*Knock, Knock ;* Who's there ? It's Jesus. What do you want ? I want you to let me in. Why ? So I can save you. Save me from what ? To save you _from what I'll do to you, if you don't open this damn door._
Something I've always said to believers concerning this 'hiddenness', is if an objective god existed objectively, it would exist objectively for all and clearly it does not.
@@jdsartre9520 yeah possibly, but is any of that claimed to be omnipresent and omnibenevolent? Remember, something that is omnipresent - meaning literally in every thing and every place, cannot be hidden or revealed. So there are three logical conclusions that we can infer from this information, either that this "god" does not exist, it's not omnipresent or it doesn't care, which counters the claim of omnibenevolence. If it's not omnipresent or omnibenevolent then clearly it's not the "god" of the Bible. 🤷♂️
@@davidarbogast37 I'm with ya. For the sake of hitting all their 'arguments' I'll play angel's advocate: "something that is omnipresent cannot be hidden or revealed" True for anything not omnipotent, which God is. So of course God can be everywhere while not letting people see or detect him. Besides, when people say God is everywhere and in everything, of course they don't take that as everywhere you look you'll see him. They fully believe he can be everywhere but of course is invisible. They're using god logic.
@@jdsartre9520 as I've said, if something is omnipresent then it cannot be hidden or revealed, and claiming that it could be under omnipotence is just special pleading. But also though, if this "god" actually desires a relationship with us, why would it go to the extent to make itself invisible? That would be like claiming that I want a relationship with my son but I'm not going to have that relationship with him because I'm hiding and only when he finds me will I have the relationship that I desire with him. It's completely nonsensical.
And yet, people still delusionally say stupid things like "I bet if it were a man that we were talking about, you wouldn't have commented on his appearance!!"
I have a nonresistant nonbelief whenever I see a notification for a Matt Dillahunty video it will ever be something uninteresting, I just know from experience. Love all you do Matt!
As a lifelong atheist, I desperately wanted and still want there to be a god and heaven as the idea of death being the end still doesn't compute in my brain. However, no argument has ever convinced me of the existence of any such entity. When I was 13 I came upon the atheist experience and listening to not only your moral arguments, but also your view on the natural world and natural death, gave me at least some tools to deal with the existential dread. Please keep doing what you are doing. Your sharp arguments give me always food for thought. P.S. Love the slow transition into Santa Claus, the beard looks good on you.
@@naturalisted1714This sounds like reincarnation, but trying to remove any religion from it, but without any evidence. It's a nice idea, but without substance.
@@aukemebel4263 It's definitely not reincarnation. Although there are similarities. It's completely naturalistic. I made a bunch of 📽️s on it. Check out "Visualizing Generic Subjective Continuity | Atheism and Death".
@@naturalisted1714 I'll check it out tomorrow, I'll come back to you. Do you mind my most honest opinion on it? I'll leave it as a large comment on it tomorrow morning.
I've been an atheist my whole life and it's not because I don't want there to be a god. It's because I legitimately do not believe there is one. Those who say I'm lying to myself, or delusional, or whatever are simply demonstrating they have no idea what they're talking about. Though, the underlying motive is pretty clear. I can't exist for that theology to be true, as interpreted by those who make those claims. They need me to be disingenuous or deluded for their theological worldview to work. That's a real shame, but it doesn't change the reality of who I am as a person.
Can't agree with this sentiment more. Reunited with my father after 20 years him leaving me and my mom high and dry. Finally broke the news and he hit me with that + "You were never a true Christian." Like how the fook would you know, you were never around you nutty qanon bigoted ignorantly arrogant piece of shiiet. I cut him out of my life so fast.
Once you find out how it all works, you will understand why its only the 'Christian God' is being debated. Why not the other religions? I was an atheist for a long time, but eventually things didnt add up anymore and i found myself in the situation where i learned that is a/more God(s). But the one i feel is the one that created us. I dont go to church, my house is my church. The churches are subversed into something horrible. Thats pretty much the main reason these debates are happening. But they dont hapoen in the other religions. How come? I have yet to meet a muslim or of the others that is debating the religion he grew around with the way Atheists do. Its always onesided. Take care.
@@Puttenoar Who says it's only Christianity? Christianity is the most popular religion in my specific society, so sure, it comes up a lot, but it's not just Christianity. Besides, aside from Muslims, I don't believe I've ever been accused of being a liar by any other religion.
I was once in hospital with septicemia. It was as close to death as I have ever knowingly come. There was a period of a couple of hours there in my hospital bed where I was afraid, where I feared judgement *if* God was real. Did I treat it as a divine revelation? No. I treated it as a mental phenomenon probably driven subconsciously by a culturally Christian upbringing. I'm a musician so instead I pulled out my phone and wrote a first draft song lyrics about the experience while I was having it. But having that experience I understand the type of thing that a Christian might consider revelation and why they might try to argue God revealed himself to me and I resisted him.
@@exhumus Did you go to the hospital? Did you get treatment by people who know what they are doing? As a musician, do you know what a plectrum is? As a musician, have you heard of the famous flamenco guitarist whose name rhymes with Placebo Domingo? I won't ask if you know what a sceptic is. If it isn't clear, ask someone else or let it pass. Best wishes.
Would Saul/Paul have accepted Christianity without the 'road to Damascus experience'? If so, then God is violating Paul's free will. If not, then God is acknowledging that different people require different revelations/experiences to believe.
Indeed. And God allegedly did this for an enemy of Christianity. (Saul/Paul) Would Adam & Eve have eaten the "fruit" without the intervention of the serpent ? If yes, _then why put the serpent in the story ?_ If No, then they were the victims of a con/deception. A huge problem for 2 beings that had never encountered a lie before and had no reason to think that such a thing as deception was even possible.
@@ianalan4367 *Twisted Parenting ;* If a parent left a bottle of pills out in the open, and told their kids "not to touch them", if they took them & overdosed we would not punish the children, but instead we would punish the parent, because the parent set up the situation with their negligence. *(Made worse, by God knowing the outcome, yet refusing to protect them)* *God, the victim ?* If "sin" is a crime against God, then that would make God, a _victim of crime._ But if God is all powerful, then there is nothing a human could possibly do to hurt God, which would then make "sin" a _victimless crime._ *_I'll tell you all about God_** ;* Your understanding of God is based upon the words of men that "claim" to speak for God. (Bible) With thousands of versions/denominations of Christianity, believers can't agree on a whole plethora of important moral issues. "Gods word" is 100% subjective to the interpretation of the believer. (like all religions)
@@ianalan4367 *_Twisted Parenting_** ;* (Adam & Eve) If a parent left a bottle of pills out in the open, and told his kids "do not touch them", but his kids took them & overdosed, we would never punish the children, but instead blame the parent for their obvious negligence. *Set Up For Failure :* By an "all knowing" God, that knew, they would eat the fruit. *_Gods Morality_** ;* (the fall) Is it immoral to punish an innocent person for the "sins" of their ancestors ? God chose to punish all of humanity because 2 of his children broke a rule. *_God The Victim_** ?* If "sin" is a crime against God, that would make God, a victim of crime. But since God is _all powerful_ and can't be harmed by humans, that would make sin, _a victimless crime._ *The Bible = **_Gods words & deeds_** ?* As written, spoken and interpreted by the men that "claim" to speak for God. *(same as all religions)*
@@ianalan4367 *_Not A Punishment_** ?* Being kicked out of Eden, _(the paradise garden that God had originally intended for humanity)_ was not a punishment ? To now have to sweat & toil for their food. To now suffer disease, famine & natural disasters. As well as all of the horrors that wild life must now endure, such as being killed & eaten. Adam & Eve Sin against God, so God punishes all of humanity & the animals : *_Gods Choice_** .* Take Care ianalan
@@ianalan4367 *_Not A Punishment_** ?* So, being kicked out of Eden, _(the paradise garden that God had originally intended for humanity)_ is not a punishment ? To now have to sweat & toil for food. To now have to suffer famine, disease & natural disasters As well as, all of the horrors that animals now face in the wild, such as being eaten. (alive ?) Adam & Eve sin against God, so God chooses to punish all of humanity & the animals as well. *_100% Gods Choice_** .* Take Care ianalan
The “Tuttle” episode of the old show M*A*S*H* was one of the early contributors to deconstructing my indoctrinated god. To this day, when I hear people going on about how strong their relationship with Christ is, I think of Tuttle. Give it a watch!
@@marouanpater2334Tuttle was much like a Christ myth. The perfect all sacrificing soldier. The bigger the myth grew, the greater became the incentive to lend consensus to Tuttle's existence.
what annoys me is when worship is conflated with belief. I am not resistant to belief, but if I am convinced that the god of the Bible existed, I still wouldn't worship it. many theists will write me off as resistant to belief, seeing it as a distinction without a difference. I find it distressing that they can't imagine someone knowing this character without worshipping it.
It's not about believing God exists. Even the demons believe that. Do you believe Jesus is the son of God who brings the good news of the gospel to save His people from justified damnation? Do you believe He saves YOU specifically? That is the question.
Before this I wasn't familiar with the argument, but now I can see why it's considered stronger than the problem of evil. As a rational/non-resistant non-believer, who would damn love to have a religion to give me absolute certainty in my morals and importance in the universe, there really isn't a reason God is hidden.
I think is because christians havent found a token answer for this argument. The one for the problem of evil is 'free will', even if that answer means god is not omniscient and thus the problem of evil remains standing.
@@Julian0101 The Free Will argument only holds if and only if, there actually is free will. So it's just another way to beg the question, characteristic of the Christian delusion.
@@Julian0101 The problem of free will is the instigator of the most energetic theist's mental gymnastics, especially when trying to claim their God's "omnis".
I'm not sure if this argument, or the problem of evil is stronger, but either one is sufficient to show that the tri omni God doesn't exist. Maybe a God exists, but both arguments rule out a tri omni God.
There's a permutation of the nonresistant nonbelief argument that I like: Replace "nonbelief" (in the deity entirely) with "disagreement on a point of doctrine". For example, some believers think you must be baptized to be saved, some think it's just a ceremony. God should be capable of making it clear to every believer, yet disagreement persists. So, each believer must conclude that all the other believers who disagree with them about baptism are resistant/irrational, which is so absurd as to be a reductio as far as I'm concerned.
Sorry to copy n paste, but: And yet, people still delusionally say stupid things like "I bet if it were a man that we were talking about, you wouldn't have commented on his appearance!!"
@@Raz.C "Aha, I found a comment about a man's appearance. That's conclusive proof that men and women get essentially equivalent comments on their appearance, and I can rest easy with my belief that society has perfect gender equality" Maybe you see the egregious cherry-picking there. But if you accept that 1 or 2 comments say practically nothing about broader statistical trends, then your "and yet" has no logical grounding, and that's little more than a non-sequitur. So your comment is bad in any case.
@@blueredingreen Your insinuations are like those idiots who think that The Big Bang and Evolution are Atheist Theories. They think that denying evolution will invalidate atheism, without understanding that atheism is just the negative response to the single question of 'Do you believe in God?' That's it. That's all atheism is. It's just answering "no" to the question of "Do you believe in God?" Although, really, it's any answer other than "Yes," that makes an atheist. You DO understand, don't you, that I said NONE of those things you tried force-feeding me, nor did I imply them. No, my comment is simply a response to a challenge. To those delusional idiots who say "You'd never comment on a man's appearance," well, here's a comment on a man's appearance. If you want to pretend that there's more to it than that, then go for it. Just don't involve me in your games. Don't put words in my mouth and don't imagine I meant things other than what I wrote. Ps: There are actually quite a LOT of comments on his appearance.
Very much enjoying this video, and appreciating the added nuance of it not just being about whether people are resistant or not, but also about whether people are being rational or not. Especially since so often, folks characterize simply not liking the idea of a certain god existing as being resistant, when in reality, I can dislike the idea of X thing existing and still acknowledge that it exists if it appears to, in fact, exist.
@@DarkDodger ok seriously? If you guys can't differentiate between sexual relationships and personal/spiritual one I don't know if you should qualify as atheists because we sort of have an intelligence standard to maintain over here. Not all relationships are equal. Family relations are not the same as friends, which are not the same as life partners...and if this is the first time you have come across this idea I'm a little disturbed over here but I won't ask any more questions about what you do with your family
@@radscorpion8 we are the bride of christ are we not? Have you read the last book of the old testament? I made a stupid word play but there actually is biblical support for the idea.
@@jackkrell4238 idk.. the purpose of evidence is to filter out bullshit from fact, saying good evidence does this doesn't tell me how to tell what good evidence is. I'll take the other points as reasonable contributors though.
@@uninspired3583 I guess good evidence would really just be actual evidence, but since nothing has turned up from theists they claim that anything they come up with is evidence.
@@jackkrell4238 that seems redundant. I'm looking for criteria, how do we recognize evidence as something that should be compelling? It's easy to confirm our beliefs, but good evidence should be able to update our positions. It's important to understand what it should take to change a view, or we could be governed by bias and emotion.
Matt, if you haven't watched it yet, you need to watch the latest Alex O'Connor's interview of WLC about the Canaanites. That is something. No wonder why Dawkins always refused to share a stage with Craig. Kudos to Alex for keeping his calm during that interview, I would have lost it...
My parents' credulous oldest son asserts that my non-belief is a result of my rebellion towards our parents in spite of me advising him explicitly otherwise. Yes, he's my older brother, but referring to him as my parents' oldest son, (though, never to his knowledge), has afforded me great amusement while creating a personally important distinction between us that suits me. It also amuses our younger brother. BTW, our father, for whom I, the middle of three sons, am named and whom I love and adore in so many ways, is a retired SDA pastor of some remarkable prominence. My two brothers and I are all in our 60s. While closing our infrequent communications, invariably initiated by me, my older brother and I consistently confirm our mutual love and devotion for one another. It's so frustrating how condescending believers are forced to become in order to justify and defend their irrational positions.
It's also not too uncommon with political topics, conspiracy theories, etc. for people to accuse others of being dishonest or immoral. That's far easier than contending with the fact that other intelligent, well-informed people honestly reached a different conclusion than you did (which is a difficult intellectual problem at the best of times). The problem is far worse with (certain denominations of) Christianity, because that entire worldview requires that people who reached a different conclusion are being dishonest or immoral.
Every spiritual belief is real to those that need them to be real. But are considered to be culturally based nonesense to everyone else. So its rational to reject every other spiritual belief. But its somehow totally irrational to reject theirs. That's ptetty convenient.
A defense I heard from a religious person is that God only has to reveal himself to me before my death and not by any particular time I feel he should.
Which is just a nonsensical cop-out, given that death is mostly a miserable part of one's life and that such argument would imply that god cares more about "converting" them to eliminating their pain.
"When inventing a god, the most important thing is to claim it is invisible, inaudible, and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing." -LindseyBrown
The confusion in the church is what makes this argument really kick for me. Suppose I were to believe every word in the Bible, which church would I join? Which doctrine of salvation, which view of the sacraments, etc? If almost all Christians were in agreement with one another, then it would seem to me that maybe they knew something that I didnt. But given the fact that most churches historically anathematized each other, if I did believe, I would not know what to do next.
Trying to eavesdrop on a mosque somewhere? Has your team entered the playoffs? Your “BeardClub” subscription really workin wonders? Sorry…I’m done.JK. Lookin great! Love you Matt. Will be in the audience in Tampa on 3/29.
I certainly once thought of myself as a "Nonresistant Nonbeliever". I was convinced that I was right. Now, I realize that my being "convinced" was the demonstration of my resistance. Non-belief was the rational conclusion. I was not lying about my belief (or lack thereof), and I don't think atheists are lying or acting irrationally. However, I think that belief is a requirement for being in the relationship with God. Much respect to you Matt.
I've always wondered why a "perfect" (maximized in every conceivable way) being would have any needs or desires. Like the need or desire to create anything in the first place or much less desire relationships with it's creations less it be not maximized in those areas thus making it imperfect and not omnipotent.
God is always reaching out to you, is always attempting to communicate and commune with you. But you cannot hear him or recognize it or feel the holy spirit because of your hardened heart, pride, lack of worthiness, or distracted by worldly things. Or because you don't have enough faith. That's what I learned. If the magic doesn't work, it's your fault.
Every theist I've talk to says I'm the problem. That I am indeed resisting because for them, it's impossible for there to be no god. When I point out that they are no different when it comes to my magic universe creating socks, that fact is simply ignored. They're right, I'm wrong and that's that.
I feel quite rational about being anti-theist (biblical or indifferent creator), and, even if I wasn't, I would still feel quite resistant to any attempts at the imposition of faith... I don't know how else to interpret resistant, though I have a feeling that's not what you mean... I am anti-theist because I think that faith brings more hurt then help ! I don't mind their faith if they keep mostly to themselves without trying to conquer all ! There's a lot of things I'd like to say about the inherent errors in faith, but I can't imagine to have to stretch my mind like you do and keep the flag up, I get unrest just thinking about it, so thanks for taking care of things !
I think the term ‘nonresistant’ could have been fleshed out more for people unfamiliar with it. I’ve surely overheard some clue but I, until mid-video, thought that n. n. was referring to people who didn’t resist the belief in God because they didn’t know about him. Which, in fact, makes for an interesting argument as well because it necessitates God making his religion depend on human ambassadors, which is kind of weak and has demonstrably led to various schisms and countless denominations. (Of course, I understand now that this is all about the old Christian claim that unbelievers are against believing simply “just because”.)
I don't know how to ask you what do you think about that. So I am going to write it here again. There was debate between you and JP back in some time ago where you were discussing secular moral system. You came to conclusion that the life is better than death. The problem I have is that people don't and can't know what happens after death, so how can you tell for sure that life is more preferable without knowing what happens after death? Isn't that just faith statement? I can't find an answer to this and I would aprecciate any help ❤
i agree with you completely and I am an atheist. When do we discuss the financial benefits of belonging to a religion and that is the true reason many if not most send money to the televangelists.
A well meaning priest once told me that I really am a Christian in my heart but I just can't see this yet. He based this on me generally being a good person as evinced by me taking care of my elderly relatives and stray animals.
I find it really amusing that saying "if you're a good person, you must be a Christian" is somehow considered more polite than "if you're not a Christian, you must be a bad person", even though both claims are logically equivalent.
I dont know if its because people that debate in youtube are either non catholics or north american... but I was raised catholic in Spain and no one ever told you that there was any evidence of anything. On the contrary, one of the most valued virtues is FAITH, commitment to BELIEVE that those teachings are true, to act according to it etc. You can check the vatican cathechism online, is right there. There is nothing to debate, because there is nothing but beliefs based on will to do it. Some people can and want to believe, and some people like me... we just cant, even if we tried as kids and adults.
I dont even know what a resistant non-believer is, or if that is even possible. Does that imply that if god revealed himself to me, I could just not believe in him, because im resistant? That sounds like a big bowl of christian cope.
If god can have anything that it wants, and it wants me to believe that it exists, then I would believe that it exists. Since I don't, either god does not want me to or god does not exist. If god does not want me to believe that it exists, then why would any believers have a problem with that?
Incorrect, buddy. I always love it when non-believers can comprehend the contents of the magical books that theists adhere to. It not only referred to the character of Job's occupation of mining and that when the earth is "turned up"( given how scientifically clueless they were, they believed that the sun revolved around the earth and that the sun was literally on top of the planet) it gives the appearance of fire, but it doesn't mention the core at all. The core isn't actual fire, nor is it "transformed". Any attempt at claiming that the bible contains even a shred of scientific fore-knowledge is a complete post-hoc rationalization at best, and an appeal to incredulity/ignorance at worst. You would think that such data ostensibly pertaining to science would be a lot more thorough and less ambiguous if it was divinely inspired don't you think?
And yet, people still delusionally say stupid things like "I bet if it were a man that we were talking about, you wouldn't have commented on his appearance!!"
Don’t you over get bored talking about the same thing day in and day out? I mean how many shows can you do on atheism? At first it was interesting, now it just wears on me
I have two attitudes to belief in a god. The first is a practical one. I am not required to make that decision, and no decision that I make on a daily basis is dependent on my belief in a god. That is to say in my day to day life the question of whether or not a god exists is never posed. It's simply something that I never think about. If the question is posed then the initial response is that it is an annoyingly irrelevant question. The second attitude is if pressed for an answer I would then use the skills and training I have been given to analyse the question, and not just in a hypothetical manner. The definition of belief would emerge from that training, and a definition of god would emerge from the bible. On review of all available evidence and using the given definitions of belief and god the answer would be no. I am not at all sure where "resistance" is involved. To me it suggests the cultural basis for belief is peer pressure, and that the definition of belief is different to what I have been taught it to mean. For resistance to belief to exist it requires a definition of belief that relates to choice and societal expectations of behaviour. This in turn means that by this definition belief cannot exist without the existence of other people. Which in turn means a view point that cannot conceive of complete isolation. Which in turns requires the existence of at least one other being at all times. Which in turn requires the existence of a god. So it seems to me that the issue is one of language and the framework that it sets up of a universal view. If someone's view that the term belief can only exist with the existence of other beings, then an inherent belief in a god is natural corollary, and that there couldn't be such a thing as a non-resistant non-believer.
Isn't rational nonbelief actually self-explanatory in regards to the use of "belief" in a religious context, ie. when not being convinced by the mere claims about the existence of ambiguously described evidence for a supernatural entity or phenomenon?
Literally semi engaged with some dude who posted that stupid song about God everyone uses for their shorts and I came across this video. Copied the URL and replied to them with it to watch. Hahaha
lol. But isn't that rather obvious? If there were such a creator would we not be in hell right now? Or do you seriously think this is the worst a truly evil God can do? Come on man...
@@radscorpion8 Why would you assume that the worst it could do to us necessarily would be at the beginning? It could simply choose to be systematic about it, bringing all of us into this temporal hell only to have it transition into an eternal one when we physically die. Would it be any the less evil for that? Of course not. After all, ultimately it would still be getting its money's worth wouldn't it.
Is it just me or is Matt with his beard rocking that “Divine deity “ look? The backlighting gives him a “heavenly glow”. Lol He is Atheismo! Our saviour from stupidity!
These sorts of arguments surrounding the nature of God are perfectly legitimate, but I find them boring. It's like saying you don't believe in Santa because you don't believe he's really sincere.
What would it take to believe in Jesus? Well, if Christians actually had the evidence they claim to have. Or if God performed one of the hypothetical miracles they think would be unconvincing. Theists, on the other hand, often claim they could not be convinced even by God himself if he didn't live up to their preconceived beliefs.
If there is a god that wants a personal relationship with me that is hidden unless we have a rekatiodhip, then it is up to them to introduce themselves to me.
Here’s a thought… god knows exactly how to prove his existence to you. But also knows that you would rationally recognise his immoral nature, and wouldn’t praise him, even if did know him. Therefore, there’s no point in revealing himself to anyone that wouldn’t follow blindly.
If a god exists who is all powerful and all knowing and all wise then the entire Cosmos is always exactly what this god wants. There is no way around this.
On a bit of a tangent, I dislike the term nonresistant nonbelief. It suggests (I know how the term's used technically, but the image the combination of words evokes is what I'm on about) that one should be guĺlible and give up the non-belief when presented with any kind of argument or evidence, regardless of how good it is. I don't think that's a good way to go about anything in life, and I don't see how a god-claim is any different.
Agree, I think there are good reasons to be resistent, as part of healthy skepticism. I think what the term is trying to get at though is something like a claim that I'm not biased against the idea. A common rhetoric against atheism is a complaint we set the bar so high that no amount of evidence could raise to it - making disbelief irrational. "non resistent non belief" is designed to counter that line.
*Knock, Knock ;*
Who's there ?
It's Jesus.
What do you want ?
I want you to let me in.
Why ?
So I can save you.
Save me from what ?
To save you _from what I'll do to you, if you don't open this damn door._
Jesus Parker with Venom.
*knock knock*
Who's there?
Jesus Christ.
OK, don't get your knickers in a twist, I'm only asking.
@@skateboardingjesus4006😂😂😂
Yep. Religion is an extortion racket.
Nice afterlife you've got here... Be a shame if anything bad happened to it...
Something I've always said to believers concerning this 'hiddenness', is if an objective god existed objectively, it would exist objectively for all and clearly it does not.
Is there anything that exists objectively in our world or universe that is not obvious or visible to all?
@@jdsartre9520 yeah possibly, but is any of that claimed to be omnipresent and omnibenevolent?
Remember, something that is omnipresent - meaning literally in every thing and every place, cannot be hidden or revealed. So there are three logical conclusions that we can infer from this information, either that this "god" does not exist, it's not omnipresent or it doesn't care, which counters the claim of omnibenevolence. If it's not omnipresent or omnibenevolent then clearly it's not the "god" of the Bible. 🤷♂️
@@davidarbogast37 I'm with ya.
For the sake of hitting all their 'arguments' I'll play angel's advocate:
"something that is omnipresent cannot be hidden or revealed"
True for anything not omnipotent, which God is. So of course God can be everywhere while not letting people see or detect him.
Besides, when people say God is everywhere and in everything, of course they don't take that as everywhere you look you'll see him. They fully believe he can be everywhere but of course is invisible.
They're using god logic.
@@jdsartre9520 as I've said, if something is omnipresent then it cannot be hidden or revealed, and claiming that it could be under omnipotence is just special pleading. But also though, if this "god" actually desires a relationship with us, why would it go to the extent to make itself invisible?
That would be like claiming that I want a relationship with my son but I'm not going to have that relationship with him because I'm hiding and only when he finds me will I have the relationship that I desire with him. It's completely nonsensical.
Your look is increasingly Randiesque, sir!
Quite amazing!
I was thinking Dan Dennett
Damn! I was thinking that.
I haven't watched the video yet cause I'm at work, but the beard is looking stellar 👍
And yet, people still delusionally say stupid things like "I bet if it were a man that we were talking about, you wouldn't have commented on his appearance!!"
It's actually nose and ear hair.
He looks like an Imam that he is about to debate 😅
@@Raz.C very very difficult to make comments on a woman’s beard….
Surely depends on the woman!
I had no idea Santa was so well versed in philosophy. I thought he just made toys.
Your old video on Divine Hiddeness was always interesting to me, happy to see you expand on it here.
I have a nonresistant nonbelief whenever I see a notification for a Matt Dillahunty video it will ever be something uninteresting, I just know from experience. Love all you do Matt!
As a lifelong atheist, I desperately wanted and still want there to be a god and heaven as the idea of death being the end still doesn't compute in my brain.
However, no argument has ever convinced me of the existence of any such entity.
When I was 13 I came upon the atheist experience and listening to not only your moral arguments, but also your view on the natural world and natural death, gave me at least some tools to deal with the existential dread.
Please keep doing what you are doing. Your sharp arguments give me always food for thought.
P.S. Love the slow transition into Santa Claus, the beard looks good on you.
Look into Generic Subjective Continuity.
@@naturalisted1714This sounds like reincarnation, but trying to remove any religion from it, but without any evidence.
It's a nice idea, but without substance.
@@aukemebel4263 It's definitely not reincarnation. Although there are similarities. It's completely naturalistic. I made a bunch of 📽️s on it. Check out "Visualizing Generic Subjective Continuity | Atheism and Death".
@@naturalisted1714 I'll check it out tomorrow, I'll come back to you. Do you mind my most honest opinion on it? I'll leave it as a large comment on it tomorrow morning.
I've been an atheist my whole life and it's not because I don't want there to be a god. It's because I legitimately do not believe there is one. Those who say I'm lying to myself, or delusional, or whatever are simply demonstrating they have no idea what they're talking about. Though, the underlying motive is pretty clear. I can't exist for that theology to be true, as interpreted by those who make those claims. They need me to be disingenuous or deluded for their theological worldview to work. That's a real shame, but it doesn't change the reality of who I am as a person.
Can't agree with this sentiment more. Reunited with my father after 20 years him leaving me and my mom high and dry. Finally broke the news and he hit me with that + "You were never a true Christian."
Like how the fook would you know, you were never around you nutty qanon bigoted ignorantly arrogant piece of shiiet.
I cut him out of my life so fast.
Once you find out how it all works, you will understand why its only the 'Christian God' is being debated. Why not the other religions? I was an atheist for a long time, but eventually things didnt add up anymore and i found myself in the situation where i learned that is a/more God(s). But the one i feel is the one that created us.
I dont go to church, my house is my church.
The churches are subversed into something horrible. Thats pretty much the main reason these debates are happening. But they dont hapoen in the other religions. How come? I have yet to meet a muslim or of the others that is debating the religion he grew around with the way Atheists do. Its always onesided.
Take care.
@@Puttenoar Who says it's only Christianity? Christianity is the most popular religion in my specific society, so sure, it comes up a lot, but it's not just Christianity. Besides, aside from Muslims, I don't believe I've ever been accused of being a liar by any other religion.
@@Puttenoar insufferable
@@Puttenoar insufferable
I was once in hospital with septicemia. It was as close to death as I have ever knowingly come. There was a period of a couple of hours there in my hospital bed where I was afraid, where I feared judgement *if* God was real.
Did I treat it as a divine revelation? No. I treated it as a mental phenomenon probably driven subconsciously by a culturally Christian upbringing. I'm a musician so instead I pulled out my phone and wrote a first draft song lyrics about the experience while I was having it.
But having that experience I understand the type of thing that a Christian might consider revelation and why they might try to argue God revealed himself to me and I resisted him.
The hospital professionals and broad plectrum Placebo Domingo Skepticaemia saved you.
@@VaughanMcCue What are you even talking about?
@@exhumus
Did you go to the hospital?
Did you get treatment by people who know what they are doing?
As a musician, do you know what a plectrum is?
As a musician, have you heard of the famous flamenco guitarist whose name rhymes with Placebo Domingo?
I won't ask if you know what a sceptic is.
If it isn't clear, ask someone else or let it pass. Best wishes.
@@VaughanMcCue It's ok. I got it after a re-read. I'd had a few drinks and just come out of a Rocky Horror Picture Show performance. Cheers! ;)
The same arguement Alex O'Connor made in a talk, and a great one at that
Would Saul/Paul have accepted Christianity without the 'road to Damascus experience'?
If so, then God is violating Paul's free will.
If not, then God is acknowledging that different people require different revelations/experiences to believe.
Indeed.
And God allegedly did this for an enemy of Christianity. (Saul/Paul)
Would Adam & Eve have eaten the "fruit" without the intervention of the serpent ?
If yes, _then why put the serpent in the story ?_
If No, then they were the victims of a con/deception.
A huge problem for 2 beings that had never encountered a lie before and had no reason to think that such a thing as deception was even possible.
@@ianalan4367
*Twisted Parenting ;*
If a parent left a bottle of pills out in the open, and told their kids "not to touch them", if they took them & overdosed we would not punish the children, but instead we would punish the parent, because the parent set up the situation with their negligence.
*(Made worse, by God knowing the outcome, yet refusing to protect them)*
*God, the victim ?*
If "sin" is a crime against God, then that would make God, a _victim of crime._
But if God is all powerful, then there is nothing a human could possibly do to hurt God, which would then make "sin" a _victimless crime._
*_I'll tell you all about God_** ;*
Your understanding of God is based upon the words of men that "claim" to speak for God. (Bible)
With thousands of versions/denominations of Christianity, believers can't agree on a whole plethora of important moral issues.
"Gods word" is 100% subjective to the interpretation of the believer.
(like all religions)
@@ianalan4367
*_Twisted Parenting_** ;* (Adam & Eve)
If a parent left a bottle of pills out in the open, and told his kids "do not touch them", but his kids took them & overdosed, we would never punish the children, but instead blame the parent for their obvious negligence.
*Set Up For Failure :* By an "all knowing" God, that knew, they would eat the fruit.
*_Gods Morality_** ;* (the fall)
Is it immoral to punish an innocent person for the "sins" of their ancestors ?
God chose to punish all of humanity because 2 of his children broke a rule.
*_God The Victim_** ?*
If "sin" is a crime against God, that would make God, a victim of crime.
But since God is _all powerful_ and can't be harmed by humans, that would make sin, _a victimless crime._
*The Bible = **_Gods words & deeds_** ?*
As written, spoken and interpreted by the men that "claim" to speak for God.
*(same as all religions)*
@@ianalan4367 *_Not A Punishment_** ?*
Being kicked out of Eden, _(the paradise garden that God had originally intended for humanity)_ was not a punishment ?
To now have to sweat & toil for their food.
To now suffer disease, famine & natural disasters.
As well as all of the horrors that wild life must now endure, such as being killed & eaten.
Adam & Eve Sin against God, so God punishes all of humanity & the animals : *_Gods Choice_** .*
Take Care ianalan
@@ianalan4367 *_Not A Punishment_** ?*
So, being kicked out of Eden, _(the paradise garden that God had originally intended for humanity)_ is not a punishment ?
To now have to sweat & toil for food.
To now have to suffer famine, disease & natural disasters
As well as, all of the horrors that animals now face in the wild, such as being eaten. (alive ?)
Adam & Eve sin against God, so God chooses to punish all of humanity & the animals as well.
*_100% Gods Choice_** .*
Take Care ianalan
The “Tuttle” episode of the old show M*A*S*H* was one of the early contributors to deconstructing my indoctrinated god. To this day, when I hear people going on about how strong their relationship with Christ is, I think of Tuttle.
Give it a watch!
Seen it. Loved it. But dont get your meaning. Could you explain?:)
@@marouanpater2334Tuttle was much like a Christ myth. The perfect all sacrificing soldier. The bigger the myth grew, the greater became the incentive to lend consensus to Tuttle's existence.
This has been a topic I have been thinking a lot about for the past year. Thanks for addressing it.
Matt! The beard is getting more and more epic with every video! That is all.
what annoys me is when worship is conflated with belief. I am not resistant to belief, but if I am convinced that the god of the Bible existed, I still wouldn't worship it. many theists will write me off as resistant to belief, seeing it as a distinction without a difference. I find it distressing that they can't imagine someone knowing this character without worshipping it.
Agreed.
Divine command theists like to talk about morality, but they don’t actually understand the concept. All they understand is obedience.
Especially when they also believe in Satan.
It's not about believing God exists. Even the demons believe that. Do you believe Jesus is the son of God who brings the good news of the gospel to save His people from justified damnation? Do you believe He saves YOU specifically? That is the question.
@@andrewdavis1986But… the alleged demons believe that, too.
Thank you for everything you do.
Answered more questions in one video than the christian god ever did in supposedly 4,000 years. 😂😂😂
What questions did you have?
Matt your beard of knowledge is a thing of beauty.
Before this I wasn't familiar with the argument, but now I can see why it's considered stronger than the problem of evil. As a rational/non-resistant non-believer, who would damn love to have a religion to give me absolute certainty in my morals and importance in the universe, there really isn't a reason God is hidden.
I think is because christians havent found a token answer for this argument. The one for the problem of evil is 'free will', even if that answer means god is not omniscient and thus the problem of evil remains standing.
@@Julian0101 The Free Will argument only holds if and only if, there actually is free will. So it's just another way to beg the question, characteristic of the Christian delusion.
@@Julian0101
The problem of free will is the instigator of the most energetic theist's mental gymnastics, especially when trying to claim their God's "omnis".
I'm not sure if this argument, or the problem of evil is stronger, but either one is sufficient to show that the tri omni God doesn't exist. Maybe a God exists, but both arguments rule out a tri omni God.
I think theyre pretty equally strong but the problem of evil is just ever so slightly more powerful to me
There's a permutation of the nonresistant nonbelief argument that I like: Replace "nonbelief" (in the deity entirely) with "disagreement on a point of doctrine". For example, some believers think you must be baptized to be saved, some think it's just a ceremony. God should be capable of making it clear to every believer, yet disagreement persists. So, each believer must conclude that all the other believers who disagree with them about baptism are resistant/irrational, which is so absurd as to be a reductio as far as I'm concerned.
The great and wise bearded one.
Sorry to copy n paste, but:
And yet, people still delusionally say stupid things like "I bet if it were a man that we were talking about, you wouldn't have commented on his appearance!!"
@@Raz.C "Aha, I found a comment about a man's appearance. That's conclusive proof that men and women get essentially equivalent comments on their appearance, and I can rest easy with my belief that society has perfect gender equality"
Maybe you see the egregious cherry-picking there. But if you accept that 1 or 2 comments say practically nothing about broader statistical trends, then your "and yet" has no logical grounding, and that's little more than a non-sequitur. So your comment is bad in any case.
@@blueredingreen
Your insinuations are like those idiots who think that The Big Bang and Evolution are Atheist Theories. They think that denying evolution will invalidate atheism, without understanding that atheism is just the negative response to the single question of 'Do you believe in God?' That's it. That's all atheism is. It's just answering "no" to the question of "Do you believe in God?" Although, really, it's any answer other than "Yes," that makes an atheist.
You DO understand, don't you, that I said NONE of those things you tried force-feeding me, nor did I imply them.
No, my comment is simply a response to a challenge. To those delusional idiots who say "You'd never comment on a man's appearance," well, here's a comment on a man's appearance. If you want to pretend that there's more to it than that, then go for it. Just don't involve me in your games. Don't put words in my mouth and don't imagine I meant things other than what I wrote.
Ps: There are actually quite a LOT of comments on his appearance.
I duno why but the thought of a god sending a "do you want to go to prom circle yes or no" message is hilarious. Thank you :)
Loved following along the logical steps that you took. I can tell you really prepared well for this video. THANKS MATT!!!! :D
Very much enjoying this video, and appreciating the added nuance of it not just being about whether people are resistant or not, but also about whether people are being rational or not. Especially since so often, folks characterize simply not liking the idea of a certain god existing as being resistant, when in reality, I can dislike the idea of X thing existing and still acknowledge that it exists if it appears to, in fact, exist.
great video matt!
As George Carlin once said "Maybe he just doesn't give a s**t"
God wants to have a relationship with all men, and it's wrong for me to be promiscuous? Talk about a double standard!
He wants to have a relationship with all of their wives too, but adultery is a sin.
@@DarkDodger ok seriously? If you guys can't differentiate between sexual relationships and personal/spiritual one I don't know if you should qualify as atheists because we sort of have an intelligence standard to maintain over here. Not all relationships are equal. Family relations are not the same as friends, which are not the same as life partners...and if this is the first time you have come across this idea I'm a little disturbed over here but I won't ask any more questions about what you do with your family
@@radscorpion8
--> The joke -->
--> -->
-> Your head ->
@@radscorpion8 we are the bride of christ are we not?
Have you read the last book of the old testament? I made a stupid word play but there actually is biblical support for the idea.
I’m very open to believe things……as long as there’s GOOD evidence. It’s very simple.
How do you decide what makes evidence good?
@@uninspired3583 Anything that isn't a faulty argument, anecdotal/circumstantial claim, or complete bullshit purported as fact.
@@jackkrell4238 idk.. the purpose of evidence is to filter out bullshit from fact, saying good evidence does this doesn't tell me how to tell what good evidence is. I'll take the other points as reasonable contributors though.
@@uninspired3583 I guess good evidence would really just be actual evidence, but since nothing has turned up from theists they claim that anything they come up with is evidence.
@@jackkrell4238 that seems redundant. I'm looking for criteria, how do we recognize evidence as something that should be compelling?
It's easy to confirm our beliefs, but good evidence should be able to update our positions. It's important to understand what it should take to change a view, or we could be governed by bias and emotion.
Thank you, Matt, for being you!
Matt, if you haven't watched it yet, you need to watch the latest Alex O'Connor's interview of WLC about the Canaanites. That is something. No wonder why Dawkins always refused to share a stage with Craig. Kudos to Alex for keeping his calm during that interview, I would have lost it...
My parents' credulous oldest son asserts that my non-belief is a result of my rebellion towards our parents in spite of me advising him explicitly otherwise.
Yes, he's my older brother, but referring to him as my parents' oldest son, (though, never to his knowledge), has afforded me great amusement while creating a personally important distinction between us that suits me. It also amuses our younger brother. BTW, our father, for whom I, the middle of three sons, am named and whom I love and adore in so many ways, is a retired SDA pastor of some remarkable prominence. My two brothers and I are all in our 60s. While closing our infrequent communications, invariably initiated by me, my older brother and I consistently confirm our mutual love and devotion for one another.
It's so frustrating how condescending believers are forced to become in order to justify and defend their irrational positions.
It's also not too uncommon with political topics, conspiracy theories, etc. for people to accuse others of being dishonest or immoral. That's far easier than contending with the fact that other intelligent, well-informed people honestly reached a different conclusion than you did (which is a difficult intellectual problem at the best of times).
The problem is far worse with (certain denominations of) Christianity, because that entire worldview requires that people who reached a different conclusion are being dishonest or immoral.
That's a good summation.
Thank you Matt. Well needed subject to be addressed
Every spiritual belief is real to those that need them to be real. But are considered to be culturally based nonesense to everyone else.
So its rational to reject every other spiritual belief. But its somehow totally irrational to reject theirs. That's ptetty convenient.
Love the beard, Matt.
A defense I heard from a religious person is that God only has to reveal himself to me before my death and not by any particular time I feel he should.
Which is just a nonsensical cop-out, given that death is mostly a miserable part of one's life and that such argument would imply that god cares more about "converting" them to eliminating their pain.
+1 for rockin the James Randi beard!!
Love your arguments, but your beard is the star of the show now.
Great vid
WOW! The beard is a blast, very nice..🎉😊
"When inventing a god, the most important thing is to claim it is invisible, inaudible, and imperceptible in every way.
Otherwise people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing." -LindseyBrown
The confusion in the church is what makes this argument really kick for me. Suppose I were to believe every word in the Bible, which church would I join? Which doctrine of salvation, which view of the sacraments, etc? If almost all Christians were in agreement with one another, then it would seem to me that maybe they knew something that I didnt. But given the fact that most churches historically anathematized each other, if I did believe, I would not know what to do next.
Trying to eavesdrop on a mosque somewhere?
Has your team entered the playoffs?
Your “BeardClub” subscription really workin wonders?
Sorry…I’m done.JK. Lookin great! Love you Matt. Will be in the audience in Tampa on 3/29.
Matt is giving off Yoda vibes with his beard
Yoda doesn't have a beard tho..
I certainly once thought of myself as a "Nonresistant Nonbeliever". I was convinced that I was right.
Now, I realize that my being "convinced" was the demonstration of my resistance. Non-belief was the rational conclusion. I was not lying about my belief (or lack thereof), and I don't think atheists are lying or acting irrationally. However, I think that belief is a requirement for being in the relationship with God.
Much respect to you Matt.
Just sayin… you’re looking more n more Heavenly Father like Matt. Rocking that beard flow buddy!
Does anyone else think that Matt is slowly turning into James Randi (not a bad thing)😁
love the beard mate, looks a lot better than your old goatie type beard, wish mine was as thick and full as yours mate.
I've always wondered why a "perfect" (maximized in every conceivable way) being would have any needs or desires. Like the need or desire to create anything in the first place or much less desire relationships with it's creations less it be not maximized in those areas thus making it imperfect and not omnipotent.
God is always reaching out to you, is always attempting to communicate and commune with you. But you cannot hear him or recognize it or feel the holy spirit because of your hardened heart, pride, lack of worthiness, or distracted by worldly things. Or because you don't have enough faith.
That's what I learned.
If the magic doesn't work, it's your fault.
Well this is nice. I hadn't seen James Randi in a while.
Every theist I've talk to says I'm the problem. That I am indeed resisting because for them, it's impossible for there to be no god. When I point out that they are no different when it comes to my magic universe creating socks, that fact is simply ignored. They're right, I'm wrong and that's that.
Mannn, I don't really care about this shit, I just wanted to see your beard...
Strong beard, bro.
I feel quite rational about being anti-theist (biblical or indifferent creator), and, even if I wasn't, I would still feel quite resistant to any attempts at the imposition of faith...
I don't know how else to interpret resistant, though I have a feeling that's not what you mean... I am anti-theist because I think that faith brings more hurt then help ! I don't mind their faith if they keep mostly to themselves without trying to conquer all !
There's a lot of things I'd like to say about the inherent errors in faith, but I can't imagine to have to stretch my mind like you do and keep the flag up, I get unrest just thinking about it, so thanks for taking care of things !
I think the term ‘nonresistant’ could have been fleshed out more for people unfamiliar with it. I’ve surely overheard some clue but I, until mid-video, thought that n. n. was referring to people who didn’t resist the belief in God because they didn’t know about him. Which, in fact, makes for an interesting argument as well because it necessitates God making his religion depend on human ambassadors, which is kind of weak and has demonstrably led to various schisms and countless denominations. (Of course, I understand now that this is all about the old Christian claim that unbelievers are against believing simply “just because”.)
I don't know how to ask you what do you think about that. So I am going to write it here again.
There was debate between you and JP back in some time ago where you were discussing secular moral system. You came to conclusion that the life is better than death.
The problem I have is that people don't and can't know what happens after death, so how can you tell for sure that life is more preferable without knowing what happens after death? Isn't that just faith statement?
I can't find an answer to this and I would aprecciate any help ❤
i agree with you completely and I am an atheist. When do we discuss the financial benefits of belonging to a religion and that is the true reason many if not most send money to the televangelists.
Ladies and Gentleman, your Prom King!
"There are no such thing as non believers" Talk about bowling with the intellectual guard rails up. The weakest of sauce.
Again, if there is a god who doesn't want me to believe in him then the atheists are better followers than believers.
Good points. I'll agree to the prom at that point too.
i’ve seen apologists such as mike winger attempting to answer these questions and horribly fail
Matt´s got curls in his beard! Hidding god in there, Matt?! :)
I'm a rational non-resistant non-believer and so is my wife
Matt,
Can you recommend some books to me to learn philosophical arguing like you?
A well meaning priest once told me that I really am a Christian in my heart but I just can't see this yet. He based this on me generally being a good person as evinced by me taking care of my elderly relatives and stray animals.
I find it really amusing that saying "if you're a good person, you must be a Christian" is somehow considered more polite than "if you're not a Christian, you must be a bad person", even though both claims are logically equivalent.
I dont know if its because people that debate in youtube are either non catholics or north american... but I was raised catholic in Spain and no one ever told you that there was any evidence of anything. On the contrary, one of the most valued virtues is FAITH, commitment to BELIEVE that those teachings are true, to act according to it etc. You can check the vatican cathechism online, is right there.
There is nothing to debate, because there is nothing but beliefs based on will to do it. Some people can and want to believe, and some people like me... we just cant, even if we tried as kids and adults.
One piece of "evidence" given often by Catholics is the shroud of Turin.
I dont even know what a resistant non-believer is, or if that is even possible. Does that imply that if god revealed himself to me, I could just not believe in him, because im resistant? That sounds like a big bowl of christian cope.
Agreed. Resistant non-worshipper, sure, but resistant non-believer isn't possible
'Επίγνωση' (epignosis) better translates to awareness
So we need to look on the GSM relationship forum...
If god can have anything that it wants, and it wants me to believe that it exists, then I would believe that it exists. Since I don't, either god does not want me to or god does not exist. If god does not want me to believe that it exists, then why would any believers have a problem with that?
*_HOLY_* beard!
Where'd that bad boy come from?
The beard looks good.
Matt Dillamander
Matt Dillameleon
Matt Dillazard
Going for the Daniel Dennet look, I see.
I think its an interesting thing that some people in the comments mimic the way Matt talks.
nugget of sunshine
Questioning religion guarantees an endless source of content. But gives religion an undeserved amount of exposure.
Religions which permeate society deserve to be endlessly exposed.
By Matts beard be praised😮
As a bearded man myself I am jealous that his beard isn't all freaking curly and snarly
I like the "God beard". Very ironic.
As for the core of the Earth being hot, well, Job 28:5 mentions it: "The earth, from which food comes, is transformed below as by fire."
Incorrect, buddy. I always love it when non-believers can comprehend the contents of the magical books that theists adhere to. It not only referred to the character of Job's occupation of mining and that when the earth is "turned up"( given how scientifically clueless they were, they believed that the sun revolved around the earth and that the sun was literally on top of the planet) it gives the appearance of fire, but it doesn't mention the core at all. The core isn't actual fire, nor is it "transformed". Any attempt at claiming that the bible contains even a shred of scientific fore-knowledge is a complete post-hoc rationalization at best, and an appeal to incredulity/ignorance at worst. You would think that such data ostensibly pertaining to science would be a lot more thorough and less ambiguous if it was divinely inspired don't you think?
I am a resistor because I am a skeptic. Any supernatural experience is going to be challenged by me.
Santa?
Depends on what you want
Nothing that I don't have to resolve for myself or that you aren't already doing. Thank you!
And yet, people still delusionally say stupid things like "I bet if it were a man that we were talking about, you wouldn't have commented on his appearance!!"
@@Raz.C I'm sorry, I don't get it. English isn't my first language, I might also be extra dense today.
Don’t you over get bored talking about the same thing day in and day out? I mean how many shows can you do on atheism? At first it was interesting, now it just wears on me
I have two attitudes to belief in a god. The first is a practical one. I am not required to make that decision, and no decision that I make on a daily basis is dependent on my belief in a god. That is to say in my day to day life the question of whether or not a god exists is never posed. It's simply something that I never think about. If the question is posed then the initial response is that it is an annoyingly irrelevant question. The second attitude is if pressed for an answer I would then use the skills and training I have been given to analyse the question, and not just in a hypothetical manner. The definition of belief would emerge from that training, and a definition of god would emerge from the bible. On review of all available evidence and using the given definitions of belief and god the answer would be no. I am not at all sure where "resistance" is involved. To me it suggests the cultural basis for belief is peer pressure, and that the definition of belief is different to what I have been taught it to mean. For resistance to belief to exist it requires a definition of belief that relates to choice and societal expectations of behaviour. This in turn means that by this definition belief cannot exist without the existence of other people. Which in turn means a view point that cannot conceive of complete isolation. Which in turns requires the existence of at least one other being at all times. Which in turn requires the existence of a god. So it seems to me that the issue is one of language and the framework that it sets up of a universal view. If someone's view that the term belief can only exist with the existence of other beings, then an inherent belief in a god is natural corollary, and that there couldn't be such a thing as a non-resistant non-believer.
I'm a non-resistant, non-believer.
Love the ending lol
Matt kicking irrationality's ass. As usual.
Isn't rational nonbelief actually self-explanatory in regards to the use of "belief" in a religious context, ie. when not being convinced by the mere claims about the existence of ambiguously described evidence for a supernatural entity or phenomenon?
Bloody hell, where did the beard come from.
His chin.
Matt Dillahunty is turning into James Randi.
Daniel Dennette 😆
Looking more and more like the great James Randi himself!
Literally semi engaged with some dude who posted that stupid song about God everyone uses for their shorts and I came across this video. Copied the URL and replied to them with it to watch. Hahaha
I'm not able to convince myself that I'm not unconsciously worried about the existence of an all powerful creator that's evil.
lol. But isn't that rather obvious? If there were such a creator would we not be in hell right now? Or do you seriously think this is the worst a truly evil God can do? Come on man...
@@radscorpion8 Hey you don't know. Maybe a taste of a normal life is important context so you can suffer more while knowing what you lost? :P
@@radscorpion8
Why would you assume that the worst it could do to us necessarily would be at the beginning? It could simply choose to be systematic about it, bringing all of us into this temporal hell only to have it transition into an eternal one when we physically die. Would it be any the less evil for that? Of course not. After all, ultimately it would still be getting its money's worth wouldn't it.
@@ryonalionthunder
I think there may be something to that.
Is it just me or is Matt with his beard rocking that “Divine deity “ look? The backlighting gives him a “heavenly glow”. Lol
He is Atheismo! Our saviour from stupidity!
These sorts of arguments surrounding the nature of God are perfectly legitimate, but I find them boring. It's like saying you don't believe in Santa because you don't believe he's really sincere.
What would it take to believe in Jesus? Well, if Christians actually had the evidence they claim to have.
Or if God performed one of the hypothetical miracles they think would be unconvincing.
Theists, on the other hand, often claim they could not be convinced even by God himself if he didn't live up to their preconceived beliefs.
If there is a god that wants a personal relationship with me that is hidden unless we have a rekatiodhip, then it is up to them to introduce themselves to me.
Here’s a thought…
god knows exactly how to prove his existence to you.
But also knows that you would rationally recognise his immoral nature, and wouldn’t praise him, even if did know him.
Therefore, there’s no point in revealing himself to anyone that wouldn’t follow blindly.
If a god exists who is all powerful and all knowing and all wise then the entire Cosmos is always exactly what this god wants.
There is no way around this.
Sam Shamoun would smoke your boots in a debate.
On a bit of a tangent, I dislike the term nonresistant nonbelief. It suggests (I know how the term's used technically, but the image the combination of words evokes is what I'm on about) that one should be guĺlible and give up the non-belief when presented with any kind of argument or evidence, regardless of how good it is.
I don't think that's a good way to go about anything in life, and I don't see how a god-claim is any different.
Agree, I think there are good reasons to be resistent, as part of healthy skepticism. I think what the term is trying to get at though is something like a claim that I'm not biased against the idea. A common rhetoric against atheism is a complaint we set the bar so high that no amount of evidence could raise to it - making disbelief irrational. "non resistent non belief" is designed to counter that line.