength. It wasn't back then and it still isn't.
Really dumb to have them sitting on the same couch and strain the neck for almost 2 hours.
that;s religion for you. expect god to sort everything out. 🤣
I don't have any time for someone who considers Jordan Peterson to be an intellectual. I stopped there.
@@arjuna190178 Peterson is just an annoying contrarian.
Good point actually. Peterson is a joke. Incoherent blablabla. And highly narcissistic.
@@MrSeedi76 He is just an annoying contrarian, who won't commit to anything.
He's intellectual. But he's not god absolutely he's wrong on lots of things but seems like u r that because U r not politically agree with him. Read his book 'maps of meaning'.
@@narendrasomawat5978I don’t disagree with because I have no idea what his position is. He won’t commit to anything. I’ve seen far too much of him already. I have no intention of reading anything from him.
I’d rather read someone whom I totally disagree with, but actually states what they believe (or don’t believe) and argues their case.
When people say something like “it’s not about logic” it really hurts my brain. Logic isn’t a thing you switch on and off depending on the argument. Otherwise you are just abandoning reason. It amazes me that we have gotten to a point where people are so tied to a belief they want to be true that they suggest it doesn’t matter if it makes sense or is illogical. Once we get to that point of a conversation we aren’t talking about if something is true or real. We are just arguing about what we want to be true. Its not a healthy path to go down.
Is love real?
@@williamschlass6371 When you say “is it real”, what exactly are you asking? It’s an emotion. Emotions exist. They are a process that your body (mostly your brain) goes through. So of course it’s real. Are you perhaps trying to get at something you’re trying not to say?
@@williamschlass6371 yes its an emotion that exists we know how it works at least to some extent
It feels weird to be defending Justin as I didn't find his arguments terribly compelling, but I don't think he argued that it isn't about logic. He (and even Alex) argued that it isn't about reason. Since love was brought up already in this comment thread, I'll use it as an example. People don't tend to reason themselves into loving someone. Love is an emotion that isn't dependent on a person's ability to reason. There are a number of factors that go loving another person, but whether or not it makes sense to do so does not tend to be a one of them. The argument here is that most religious people don't reason their way into belief. They have a religious experience that to them is as real as the emotion of love. Personally I have never had such an experience (and I doubt I'm built in a way that makes me capable of having one), but I think trying to reason most people out of (or into) a God belief probably makes much sense as reasoning them out of (or into) loving someone.
@@binkey3374 Yes, people can come across ideas via methods that are poorly thought through. I agree with that. Our instinct is to use a simple method such as instinct, an emotional response, or perhaps more of a hope. However since civilisation and probably more so since the enlightenment, we have attempted to fight our natural instinct to try and use more reliable methods. I agree that people don’t always, but if we want to find out how things work or what is or isn’t real then the methods we use to determine love or what we feel about things isn’t a good method to use. Religious arguments are ultimately about things that are supposed to exist in reality. Whether in this reality or some other supernatural one (to whatever extent that means). Either gods or supernatural things exist or they do not. Surely if we want to propose gods as a possible option to explain anything we would need to know if gods are a possible thing. I’m not aware of a good way to test that. Talk about how lots of people are generally convinced about things is all well and good, but if I’m honest it sounds like people are using poor methods. Encouraging better methods would probably be better. If we use better methods and they point to gods then great. If we use poor methods and they point to gods then I really don’t know what to do with that information.
I have to add a comment to emphasize on the respect shown in this discussion. My goal is to communicate with opposing views in this manner. Thank you for a great example
Alex is a brilliant debater.
Alex is right on. Theists try to pin atheism to cultural/political/ethical matters when atheism has nothing to do with those. It only says there’s no good reason to think a Creator exists yet. And that remains. Theists only complain about our moral handicap but offer no solutions. As a human, not an atheist, I then give an answer that we study and deliberate. That’s the best we can do with subjectivity and it helps. Theists just want to give up just because no Creator exists. It is irresponsible and lazy.
I understand your point. I think the issue is more nuanced. For instance:
1) For theists - “What is God? Define it please.” While a very small percentage will have the old man in the sky version, I suspect most will be vastly more nuanced… to the point that many may privately admit to not understanding why Jesus dying for our sins… makes much sense… from their nuanced impression of what god is perspective.
2) For atheists - “If we remove religion (Christianity, Islam, etc) from the discussion of god, and if we - in good faith - try to understand the 1st mover/Platonist argument for a creator (not god, per se) outside of religious dogma… can you appreciate the argument?”
@@BruceWing1.) I think the definition of a thing ought to be a prerequisite for a belief in that thing. This line of thought is where igntheism / theological non-cognitivism comes from.
2.) What even is a prime mover or unmived mover? Is it not a contradictory concept? Does nature need a "first cause" at all?
@@umbraemilitos - I don’t disagree that people should attempt to better define their terms. That said, it is such a big topic, it’s understandable that it’s hard to define. Think about a unified field theory in physics. At a high level, we understand what it means. Digging deeper however, physicists have a difficult time discussing details.. because they don’t understand how things fit together. Also, like discussions of a god/creator, we have theories of a multiverse… or of the universe being a simulation. They are hypotheses that some people believe are true, but there is no evidence that they are true. Even if they are true, one can reasonably still hypothesize a first mover.
As to your other questions, they are reasonable. So are questions relating to a first mover. If the universe created itself, that’s wild. Magical even. And if a first mover (whatever that even means) did it, that’s wild. Magical, too. Either direction one goes, one is in a supremely weird situation.
@@BruceWing 2. Sure but arguments for Deism go in the trash because positing a first cause and such helps nothing. It remains in that case we have no supernatural help and must create heaven and immortality ourselves. Theism stunts that progress.
1. Yeah certainly because vicarious redemption via theatre of human sacrifice is abominable and blatantly unjust. That’s why theologians will admit it’s a “gift” they say. So that’s not justice.
That Justin finds the moral argument the strongest is telling.
lol why? Atheists love talking about morals all the time. Always talking about the horrors in Palestine or Ukraine or whatever. But they can't ground any of there moral beliefs so its ultimately just how they feel.
@@TheGogogwoIt's telling because rather than using any of the arguments related to external evidence, like the FTA or argument from miracles, he thinks the strongest is the one that ultimately rests on feelings and desires - that he feels as though some things are truly evil and desperately wants it to be the case that goodness and evil exist in some objective form.
But the moral argument is very weak because of this reliance on subjective feelings.
It shows that he has a strong sense of empathy and justice, but is willing to go with feeling over evidence in order to appease his desires in a way that is psychologically comfortable. When I was a believer I was the same - I desperately wanted it to be true. But I had to face the fact that it isn't. And that's ok.
@@someonesomeone25 You know what honestly I kinda agree with that. Moral argument isn't an argument you should be mainly using to prove the existence of God. I believe the FTA, resurrection, kalam and prophecies are better arguments Christians should be using more. I will stand by though that in this culture where athiests are obsessed with social justice the moral argument can be very attractive to them once they understand that they can't justify there morals past there feelings.
@@TheGogogwo I'm glad we can agree that the moral argument is not a particularly strong one.
It's interesting that you think it has utility for those atheists who are progressive or concerned with justice and social change. I would fall into that category: I am liberal, socialist, democratic, progressive etc. But I am also a moral nihilist. I don't think the MA is as effective as you think in getting justice minded atheists to reconsider theism.
@@someonesomeone25 Just one question last question as a moral nihilist how do you reconcile the fact you can't justify any of the justice you want in the world other than a preference. Essentially the horrors happening in Palestine is about as relevant as someone not liking the colour purple in that worldview. Or getting other moral nihilists who have different preferences to care about these social justices? The only way that can be done is appealing to there feelings of empathy hoping they have some because if they don't not much else can get them to care.
If the rebirth of GOD is political, then that means atheism is political. If atheism loses by politics, then that proves atheism is weak and has nothing more than politics propping it up. The truth is, the rebirth of GOD is people starving for SPIRITUAL TRUTH in a spiritually bankrupt society. And atheism is largely to blame for our spiritually bankrupt society. The people have awoken to the realization that atheism is a false and hopeless philosophy, and it is evil. Spiritual truth is what people thirst for now, something atheism does not and cannot provide. ❤✝️
Agrree with much of that. But perhaps way too broad to say “the people have awoken…..”. Something does seem to be going on but declaring it to be a general movement among “the people” is an unsupportably broad statement of the kind that can impede the conversation.
How can Atheism largely be to blame for our society when Atheists aren't in control and only make up about 3% of the world population? If anyone is to blame for society, look at Islam and Christianity who make up the majority of society.
@@gregsimmons7981Agreed. Making fairly grandiose leaps here. Also, awoken to which specific “truth,” and can anyone really say that an unprovable thing is somehow undeniably true?
In a hypothetical world where Christianity seemed to have a negative influence on social cohesion, similar to the one you attribute to atheism, would you remain a Christian?
Try to really imagine yourself in such a world and think of what you’d do if you truly believed Christianity was causing your society to unravel.
If you would remain a Christian despite believing it was actively harmful to social cohesion, you’re probably a real Christian. If you wouldn’t, you’re a LARPer.
People are not thirsting for SPIRITUAL TRUTH, at least according to statistics.
One more question :- If you are a CHRISTIAN, why have you not not included the name JESUS in the title of your book???
brierly's mob aren't interested in jesus, i have a saying "if you want to be a good christian, be atheist" i don't need gits like the apologists mob to direct me how to be a decent human.
watch some apologists videos, it's ENTIRELY about winning arguments and atheist bashing, check the time spent on jesus then atheists.....
Exactly! And if the New Testament is about Jesus - where is Jesus in its name?!
Around 00:48:00 | It's funny that people are turning to mind-altering substances and experiences as opposed to getting more involved in their community (maybe that's happening). Like religion, it offers an "escape", but fixes very little, unless that are intended to help with coping to the unavoidable. Hopefully people continue smartening up, and engage in meaningful ways, and, at the same time, identify the tricks that have been used between humans to benefit only one, and not both.
Justin is the one apologist who I actually still view as honest, inquisitive and not as biased as other apologists. A great respite from the *less honest* ones
Generally when moderating talks, yes. But when he's not moderating and making his own points, it's kinda the same fundamentally dishonest theist talking points (made worse when you realize he *knows* the faults to those arguments, because they've been discussed around him!).
@@majmage
Couldn't agree more.
Justin is very good as a moderater, even though it's noticeable to tell where he really stands on the issues being discussed.
But when he talks without being a moderator he ticks of the entire bingo-fallacy-card 😂
@@majmage a fair point
Atheist are unbiased and honest🤔. You are unbiased and honest?
@@majmage why would you label them dishonest?
Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don’t understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God. 2CORINTHIANS 4:4
If Satan has blinded us, shouldn’t God step in and do something about it?
Fairytales😂
Praise satan? Can’t you see the beauty and brilliant creation all around us?
@@iks9120 Like you believe everything else in your life. Made up fairytales.✝️💞🙏✌
@@10jonchannel You don't see the beauty of God's creations? Do you think all people is just like you?✝️💞🙏✌
It only took Justin half an hour to completely backtrack on the entire hypothesis of his book
@54:13 was anyone else shocked to hear Justin say "fuck" ? I'm not a christian but that still surprised me
Their shared Mouths utterances are so close! Yet, their shared hearts are SO FAR AWAY!!!!
Can a theist answer how they differentiate imagination from reality?
That's easy. If your imagination doesn't agree with my imagination, it's not reality. But my imagination is reality because trust me bro.
well noone can perfectly I guess
@@S.D.323 we have methods that work better than others. Novel predictions has worked. Lucky rabbit foot hasn’t…for example.
With that in mind, do you have a method?
What does this question suggest?
@@chosengen1able that the theist belief is founded on a failure of thought. That being unable to differentiate imagination and reality.
The rebirth of god is distinctly political.
I was an Atheist for over 10 years. I researched Jesus and his existence and the eye witness accounts. I also don't fear if there's nothing after death. It's not why I believe now. Someone special was born 2000 years ago and changed the world. People definitely witnessed something remarkable.
No, people are seeing with their own eyes what type of evil comes pouring down on us absent God and His law, most are unable to name such a perception accurately due to the weakness of the church but it is the deep instinct to repent.
There are no eye witness accounts.
@@wills9392Amen
@@ssppo4703 Keep telling yourself that. There's more proof of Jesus' existence, life, teachings and crucifixion through the eye witness accounts and other sources even outside the bible than anyone else in antiquity.
If there is a rebirth in belief it’s certainty not showing up via stats and research, but I guess that’s what faith is for…
Exactly. It is all just empty claims. What else is new in the world of baseless theistic fantasy?
Praying for Alex.
He would love to believe and he knows he needs to suspend his logic and reason to open the door.
I think Christians need to stop trying to avoid this fact. There are some logical reasons to accept a creator, but relationships need some willingness to engage and an openness to experience and it is very often on our knees either physically or philosophically that we encounter divinity.
This shouldn’t be glossed over. It is the basis of the Christian story to suffer and be redeemed
Alex is very sensitive to animal suffering. Do you think he would "want" to believe that billions of humans will burn in hell?
He actually says that is not his objection, but that sounds hard to believe that Alex, or anyone, would want to believe that. A loving God that forgives and saves everyone? I think he might want to believe in that.
No being should torture any other being, ever. That seems right to me.
Sad that the two biggest religions believe this, perhaps this is why they are taking over the world? Fear? I hope love wins.
@@joecheffo5942 why you telling me this? 🤣
I think alex’s problem is he has a very cynical reading of the bible.
He tends to have a more accurate reading and understanding of the Bible and theology than most Christians. But maybe you meant something a little different. He has a theology degree from Oxford, I believe.
What is wrong with that. Why is that a problem?
@@MrCanis4because cynicism is irrational. Blind
I think like briley says he ends up reading like a fundamentalist which is why it seems he misses the story. He has a very left brain read i think.
@@bedi4090 what do you mean by fundamentalist?
Christ wins in the end ❤
I dont think that is true.
@@someonesomeone25 u will see it in the future don't worry sir the genz are waking up to the woke culture and gender delusional which is byproduct of new age athiesm there are young man who believe in building families and family values and athiesm doesn't offer that it just promotes individualism
@@skateVlogger Are you saying that the apocalypse will occur in my lifetime?
@@someonesomeone25 Christ will win in the end with or without u ❤🩹☦️
@@skateVlogger a snake has 12 eyes and 13 limbs. Do you see how I just claimed complete utter bs without supporting my claim. And that just saying shit in no way makes it true. Your vile unintellectual opinions are sadly exactly what makes YT tick. Thanks for not thinking zealot
In what sense is there a xtian rebirth? Looking like its dying here in UK.
Or replaced by islam. Lik here in Belgium.
Islam is growing, and will conquer most of Europe. Serves you right for abandoning Christianity.
i was born in the 50's and i thought even the church was atheist, that the bible was "guidelines" but not an actual history.
@@MrCanis4 islam is dying too, it's just that no one will admit to hating it's guts.
Briefly specifically did not say there was a rebirth of Christianity. Listen again. He says it 20-30 times it seems in the conversation. The book title does not even say it. Get the argument right at least.
What the heck? The guy wrote a book on the topic and he has no clear idea what he's arguing for here? And Alex doesn't have anything to add? Is there a rebirth or not? I don't know either really pushed many points to make their point. They simply agreed, there are some people who have drawn toward belief in God or religion and some people who haven't. So?
Whether there's a rebirth of believe in god, or islam is growing fast... what's important to me is whether or not the god claims and the baggages that come with it are can be satisfactorily proven to be true. I couldn't bring myself to believe in something im not convinced of being true