@@animalsarebeautifulpeople3094 LOL You’re obviously a Christian. The Hitch was a living legend and now he’s sorely missed, as the intellectual giant that he was. Christians are still butt hurt from the hitch-slaps they received ☕️💪🤓📖📚
Hm... In some way Alex is Hitch-like but Hitchens would not go that deep into philosophy. His argument would max 3 min long, straight to the point without much of justification. And I don't mean that Hitchens did not have justifications; he was just leaving that part to use to be validated.
Jordan Peterson's positions are mostly a hodgepodge of trivialities and fallacies. This falls in the former camp. Peterson shouldn't receive nearly as much credit for it. As Alex mentions, it has been known since antiquity (and probably in paleolithic times) that short-sighted hedonism serves nobody well.
@@bladdnun3016 He puts a lot more meat on the bones than that though. Makes discipline and self-restraint sound masculine and daring as opposed to mealy mouthed and closed-minded, which is how a lot of people have described such virtues. Peterson points much more though to there being some actual goal that can be achieved through virtue: self-actualisation, ultimate meaning, some kind of very vague idea of God, which obviously Alex does not. For him I imagine virtue just means being able to enjoy Radio 4 with a cup of tea on a Sunday after a long week of working hard.
Alex O'Connor has come a long way. He is probably one of the only or few leading atheists voices I can actually respect. He takes the subject seriously, unlike other prominent voices, and speaks with conviction and clarity, with still some level of reverence for his interlocutors. God bless him.
Fantastic reasoning from Alex, as always. This was something I've always thought about, that being how can an atheist justify his morals if he does not believe in god and hearing Alex put it in this way of sins usually simply being detrimental to us and that's why they're bad, really gave me a new view on the subject.
Has it ever occured to take a step back and question how God is involved with morals at all? You use 'sin' and morals interchangable. According to Chirstians Homosexuality is a Sin. Is homosexuality detrimental to us? Is homosexuality amoral? Apostasy, or holding otehr Gods before Yaweh is a Sin. is religious freedom a sin? is religious freedom detrimental to us? We could go on.
Doesn't this just beg the question of what is meant by what is "bad for us"? And bad for whom? Why, for example, would it be morally wrong for the human species to go extinct for the sake of other life forms and the healthy functioning of natural ecosystems? Even there, one would still need to justify valuing nature over human life. And if one says that it is life in general that is intrinsically valuable, how would one justify this under atheism? It seems to me that simply appealing to the notion of survival doesn't actually justify morals, it just pushes the question back a step. To answer that we are simply programmed to want survival or to desire pleasurable experiences isn't a basis for morals at all, it's just a description of how we happen to behave - a basic category error.
Long time follower of Alex. His channel helped me a lot when I was starting to question my religion. His assertive but respectful way of dissecting religion helped me maintain my intellectual integrity while in a very scary and confusing time in my life. I am very happy to see him become such a respected voice in public discourse.
9:40 "What are we being told here" ... is that we should dishonest and pretend we don't want something in an effort to manipulate others into giving it to us for free.
No, it’s to expect the least so that you don’t get embarrassed or become disappointed. Even if you believe that you should have more than what you choose. That’s what being humble is, expecting nothing but knowing what you deserve/not assuming what you deserve, as apposed to no self esteem, which is expecting nothing and thinking that you deserve nothing.
People who suggest they'd rather be sinners are people who believe that the agents responsible for upholding the belief in God are making irrational or selfish and prejudiced opinions about what is sin. And obviously it's not God it's the people who profit from lying about God.
It is an axiomatic truth that excessive short-term indulgence leads to high long-term cost. However, the benefits of delayed gratification is less intuitive for most people than the fear of being judged by an imaginary parental surrogate. Hence, the concept of sin. It's like humanity needs the simplest concepts repackaged in the form of fairy tales before they are willing to act on them.
@@baayzil97 I know that you theist types love to assume that your superstitions bestow upon you the right to assume that everyone else is subject to them. If you enjoy living your life in fear of being judged as a sinner, then that's your business. Not anyone else's.
@@JeffBedrick do you believe good & evil exist? Do you care about the differences between good & evil? Do you have a conscience ? Yes? Then whether or not you're subject to moral error, which is basically what sin is, doesn't have anything to do with whether a god actually exists or not within the context of this argument. Just as Alex said, defining the meaning of sin without appealing to the existence of a creator. He just spent 10 minutes fleshing that out. Bet you weren't expecting this response, were you? Hard to know what people actually believe when you start out assuming. 😊
@@baayzil97 bro you thought you cooked huh? 1. The very existence of sin is based upon the presupposition of God or Allah (I'm using these 2 religions as examples cause they are the loudest with "sin" and the existence of "moral objectivity")'s existence. So your response is just a rebuttal to Alex's statements and not for religion. 2. For your idea of sin as a moral error to be taken seriously, you would have to establish that the bible is Univocal, inerrant and Objective. Otherwise why would anyone Care about it and what would separate it from any regular book. 3. We should all consider God to be Fair, Loving, All Powerful and (the funniest one for me personally) Outside the Space-Time continuum. 4. Which then opens a whole Pandora's box about the cascades of moral failures contained inside that on some chapters of the Hebrew Bible are even endorsed by the so called God(we can get into them if you'd like) 4. Which circles Back to Alex's statements about Billy Joel's lyrics(at least adjacently, we can get into that too). 5. Because of the statement you made, I'm gonna assume that your approach to reading the bible is a Dogmatic one rather than an Empirical one(that is, to read the Bible on its own terms and Not Use passages from another book to explain things in a different one). 6. So in conclusion, you in fact did NOT cook and your smug reply was jus about competent but still very much subpar.
@@blvck_v can I just ask you one question? Or rather 2, before we begin. Where did I mention The Bible? Where did I mention God? Again, hard to know what people believe when you start out assuming.
Would you equate hedonism to epicureanism? My understanding of the difference is that an epicurean enjoys things but recognizes that over indulgence detracts from enjoyment.
Daily Verse "Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing." -1 Corinthians 13:4-8
"Without the Resurrection, Paul taught, the traditional Christian faith is folly. Hence, the vision of Christ as merely a great moral teacher-proffered by skeptics and deists such as Thomas Jefferson, whose cut-and-pasted Gospel terminates with the rolling of the stone over the tomb-is a non-starter. Only four rational options are available: His claim to be God was the scurrilous lie of a blasphemer (liar), the delusion of a madman (lunatic), a legend fabricated by his followers (legend), or he is who he says he is (Lord). Was not that first Holy Saturday the worst day in the lives of Jesus’ followers, apparently dashing all they hoped in, such that the temptation to believe the first three hypotheses was strong? By not despairing as Judas did, his followers clung to the Lord hypothesis even before the Resurrection." Kody W. Cooper
Just because this Mr. Cooper expanded and expounds upon the C.S. Lewis "claims about Christ" model (at least its the most famous iteration of the argument you quoted) doesn't mean that we have to accept its premise and/or be coaxed into engaging into arguing from its framework. One can absolutely see the Bible, which includes the stories about Jesus in the NT, in its best light with its great sources of moral wisdom (though this cannot be said about even the majority of the moral precepts found in this book) while still rejecting the insane theological claims and implications that are mixed in there, devised by bronze-age tribes from the middle.east and their successors.
@@joannware6228 actually I'm not an atheist, but I see you are not willing to consider the things you believe could possibly be false. That's fine, have a nice day!
Which one? About sitting in the last row of the seats instead of the first ones? I learned to always try to get into the middle, that is where we will all belong eventually.
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Rom 1:25 The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. Day pours out the word to day, and night to night imparts knowledge. Ps 19 The role of science is to interpret God's handiwork.
@@joannware6228 You can't use the Bible because the Bible is the one claiming the existence of God and claiming Jesus as king. So you can't use the bible to try an argue for the bible
@@joannware6228 Movie anything that you've said here because it comes out of a book, and then you're telling us that science is specifically to interpret God's handiwork. But we don't know that this handywork is made by God. Nor do we know that it is handy work. And Jimmy fair, it's quite far from handy work. Because they're so many ridiculously problematic flaws within the world. We live in that makes it a greatest to even assume it was made by some intelligent thing.
that one redhead girl with a resting smirk face making it hard to focus. I'm here trying to think what is on her head, is it her resting face, does she have a condition, is she just having her best time?
@@chrystallapsomas2030 Good is a descriptive term telling us that something is morally correct, beneficial, or falls in line with the concept of a true agape type of love. We wouldn't need to be told something is good if all things were good. Bad is the departure away from those things which are good. This argument is based on presuppositional apologetics. That is there are certain principles in life which are self evident which need little to no explaining- they are self explanatory based on their existence and the observation of such. I hope this helps. Have a great day.
@@pauls7803how much do you actually know about traditional Christian values? Also, which values are you referring to specifically? Orthodox ? Catholic ? Protestant ? There are important differences. Also, are you referring to Church Father interpretation, modern interpretation, or strict exegesis of The Gospels, strictly and directly interpreting the meaning behind Christ's words?
an atheist, standing against this commotion is a slap to the face of Ivan Kramazov according to whom if there is no God,everthing is permitted" Nietzche was right, people will create their own Gods(self disciplinary motives),and they have.
Every child inherits a sin nature from his or her father, needing no further instruction in how to sin. The challenge for every parent is to break the child’s will, without breaking the spirit. Most atheists seem to have missed this in their upbringing.
While some sins the bible condemns like homosexuality, divorce, and multiple sex partners are neutral or even have a net positive, I agree with the sentiment.
"There is no peace except in perfect forgetfulness of self. We must make up our mind to forget even our spiritual interests and think only of God’s glory." -St. Claude de la Colombière from the book The Spiritual Direction of St. Claude de la Colombière "A word or a smile is often enough to put fresh life in a despondent soul." -St. Therese of Lisieux
"We know that we belong to God, and the whole world is under the power of the evil one. We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us discernment to know the one who is true. And we are in the one who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life." -1 John 5:19-20
"Do you remember Hamlet’s great line, “There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy, Horatio”? If we stubbornly said-even in the area of science-that we will accept only what we can clearly see and touch and control, we wouldn’t know much about reality." Bishop Robert Barron "Daily Gospel Reflection (07/03/23)2"
I dunno I think it depends what we mean by what we accept as existing of course there are things that exist outside of our current sense perception but we cant claim things about them without any knowledge of them and of course we could theoretically know those things if we had more information
Excellent stuff, as ever: What is 'sin'? (do Cambridge students, et al, still recognise and understand let alone accept that terminology?) It is not just harm done (short or long term), a matter of tortuous tort law, that is 'evil', a different - if related - concept (a matter of degree in sin). Nor is it gratification (immediate or delayed), because that is emotional (habitual) or sensory (instinctual) 'desire' (fulfilled, if only temporarily i.e. in passing); this is little more than cause and effect at work, not, in and of itself, an actual 'sin'. So, if it is not a predetermined/ predictable pattern of emotion-driven, sense-orientated linkage in cause and effect, and it is not the degree or kind of harm done, then it is something other than a socially (psychologically) constructed value-laden cost-benefit analysis calculation; invented and manipulated by power-hungry control freaks (and imposed on the rest of us). Unfortunately - for rationalising discussion group dialectic decision-making processes, like student union votes - the concept of sin, with its lived reality, both transcends common notions of morality and proceeds its esoteric rational consideration. Sin, in short, is, metaphorically, to miss the mark (a matter of principle preceding the action involved), and in terms of relationship it is a limited yet free choice, in fact, to be unjust (to knowingly override another's rights - because one wants something or simply because one wants to be unjust)*; we rather enjoy sin if we are the perpetrators, though not if we are the recipients of the injustice, and deliberately missing a mark can give a piquant thrill, if it achieves our purpose, or worsts someone else; so yes, we do savour 'doing/ going wrong' so long as we get what we want (even if we do not want it when we get it - or if it happens to us in another's schemes). Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek. God bless. ;o) * Thus moral agents of non-human origin may also 'sin', e.g. the angels or gloupy-string spaghetti-like flying aliens, for they too may offend another being's due rights over them or among them (even from before 'time', in principle, and long after it ceases to count, materially).
Cause and effect and in the context of pursuing a set of communal ideals (like let say "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness") is the only way to judge if you have missed a signpost for the right path. "Sin" in the Hebrew constitutional law called the Torah had nothing to do with missing a target for some perfect behavior. Let's say that you accidentally failed to take care of some responsibility...and this resulted in damage to another citizen's person or property or reputation. Obviously, we can all miss things at times and sometimes without there being any notable repercussions. The Torah specifies that none of the "sin" sacrifices were about intentionally missing a mark. Instead these rituals are intended for moments we suddenly realized that our negligence hurt someone and now we are aware of a rift in our relationship and then conscious of how that affects our whole community...and we have remorse. We want to get back on the right path in our relationship with the community and the ideals we have agreed to pursue together in good faith. Having a chance to publicly show that this relationship is in fact important to us won't actually get rid of the harm done already but it frees us to refocus on the right path...frees us with the truth that we are not a loser or someone too broken to try again at pursuing those ideals our society has pledged to pursue together.
@@booksquid856 True, unintentional sins (missing the mark set by God, for ritual) and intentional sins (knowing one is missing that mark - in ritual or responsibility - and yet obdurately persisting in it) are different in the kind of sin (offence to God) .. not only in degree (of such offence, e.g. venial or mortal, et al). ;o)
May the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ enlighten the eyes of our hearts, so that we may know what is the hope that belongs to our call. Cf. Eph 1:17-18
Basically, his argument is that we can use rationality to decide what things are harmful for an individual and for the society, and those things would be a sin. Here're the problems with this claim: 1. Harming society is presumed to be bad in the first place without an explanation. All explanations basically say that harming society is bad for the individual. Which means the deeper definition of a sin is "something that's harmful for the individual". OK. 2. Crimes have been and can be committed while getting away with it. Some would argue that most successful ends are a result of an immoral mean. So, would avoiding self-harm (long term/short term) make any action not a sin? 3. Let's say you get away with the first two points (which is impossible to do), would it be possible to convince yourself or others using argumentation to avoid your "sin"? Are people more likely to think of the long-term consequences & what're the chances people won't be biased in their conclusions?
point 1 Harming scoiety isn't the main point of his claim. his point is that some actions lead to problems in the long term to the person doing the action. point 2 no, if an action avoids self harm in the short term, but causes harm in the long term it would be a sin. i feel like i'm misunderstanding the point you're making. point 3 This is more of a pragmatic point. Ofcourse people will be biased. That doesn't mean that there is no such thing as long term harm that can be avoided. Or sin as Alex calls it.
I think you've misunderstood Alex - he was talking about sins - like the 7 sins - which are habits that you have, not singular actions. Well, you can provide a definition of sin that you think is best, but why should I argue for your definition and not mine? And that's how this whole debate becomes pointless. It is nice to mention here that sin is a completely meaningless word at this point due to how everyone twisted it in every shape possible, mostly to fit their own interpretations or feelings. I think that the best definition of sin I have is "something a religious person does not like to see in others". At least this definitions applies 100% of the time with no exceptions that I know of. In a way you could just claim it to be circular reasoning because religious people hate sin but meh. I can just say the same thing in reverse, religious people hate sin and they label things they hate as sin so that they have a good excuse to hate it.
@@nati0598 It's not about religion people. It's about people and you can replace the word sin with "immoral" or "wrong" and your definition still applies.
@@nati0598 You're facing the same problem you're describing. Similarly it can be said, for you "immoral" is what you don't like in others just like sin is for religious.
Quote of the Day "Faith and love are like the blind man’s guides. They will lead you along a path unknown to you, to the place where God is hidden." -St. John of the Cross
Daily Verse "Know this, my dear brothers: everyone should be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath, for the wrath of a man does not accomplish the righteousness of God." -James 1:19-20
Good talk. Unfortunately....so much of this attempt to uphold good morals in society without the understanding of a risen Jesus,, a transformed heart at the work of the Holy Spirit and all that implies just does not work... People have been trying with some of the strongest minds and wills in history for a millenia. But lets go round the roundabout again :( society is dying because people have rejected God/Christ. The revival will be when we humbly come back to him.
That's cute. Too bad it's not up to us to choose to indulge or not to indulge. We have no free will and the circumstances we're in, the people we're surrounded by, the environment we're in will dictate to us whether or not we indulge in such hedonism.
@dylanschweitzer18 prove that free will exists. You haven't presented an argument. Where amid the myriad processes of the brain, is there any room for an "outside" force that is not contingent upon those very processes, and yet that effects the outcome of our actions. And BTW, the speaker himself, Alex, does not believe in free will, which makes his statements here all the more hypocritical. Where is he getting this outside force?
@@rainbowcoloredsoapdispenser Why must freewill be an outside force? If it is merely the ability to choose freely between options, then I don't see why that cannot be the case from purely a physical mind.
"In this life we shrink from knowing our real selves. We do not like to know how sinful we are. We love those who prophecy smooth things to us, and we are angry with those who tell us of our faults." -Saint John Henry Newman, p. 101
Dear Alex, I particularly appreciated the way you quoted Jesus' words, without making any derogatory remarks afterwards. I am reminded of a short comment made by Jesus in the movie "The Shack". Mack (played by Sam Worthington), who had his daughter kidnapped and killed, meets Jesus in a dream and asked Him if He was Christian, to which he answered negatively. Is it at all possible to escape heathenism in our day and age, without some sort of supernatural strength, Alex??
I think you're just showing that you're understanding the aforementioned collective knowledge of humanity. That in the long run, we (as a species and as individuals) do not thrive on hedonism. As Alex said, he's not an almighty harbinger of truth - he's just looked at the collation of data and reiterated its conclusions.
@@dodlord and yet he went back to stuffing his face with animal flesh -- choosing his taste pleasure over doing what is truly ethical and meaningful. I know he alluded to some mysterious health concerns -- but that's just what every low IQ ex-vegans do. He is no smarter than your average self centered attention seeker
@@dodlord What the heck do I care about the species. Who cares about the species, maybe you do, but many hedonistis are not concerned with everyone else, they are concerned with their own pleasure, which makes perfect sense. Why care about a bunch of people who you dont know or you may not even like. Alex wants to put his moral beliefs one everyone else. Very naive perspective.
Well, you didn't read what I wrote.. i said both, species and as individuals. Hes saying the data suggests it's fine in the short term, but won't work well long term. The fact you disagree, just shows you're in your 'short term' part of the journey. However, you can improve your time later by moving away from that hedonistic way. Did you even watch the video? He says very clearly, nobody needs convincing of hedonism, it feels good, thats why it exists.. you didn't discover it, but to think thousands of years of human history has nothing to teach you is a mistake.
If you were to die today are you 100% certain you know where you’ll end up? Jesus said: “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.” John 5:24 NKJV Today is the day when you can be 100% certain you will go to heaven when you die All you have to do is accept this truth 1. Christ DIED (FOR YOUR SINS) 2. Was Buried 3. Rose Again ( The 3rd Day) Accept this truth and you shall not perish but have everlasting life by he who is The Life, Jesus the Christ!!! “Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?” John 11:25-26 KJV
Alex has shown the truth of the Bible. Glad to see when a self professed atheist proves the truth of God's word on multiple points. I do love listening to Alex speak and would love to meet him personally one day.
How can one be so delusional that he believes the person knocking down his position is supporting his position? Truly only religion enables such ridiculousness.
When someone who clearly states god doesn't exist, also deliberately quotes the Bible, what do you suppose his purpose is? Was that a slip of the tongue, an accidental endorsement of Christianity? Why is Alex happy to quote the Bible and still be an atheist? If he had quoted a true statement of moral wisdom from the Quran, would that now be true?
@@matthewn2559 Being an atheist does not mean you oppose the bible at every single turn, you can take certain moral stances from the bible and still be atheist.
Christianity is not a set of moral principles - it is about a God whose character must be worshipped in order to be imbibed and emanated. Jesus is not a set of ideas - he is a Person - he says ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). Someone can benefit from moral principles which align with God’s character only if they intend to adhere to them as one receiving at least the part of God which relates to the principle - instead of receiving only the principle. Alex suggests that self-indulgence leads to ruin. Which is good to know in theory - but is that enough in practice? What if our problem - instead of that we are following less than perfect principles - is that we are less than perfect people? Is the state of the world merely the result of ignorance of particular principles - or the fact that human beings - while fearfully and wonderfully made - while capable of greatness - are fallen? So then - let Alex's helpful admissions point you - not to his conclusions - but to a solution sufficiently potent to be the answer to the problem. Allow the totally selfless servant hearted God to be your friend - to help you - to transform you. Humble yourself before him and he will lift you up (James 4:10). Alex mentions that it is good to be humble - but his reason for humility isn't humble - he suggests that we be humble because it will ultimately be better for us. God IS found in real humility - which is always a step towards him - he isn't found through intellect (if he was found through intellect that would mean that he wasn't worth knowing - since he has chosen to ensure that people are born with differing intellectual capacity).
@@nickyd922 If you had been one of the speakers Nicholas there is no doubt that you would have been judged to be well within your allotted time - however I believe that the general view would be that God is the only one who is entitled to come to conclusions without having to explain himself. In behaving as though having that right you suggest that you are at least not averse to the idea of believing in 'god' - and therefore presumably your objection is only that Jesus isn't a sufficiently worthy candidate.
What if much of the world's present state is down to vast swathes of the populace believing that some made-up, all-powerful paternal figure, who apparently magicked everything into existence, will let them come and live in his fantastical sky palace with him when they die? All of this, of course, can only be achieved through blind adherence to a set of books on ancient Hebrew mythology, late-Roman historical revisionism and the drug-addled ramblings of some 1st century Greek author.
@@Twy87 You don't sound sure. When you're ready to argue that people following a God whose book requires them to love all people - including their enemies - is a destructive influence on the world - the cause for its deep selfishness - I'm all ears. But perhaps you wish to argue that the failings of people who claim a faith but refuse to love all people should be pinned on Christianity. If so why? If a man sets up a table on the street corner with objects on it that he says were once owned by Barack Obama - is that Barack Obama's fault? The truth - instead of Christianity being a destructive influence - is that the church does so much social welfare work in countries in which it has a substantial presence that if it stopped the governments in those countries would find themselves with a social welfare bill they couldn't pay.
Alex has taken all the superficial steps to seek God and he will accept God if God will just show up. All that's left now is for him to make himself worthy of God. This will require him to take an totally honest painful look at himself, to search his heart, to admit his guilt, and to repent to Jesus.
He definitely looks like he is not rebelling against God like so many other atheists. He even admitted in one of his lasts interviews with one epistemological atheist that he is only 45% certain that God does not exist which means that he is more agnostic now than atheist. Let's watch and see will the miracle take place and he will get to know the Lord or will he remain in this "close to God but not quite there" condition for good.
@@nikokapanen82 Where did you get that 45% quote from. I have never heard him say anything like that. What is wrong with rebelling against God anyway? Have you not see his track record in The Bible?
@@pauls7803 He said so in his podcast with Peter Boghossian, but - to be clear - he was speaking only of the existence of _a_ God, as in a prima causa, not a specific God. That is a very common position even among Atheist. I myself am fully atheist in every reasonable and relevant respect, but if you ask me if "a God" exists, without defining any of its characteristics, I am 50/50 too. Something created the universe, or the universe was always there? I have no clue. It is very different from believing that whatever created the Universe is actually angry when you masturbate, or that he wants you to pray him or he will send you to hell.
@@pauls7803 You are right of course, there are minimum definitions implicitly involved. I do not remember the details of the discussion, but typically the definition goes in a range spanning from "The creator of the universe" - and believing in its existence simply means believing that there is a conscience behind the creation of the universe, as opposed to a mechanical cause or a universe that always existed - to the three minimal characteristics of Deism: Omnipotent, Omniscient, All-loving. Of course the more characteristics we add, the lower the probability we have to assume (because math: the probability of a set including another cannot be lower). I am 50-50 on the existence of a generic creator, I consider highly likely he is omnipotent on his creation (still 50-50), doubtful on omniscience (30-70?), and quite skeptical on All-loving (5-95?). If we add further characteristics that are usually required (Uniqueness and Simplicity), we easily go on the 1-2%. Any specific religion is 0%.
It’s nice to see Alex give up his atheism and embrace not only God’s existence, but His goodness as well. For the very idea of sinner/saint requires an objective (beyond human opinion) standard of good by which to judge them. Which is best grounded in God’s perfect moral character. For if there is no God, then there _isn’t_ anything beyond human opinion. Only likes and dislikes. And that’s a far cry from sinner or saint, _really_ evil or _really_ good. Per CS Lewis, one cannot know what a crooked line is unless one knows what a straight line is. To label any behavior as either “sinful” or “saintly” we _must_ have an objective (unchanging) standard to judge the behavior by. Or else no one is either a sinner _or_ a saint. Hitler wasn’t evil and Mother Teresa wasn’t good. What they did was neither good nor bad. So welcome to theism, Alex! It’s good to see you.😁👍
If I'm not mistaken, Alex explains that he isn't making these judgements of saints and sinners from an objective good vs evil standpoint, but rather he explains that hedonism often leads to self detriment. That's what he's basing these ideas off of. You don't need to acknowledge the existence of god to say 'things that lead to my own detriment are bad for me'.
I love the way he speaks, so eloquent. Also loved the way he handles a crowd too! Hopefully we will see and hear much of him over the years to come.
I agree 💯
I think Alex gets better and better. And I really like the Hitch-like cadence.
it's cultivated. Makes u believe that he is more intelligent than he is. He admitted to mimicking the Hitch for that reason.
@@animalsarebeautifulpeople3094 dude, you can't fake what he does
@@artsbyoba why would anyone even want to fake a faker? 🤔
@@animalsarebeautifulpeople3094 LOL You’re obviously a Christian. The Hitch was a living legend and now he’s sorely missed, as the intellectual giant that he was. Christians are still butt hurt from the hitch-slaps they received
☕️💪🤓📖📚
Hm... In some way Alex is Hitch-like but Hitchens would not go that deep into philosophy. His argument would max 3 min long, straight to the point without much of justification. And I don't mean that Hitchens did not have justifications; he was just leaving that part to use to be validated.
You explain Jordan Peterson's position better than he does..
exactly what I was thinking
That's because, as smart as Peterson is, he doesn't have a strong grasp of his own thoughts on religion and philosophy.
@@onlyguitar1001 exactly. You hit the nail on the head.
Jordan Peterson's positions are mostly a hodgepodge of trivialities and fallacies. This falls in the former camp. Peterson shouldn't receive nearly as much credit for it. As Alex mentions, it has been known since antiquity (and probably in paleolithic times) that short-sighted hedonism serves nobody well.
@@bladdnun3016 He puts a lot more meat on the bones than that though. Makes discipline and self-restraint sound masculine and daring as opposed to mealy mouthed and closed-minded, which is how a lot of people have described such virtues. Peterson points much more though to there being some actual goal that can be achieved through virtue: self-actualisation, ultimate meaning, some kind of very vague idea of God, which obviously Alex does not. For him I imagine virtue just means being able to enjoy Radio 4 with a cup of tea on a Sunday after a long week of working hard.
Alex O'Connor has come a long way. He is probably one of the only or few leading atheists voices I can actually respect. He takes the subject seriously, unlike other prominent voices, and speaks with conviction and clarity, with still some level of reverence for his interlocutors. God bless him.
He also says that he read a wide range of Christian scholars and never once has the slightest feeling the claims were true.
Paul not very sure what you tried to accomplish with that Statement except being mean.
@@simbabwe2907 Trying to explain the situation regarding Alex o Connor's attitude to Christianity. What is mean about that?
@@pauls7803 but OP didn't ask.
@@simbabwe2907 He seems to suggest Alex's conclusions are vastly different to other atheists though. They are not
Alex is a very impressive speaker, eloquently articulating his points in a clear and concise manner. I could listen to him for hours.
It’s a pleasure to watch this young man evolve and mature.
As a fan of Alex and Rev. Chris, this is the most unexpected crossover.
Fantastic reasoning from Alex, as always. This was something I've always thought about, that being how can an atheist justify his morals if he does not believe in god and hearing Alex put it in this way of sins usually simply being detrimental to us and that's why they're bad, really gave me a new view on the subject.
Has it ever occured to take a step back and question how God is involved with morals at all?
You use 'sin' and morals interchangable. According to Chirstians Homosexuality is a Sin. Is homosexuality detrimental to us? Is homosexuality amoral? Apostasy, or holding otehr Gods before Yaweh is a Sin. is religious freedom a sin? is religious freedom detrimental to us? We could go on.
@@bdnnijs192 0 chance u r older than 14
Doesn't this just beg the question of what is meant by what is "bad for us"? And bad for whom?
Why, for example, would it be morally wrong for the human species to go extinct for the sake of other life forms and the healthy functioning of natural ecosystems? Even there, one would still need to justify valuing nature over human life. And if one says that it is life in general that is intrinsically valuable, how would one justify this under atheism?
It seems to me that simply appealing to the notion of survival doesn't actually justify morals, it just pushes the question back a step. To answer that we are simply programmed to want survival or to desire pleasurable experiences isn't a basis for morals at all, it's just a description of how we happen to behave - a basic category error.
Long time follower of Alex. His channel helped me a lot when I was starting to question my religion. His assertive but respectful way of dissecting religion helped me maintain my intellectual integrity while in a very scary and confusing time in my life.
I am very happy to see him become such a respected voice in public discourse.
Weirdly enough he strengthened my faith
the audience members seem to be in a different room altogether
It is incredibly rare that I see such a good defense of religious morals and utterly unsurprising that it came from an atheist.
That sip of water.
sluuuuurp
9:40 "What are we being told here"
... is that we should dishonest and pretend we don't want something in an effort to manipulate others into giving it to us for free.
No, it’s to expect the least so that you don’t get embarrassed or become disappointed. Even if you believe that you should have more than what you choose. That’s what being humble is, expecting nothing but knowing what you deserve/not assuming what you deserve, as apposed to no self esteem, which is expecting nothing and thinking that you deserve nothing.
This was awesome
He's so arrogant, brilliant. I really like logical, arrogant people
Arrogance is practiced, wisdom is earned. Alex is very much wise beyond his years.
@OwenPautlitz he's arrogant, has less than averrage wisdom
@ Ironic comment perhaps? Not all of us behave the same.
People who suggest they'd rather be sinners are people who believe that the agents responsible for upholding the belief in God are making irrational or selfish and prejudiced opinions about what is sin. And obviously it's not God it's the people who profit from lying about God.
1:03 NO WAY!!!! It's Rev Chris!!!!!!!
It is an axiomatic truth that excessive short-term indulgence leads to high long-term cost. However, the benefits of delayed gratification is less intuitive for most people than the fear of being judged by an imaginary parental surrogate. Hence, the concept of sin. It's like humanity needs the simplest concepts repackaged in the form of fairy tales before they are willing to act on them.
He says, as though he was not subject to some form of Sin like the rest of us.
@@baayzil97 I know that you theist types love to assume that your superstitions bestow upon you the right to assume that everyone else is subject to them. If you enjoy living your life in fear of being judged as a sinner, then that's your business. Not anyone else's.
@@JeffBedrick do you believe good & evil exist?
Do you care about the differences between good & evil?
Do you have a conscience ?
Yes? Then whether or not you're subject to moral error, which is basically what sin is, doesn't have anything to do with whether a god actually exists or not within the context of this argument.
Just as Alex said, defining the meaning of sin without appealing to the existence of a creator. He just spent 10 minutes fleshing that out.
Bet you weren't expecting this response, were you? Hard to know what people actually believe when you start out assuming. 😊
@@baayzil97 bro you thought you cooked huh?
1. The very existence of sin is based upon the presupposition of God or Allah (I'm using these 2 religions as examples cause they are the loudest with "sin" and the existence of "moral objectivity")'s existence.
So your response is just a rebuttal to Alex's statements and not for religion.
2. For your idea of sin as a moral error to be taken seriously, you would have to establish that the bible is Univocal, inerrant and Objective. Otherwise why would anyone Care about it and what would separate it from any regular book.
3. We should all consider God to be Fair, Loving, All Powerful and (the funniest one for me personally) Outside the Space-Time continuum.
4. Which then opens a whole Pandora's box about the cascades of moral failures contained inside that on some chapters of the Hebrew Bible are even endorsed by the so called God(we can get into them if you'd like)
4. Which circles Back to Alex's statements about Billy Joel's lyrics(at least adjacently, we can get into that too).
5. Because of the statement you made, I'm gonna assume that your approach to reading the bible is a Dogmatic one rather than an Empirical one(that is, to read the Bible on its own terms and Not Use passages from another book to explain things in a different one).
6. So in conclusion, you in fact did NOT cook and your smug reply was jus about competent but still very much subpar.
@@blvck_v can I just ask you one question? Or rather 2, before we begin.
Where did I mention The Bible?
Where did I mention God?
Again, hard to know what people believe when you start out assuming.
For an atheist, Alex is surprisingly socially conservative.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a certain issue that has not met it's burden of proof yet. It says nothing else about an individual.
Why would an atheist necessarily be socially liberal?
@@fabrisseterbrugghe8567 because most atheists just wanna sin! 🤣
@@macdougdoug 😂😂😂
@@alfred9916 Anything everyone and anyone has ever said has been said by someone somewhere.
Velvet Eminem is bringing his A game.
"Rather be a sinner than a saint"- and this makes one atheist? Saint Augustine also said the same thing at one point. O'Connor has no clue
Would you equate hedonism to epicureanism? My understanding of the difference is that an epicurean enjoys things but recognizes that over indulgence detracts from enjoyment.
Love this question.
Daily Verse
"Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing."
-1 Corinthians 13:4-8
Good points made!
"Without the Resurrection, Paul taught, the traditional Christian faith is folly. Hence, the vision of Christ as merely a great moral teacher-proffered by skeptics and deists such as Thomas Jefferson, whose cut-and-pasted Gospel terminates with the rolling of the stone over the tomb-is a non-starter. Only four rational options are available: His claim to be God was the scurrilous lie of a blasphemer (liar), the delusion of a madman (lunatic), a legend fabricated by his followers (legend), or he is who he says he is (Lord). Was not that first Holy Saturday the worst day in the lives of Jesus’ followers, apparently dashing all they hoped in, such that the temptation to believe the first three hypotheses was strong? By not despairing as Judas did, his followers clung to the Lord hypothesis even before the Resurrection." Kody W. Cooper
Just because this Mr. Cooper expanded and expounds upon the C.S. Lewis "claims about Christ" model (at least its the most famous iteration of the argument you quoted) doesn't mean that we have to accept its premise and/or be coaxed into engaging into arguing from its framework. One can absolutely see the Bible, which includes the stories about Jesus in the NT, in its best light with its great sources of moral wisdom (though this cannot be said about even the majority of the moral precepts found in this book) while still rejecting the insane theological claims and implications that are mixed in there, devised by bronze-age tribes from the middle.east and their successors.
Why should we accept the premise that he actually claimed to be God?
What a bold comment. Broiler plate atheist.
@@montagdp Because it's the hard truth.
@@joannware6228 actually I'm not an atheist, but I see you are not willing to consider the things you believe could possibly be false. That's fine, have a nice day!
That quote from the bible is actually my favourite one
Which one? About sitting in the last row of the seats instead of the first ones?
I learned to always try to get into the middle, that is where we will all belong eventually.
11:15 genius
Where is the whole video?
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie
and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator,
who is blessed forever. Amen.
Rom 1:25
The heavens proclaim the glory of God.
The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.
Day pours out the word to day,
and night to night imparts knowledge.
Ps 19
The role of science is to interpret God's handiwork.
nope. You cant use a bible verse to make such a claim. FFS people.
@@DCxSkateboarding Which claim and why not?
@@joannware6228 You can't use the Bible because the Bible is the one claiming the existence of God and claiming Jesus as king. So you can't use the bible to try an argue for the bible
@@joannware6228 Movie anything that you've said here because it comes out of a book, and then you're telling us that science is specifically to interpret God's handiwork. But we don't know that this handywork is made by God. Nor do we know that it is handy work. And Jimmy fair, it's quite far from handy work. Because they're so many ridiculously problematic flaws within the world. We live in that makes it a greatest to even assume it was made by some intelligent thing.
@@DCxSkateboarding What flaws? Specify please. What do you know that didn't come out of a book?
The reason "sin" exists is because some people simply aren't able to have as much "fun" as others. Sin was invented to make them feel better about it.
Like the mysterious Teacher?
What a stupid question. You can't be the latter without being the former.
that one redhead girl with a resting smirk face making it hard to focus. I'm here trying to think what is on her head, is it her resting face, does she have a condition, is she just having her best time?
I don't think you can get away with bad behaviour even if there's no good.
If there's no good there can be no bad.
@@matthewn2559 I don't understand. What does it mean if there's no good there can be no bad.
@@chrystallapsomas2030 Good is a descriptive term telling us that something is morally correct, beneficial, or falls in line with the concept of a true agape type of love. We wouldn't need to be told something is good if all things were good. Bad is the departure away from those things which are good. This argument is based on presuppositional apologetics. That is there are certain principles in life which are self evident which need little to no explaining- they are self explanatory based on their existence and the observation of such. I hope this helps. Have a great day.
I meant even if there is no god you can't get away with bad behavior. It has consequences.
@@chrystallapsomas2030 Why would it have consequences if there is nothing wrong with it?
I’m sure most people would _rather_ be a sinner than a saint.
Because it’s so much easier.
But _should_ one be a sinner rather than a saint?
You could be a sinner and cause far less suffering and distress than a saint, according to traditional Christian values.
An atheist cannot sin.
@@Nick-Nasti Only _if_ he’s right about God’s existence.
And that’s a mighty big IF.
@@pauls7803how much do you actually know about traditional Christian values?
Also, which values are you referring to specifically? Orthodox ? Catholic ? Protestant ? There are important differences.
Also, are you referring to Church Father interpretation, modern interpretation, or strict exegesis of The Gospels, strictly and directly interpreting the meaning behind Christ's words?
@@baayzil97A strange approach to take. How much do you or anyone else know about every one of the 2000 odd sects of this particular fairy tale?
"conscientious hedonsim by alex o connor"
an atheist, standing against this commotion is a slap to the face of Ivan Kramazov according to whom if there is no God,everthing is permitted"
Nietzche was right, people will create their own Gods(self disciplinary motives),and they have.
In my 20s, I had a lot of casual sex & put partying first. Now in my 30s I would plead with my younger self to get out of that frying pan.
Every child inherits a sin nature from his or her father, needing no further instruction in how to sin. The challenge for every parent is to break the child’s will, without breaking the spirit. Most atheists seem to have missed this in their upbringing.
????? I didnt inheret sin from my dad. We are opposite people.
@@DCxSkateboarding But both sinners.
@@joannware6228 How do you know that We are?
@@DCxSkateboarding Because you're human. Aren't you?
Imagine that: God's morals have more utility than the morals of those whose highest good is utility itself 🤔
how would god's morality have more utility?
Listen to the wise frogs. I get it.
Bro sitting in a throne with is outrageous ☠️
Actually yes.
A real-life Ivan Karamazov, well maybe not exactly but you know what I mean.
Suprisingly to myself, I do know exacly what you mean.
While some sins the bible condemns like homosexuality, divorce, and multiple sex partners are neutral or even have a net positive, I agree with the sentiment.
The Bible supports polygamy wtf
"There is no peace except in perfect forgetfulness of self. We must make up our mind to forget even our spiritual interests and think only of God’s glory."
-St. Claude de la Colombière
from the book The Spiritual Direction of St. Claude de la Colombière
"A word or a smile is often enough to put fresh life in a despondent soul."
-St. Therese of Lisieux
"We know that we belong to God, and the whole world is under the power of the evil one. We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us discernment to know the one who is true. And we are in the one who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life."
-1 John 5:19-20
"Do you remember Hamlet’s great line, “There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy, Horatio”? If we stubbornly said-even in the area of science-that we will accept only what we can clearly see and touch and control, we wouldn’t know much about reality."
Bishop Robert Barron "Daily Gospel Reflection (07/03/23)2"
I dunno I think it depends what we mean by what we accept as existing of course there are things that exist outside of our current sense perception but we cant claim things about them without any knowledge of them and of course we could theoretically know those things if we had more information
@@S.D.323 Most everything we know we don't learn using the scientific method.
Excellent stuff, as ever: What is 'sin'? (do Cambridge students, et al, still recognise and understand let alone accept that terminology?) It is not just harm done (short or long term), a matter of tortuous tort law, that is 'evil', a different - if related - concept (a matter of degree in sin). Nor is it gratification (immediate or delayed), because that is emotional (habitual) or sensory (instinctual) 'desire' (fulfilled, if only temporarily i.e. in passing); this is little more than cause and effect at work, not, in and of itself, an actual 'sin'.
So, if it is not a predetermined/ predictable pattern of emotion-driven, sense-orientated linkage in cause and effect, and it is not the degree or kind of harm done, then it is something other than a socially (psychologically) constructed value-laden cost-benefit analysis calculation; invented and manipulated by power-hungry control freaks (and imposed on the rest of us). Unfortunately - for rationalising discussion group dialectic decision-making processes, like student union votes - the concept of sin, with its lived reality, both transcends common notions of morality and proceeds its esoteric rational consideration.
Sin, in short, is, metaphorically, to miss the mark (a matter of principle preceding the action involved), and in terms of relationship it is a limited yet free choice, in fact, to be unjust (to knowingly override another's rights - because one wants something or simply because one wants to be unjust)*; we rather enjoy sin if we are the perpetrators, though not if we are the recipients of the injustice, and deliberately missing a mark can give a piquant thrill, if it achieves our purpose, or worsts someone else; so yes, we do savour 'doing/ going wrong' so long as we get what we want (even if we do not want it when we get it - or if it happens to us in another's schemes).
Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek.
God bless. ;o)
* Thus moral agents of non-human origin may also 'sin', e.g. the angels or gloupy-string spaghetti-like flying aliens, for they too may offend another being's due rights over them or among them (even from before 'time', in principle, and long after it ceases to count, materially).
Cause and effect and in the context of pursuing a set of communal ideals (like let say "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness") is the only way to judge if you have missed a signpost for the right path. "Sin" in the Hebrew constitutional law called the Torah had nothing to do with missing a target for some perfect behavior. Let's say that you accidentally failed to take care of some responsibility...and this resulted in damage to another citizen's person or property or reputation. Obviously, we can all miss things at times and sometimes without there being any notable repercussions. The Torah specifies that none of the "sin" sacrifices were about intentionally missing a mark. Instead these rituals are intended for moments we suddenly realized that our negligence hurt someone and now we are aware of a rift in our relationship and then conscious of how that affects our whole community...and we have remorse. We want to get back on the right path in our relationship with the community and the ideals we have agreed to pursue together in good faith. Having a chance to publicly show that this relationship is in fact important to us won't actually get rid of the harm done already but it frees us to refocus on the right path...frees us with the truth that we are not a loser or someone too broken to try again at pursuing those ideals our society has pledged to pursue together.
@@booksquid856 True, unintentional sins (missing the mark set by God, for ritual) and intentional sins (knowing one is missing that mark - in ritual or responsibility - and yet obdurately persisting in it) are different in the kind of sin (offence to God) .. not only in degree (of such offence, e.g. venial or mortal, et al).
;o)
Sin exists only when God's existence is affirmed. Sin does not really exist outside God's existence himself.
May the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ
enlighten the eyes of our hearts,
so that we may know what is the hope
that belongs to our call. Cf. Eph 1:17-18
its actually our heads that have eyes
@@S.D.323 It's a figure of speech. How limited our world would be it we had to always be literal.
Basically, his argument is that we can use rationality to decide what things are harmful for an individual and for the society, and those things would be a sin. Here're the problems with this claim:
1. Harming society is presumed to be bad in the first place without an explanation. All explanations basically say that harming society is bad for the individual. Which means the deeper definition of a sin is "something that's harmful for the individual". OK.
2. Crimes have been and can be committed while getting away with it. Some would argue that most successful ends are a result of an immoral mean. So, would avoiding self-harm (long term/short term) make any action not a sin?
3. Let's say you get away with the first two points (which is impossible to do), would it be possible to convince yourself or others using argumentation to avoid your "sin"? Are people more likely to think of the long-term consequences & what're the chances people won't be biased in their conclusions?
point 1
Harming scoiety isn't the main point of his claim. his point is that some actions lead to problems in the long term to the person doing the action.
point 2
no, if an action avoids self harm in the short term, but causes harm in the long term it would be a sin. i feel like i'm misunderstanding the point you're making.
point 3
This is more of a pragmatic point. Ofcourse people will be biased. That doesn't mean that there is no such thing as long term harm that can be avoided. Or sin as Alex calls it.
I think you've misunderstood Alex - he was talking about sins - like the 7 sins - which are habits that you have, not singular actions. Well, you can provide a definition of sin that you think is best, but why should I argue for your definition and not mine? And that's how this whole debate becomes pointless. It is nice to mention here that sin is a completely meaningless word at this point due to how everyone twisted it in every shape possible, mostly to fit their own interpretations or feelings. I think that the best definition of sin I have is "something a religious person does not like to see in others". At least this definitions applies 100% of the time with no exceptions that I know of. In a way you could just claim it to be circular reasoning because religious people hate sin but meh. I can just say the same thing in reverse, religious people hate sin and they label things they hate as sin so that they have a good excuse to hate it.
@@nati0598 It's not about religion people. It's about people and you can replace the word sin with "immoral" or "wrong" and your definition still applies.
@@L.I.T.H.I.U.M Well, you clearly can't replace it, because there are immoral things which are not a sin and vice versa, and that is my entire point.
@@nati0598 You're facing the same problem you're describing. Similarly it can be said, for you "immoral" is what you don't like in others just like sin is for religious.
Quote of the Day
"Faith and love are like the blind man’s guides. They will lead you along a path unknown to you, to the place where God is hidden."
-St. John of the Cross
Daily Verse
"Know this, my dear brothers: everyone should be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath, for the wrath of a man does not accomplish the righteousness of God."
-James 1:19-20
9:53
Intellect and self knowledge nor being smart will make you an atheist...what will is creating your own.
Good talk. Unfortunately....so much of this attempt to uphold good morals in society without the understanding of a risen Jesus,, a transformed heart at the work of the Holy Spirit and all that implies just does not work... People have been trying with some of the strongest minds and wills in history for a millenia. But lets go round the roundabout again :( society is dying because people have rejected God/Christ. The revival will be when we humbly come back to him.
why are the all dressed like that for a debate?
That's cute. Too bad it's not up to us to choose to indulge or not to indulge. We have no free will and the circumstances we're in, the people we're surrounded by, the environment we're in will dictate to us whether or not we indulge in such hedonism.
By that logic, we shouldn't even take that comment seriously. You were predetermined to write such victim centric drivel to justify your hedonism.
@dylanschweitzer18 prove that free will exists. You haven't presented an argument. Where amid the myriad processes of the brain, is there any room for an "outside" force that is not contingent upon those very processes, and yet that effects the outcome of our actions. And BTW, the speaker himself, Alex, does not believe in free will, which makes his statements here all the more hypocritical. Where is he getting this outside force?
@@rainbowcoloredsoapdispenser Why must freewill be an outside force? If it is merely the ability to choose freely between options, then I don't see why that cannot be the case from purely a physical mind.
Calvin! Is that you?
your soap dispenser is cute
And why should we listen to Alex, who is he? God.
He’s better than god
@@TrideepNagg that would make him God then.
There are very menu other channels on TH-cam to watch ,I believe it's because you clicked on this video that you decided to listen to him.
Feel free to listen or not. No one will force you either way.
Why should we listen to God? Starting a big bang doesn't make you enlightened or worth listening to.
"In this life we shrink from knowing our real selves. We do not like to know how sinful we are. We love those who prophecy smooth things to us, and we are angry with those who tell us of our faults."
-Saint John Henry Newman, p. 101
The role of science is to interpret God's handiwork.
ASTOUNDING
Dear Alex, I particularly appreciated the way you quoted Jesus' words, without making any derogatory remarks afterwards. I am reminded of a short comment made by Jesus in the movie "The Shack". Mack (played by Sam Worthington), who had his daughter kidnapped and killed, meets Jesus in a dream and asked Him if He was Christian, to which he answered negatively. Is it at all possible to escape heathenism in our day and age, without some sort of supernatural strength, Alex??
Heathenism is different from hedonism. Alex could be considered a “heathen” since he is an atheist.
Maybe some people dont want a life of meaning, maybe they want a life of pleasure. Not everyone wants what you want, Alex.
I think you're just showing that you're understanding the aforementioned collective knowledge of humanity. That in the long run, we (as a species and as individuals) do not thrive on hedonism. As Alex said, he's not an almighty harbinger of truth - he's just looked at the collation of data and reiterated its conclusions.
@@dodlord and yet he went back to stuffing his face with animal flesh -- choosing his taste pleasure over doing what is truly ethical and meaningful. I know he alluded to some mysterious health concerns -- but that's just what every low IQ ex-vegans do. He is no smarter than your average self centered attention seeker
Alex is a hypocrite. Of cosmic proportions.
@@dodlord What the heck do I care about the species. Who cares about the species, maybe you do, but many hedonistis are not concerned with everyone else, they are concerned with their own pleasure, which makes perfect sense. Why care about a bunch of people who you dont know or you may not even like. Alex wants to put his moral beliefs one everyone else. Very naive perspective.
Well, you didn't read what I wrote.. i said both, species and as individuals. Hes saying the data suggests it's fine in the short term, but won't work well long term.
The fact you disagree, just shows you're in your 'short term' part of the journey. However, you can improve your time later by moving away from that hedonistic way.
Did you even watch the video? He says very clearly, nobody needs convincing of hedonism, it feels good, thats why it exists.. you didn't discover it, but to think thousands of years of human history has nothing to teach you is a mistake.
If you were to die today are you 100% certain you know where you’ll end up?
Jesus said:
“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.”
John 5:24 NKJV
Today is the day when you can be 100% certain you will go to heaven when you die
All you have to do is accept this truth
1. Christ DIED (FOR YOUR SINS)
2. Was Buried
3. Rose Again ( The 3rd Day)
Accept this truth and you shall not perish but have everlasting life by he who is The Life, Jesus the Christ!!!
“Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?”
John 11:25-26 KJV
Alex has shown the truth of the Bible. Glad to see when a self professed atheist proves the truth of God's word on multiple points. I do love listening to Alex speak and would love to meet him personally one day.
Or perhaps these things can just be true without being tied to the existence of God
How can one be so delusional that he believes the person knocking down his position is supporting his position? Truly only religion enables such ridiculousness.
@@asagoldsmith3328 Alex in multiple points agreed with the Bible.
When someone who clearly states god doesn't exist, also deliberately quotes the Bible, what do you suppose his purpose is? Was that a slip of the tongue, an accidental endorsement of Christianity? Why is Alex happy to quote the Bible and still be an atheist? If he had quoted a true statement of moral wisdom from the Quran, would that now be true?
@@matthewn2559 Being an atheist does not mean you oppose the bible at every single turn, you can take certain moral stances from the bible and still be atheist.
Christianity is not a set of moral principles - it is about a God whose character must be worshipped in order to be imbibed and emanated. Jesus is not a set of ideas - he is a Person - he says ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). Someone can benefit from moral principles which align with God’s character only if they intend to adhere to them as one receiving at least the part of God which relates to the principle - instead of receiving only the principle.
Alex suggests that self-indulgence leads to ruin. Which is good to know in theory - but is that enough in practice? What if our problem - instead of that we are following less than perfect principles - is that we are less than perfect people? Is the state of the world merely the result of ignorance of particular principles - or the fact that human beings - while fearfully and wonderfully made - while capable of greatness - are fallen?
So then - let Alex's helpful admissions point you - not to his conclusions - but to a solution sufficiently potent to be the answer to the problem. Allow the totally selfless servant hearted God to be your friend - to help you - to transform you. Humble yourself before him and he will lift you up (James 4:10). Alex mentions that it is good to be humble - but his reason for humility isn't humble - he suggests that we be humble because it will ultimately be better for us. God IS found in real humility - which is always a step towards him - he isn't found through intellect (if he was found through intellect that would mean that he wasn't worth knowing - since he has chosen to ensure that people are born with differing intellectual capacity).
He isn't found through intellect is the only correct thing in your post
@@nickyd922 If you had been one of the speakers Nicholas there is no doubt that you would have been judged to be well within your allotted time - however I believe that the general view would be that God is the only one who is entitled to come to conclusions without having to explain himself. In behaving as though having that right you suggest that you are at least not averse to the idea of believing in 'god' - and therefore presumably your objection is only that Jesus isn't a sufficiently worthy candidate.
What if much of the world's present state is down to vast swathes of the populace believing that some made-up, all-powerful paternal figure, who apparently magicked everything into existence, will let them come and live in his fantastical sky palace with him when they die? All of this, of course, can only be achieved through blind adherence to a set of books on ancient Hebrew mythology, late-Roman historical revisionism and the drug-addled ramblings of some 1st century Greek author.
@@Twy87 You don't sound sure. When you're ready to argue that people following a God whose book requires them to love all people - including their enemies - is a destructive influence on the world - the cause for its deep selfishness - I'm all ears.
But perhaps you wish to argue that the failings of people who claim a faith but refuse to love all people should be pinned on Christianity. If so why? If a man sets up a table on the street corner with objects on it that he says were once owned by Barack Obama - is that Barack Obama's fault?
The truth - instead of Christianity being a destructive influence - is that the church does so much social welfare work in countries in which it has a substantial presence that if it stopped the governments in those countries would find themselves with a social welfare bill they couldn't pay.
@@Twy87 Not all people that believed in God believed in an afterlife, even during Biblical times. The Sadducees I think they were.
He's too clever for me. I can't follow him. Couldn't he simplify a bit.
Atheist most likely to switch one day IMO
Switch to what?
@@pauls7803 xianity poss Roman
Why not Norse mythology?
Or one we haven't invented yet?
@@pauls7803
So you dont watch these CS videos.
Alex has taken all the superficial steps to seek God and he will accept God if God will just show up. All that's left now is for him to make himself worthy of God. This will require him to take an totally honest painful look at himself, to search his heart, to admit his guilt, and to repent to Jesus.
He definitely looks like he is not rebelling against God like so many other atheists. He even admitted in one of his lasts interviews with one epistemological atheist that he is only 45% certain that God does not exist which means that he is more agnostic now than atheist.
Let's watch and see will the miracle take place and he will get to know the Lord or will he remain in this "close to God but not quite there" condition for good.
@@nikokapanen82 Where did you get that 45% quote from. I have never heard him say anything like that. What is wrong with rebelling against God anyway? Have you not see his track record in The Bible?
@@pauls7803 He said so in his podcast with Peter Boghossian, but - to be clear - he was speaking only of the existence of _a_ God, as in a prima causa, not a specific God. That is a very common position even among Atheist. I myself am fully atheist in every reasonable and relevant respect, but if you ask me if "a God" exists, without defining any of its characteristics, I am 50/50 too. Something created the universe, or the universe was always there? I have no clue. It is very different from believing that whatever created the Universe is actually angry when you masturbate, or that he wants you to pray him or he will send you to hell.
@@bobon123 How you take any position on the existence of something that is undefined though? The word God is meaningless until defined.
@@pauls7803 You are right of course, there are minimum definitions implicitly involved. I do not remember the details of the discussion, but typically the definition goes in a range spanning from "The creator of the universe" - and believing in its existence simply means believing that there is a conscience behind the creation of the universe, as opposed to a mechanical cause or a universe that always existed - to the three minimal characteristics of Deism: Omnipotent, Omniscient, All-loving.
Of course the more characteristics we add, the lower the probability we have to assume (because math: the probability of a set including another cannot be lower). I am 50-50 on the existence of a generic creator, I consider highly likely he is omnipotent on his creation (still 50-50), doubtful on omniscience (30-70?), and quite skeptical on All-loving (5-95?). If we add further characteristics that are usually required (Uniqueness and Simplicity), we easily go on the 1-2%. Any specific religion is 0%.
It’s nice to see Alex give up his atheism and embrace not only God’s existence, but His goodness as well.
For the very idea of sinner/saint requires an objective (beyond human opinion) standard of good by which to judge them.
Which is best grounded in God’s perfect moral character.
For if there is no God, then there _isn’t_ anything beyond human opinion.
Only likes and dislikes.
And that’s a far cry from sinner or saint, _really_ evil or _really_ good.
Per CS Lewis, one cannot know what a crooked line is unless one knows what a straight line is.
To label any behavior as either “sinful” or “saintly” we _must_ have an objective (unchanging) standard to judge the behavior by.
Or else no one is either a sinner _or_ a saint.
Hitler wasn’t evil and Mother Teresa wasn’t good.
What they did was neither good nor bad.
So welcome to theism, Alex! It’s good to see you.😁👍
If I'm not mistaken, Alex explains that he isn't making these judgements of saints and sinners from an objective good vs evil standpoint, but rather he explains that hedonism often leads to self detriment. That's what he's basing these ideas off of. You don't need to acknowledge the existence of god to say 'things that lead to my own detriment are bad for me'.