ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Atheist Debates - Dealing with "Inner Witness" claims
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ก.พ. 2018
- Part of the Atheist Debates Patreon project: / atheistdebates
Craig and others attribute their belief to the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. This foundation, akin to the 'sesus divinitatis' is viewed as a properly basic belief, with no need for justification.
Can this, or any personal 'feeling', be reasonably accepted without external justification/verification? Is this just a raw appeal to faith, or is there something more?
How would Willam lane Craig react if his inner witness of the holy spirit asked him to give away his vast fortune to the poor? It's rare indeed. When I was a Christian I found those around me pretending to hear from there inner holy spirit reflected their own personalities perfectly .
That would be a demon of course.... or....God testing to see if he would know better than to give it all away.
Logic Monkey. I can see where you're coming from. A bit like Abraham and Issac.
A fruit of the Holy Spirit is faith. If one does not have faith they do not have the Holy Spirit- Galatians 5:22-23 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Romans 8:9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.
Concerning riches-eternal life is more valuable then money.
Mark 10:17-22 17 As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 19 You know the commandments, ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” 20 And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.” 21 Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22 But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property.
Logic Monkey Mark 3:28-30 28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.
30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.
*You yourself are an unclean evil spirit. Satan is your father.
I like this format because I think it's more clear how genuine you are. I like these more than the Atheist Experience, where you can see that you're frustrated.
My three year old just woke up and came into the kitchen talking about hearing a rocket ship. I said did you hear the cars driving by? I could see the realization register on his face
Jordan Peterson, Rebecca Newberger, and William Lane Craig just had a "debate" at the University of Toronto on "Is There Meaning to Life" and when William went on about how God's values are good and the basis for morality I was thinking "where is Matt Dillahunty when you need him?!
Derek Moore isn't Peterson religious?
Dan Hull, he seems to think that we all live and abide by Christian values. Peterson, also seems to think that without a belief in a god, there are no good reasons to be moral, or as he put it. "What's wrong with getting everything I want from everyone around me whenever I want it?"
HE believes in the Archetypes. JP knows that the Bible stories aren't i original and unique to itself.
It appears that Jordan Peterson believes in belief, that he think religion is good for society even if it isn't true as such... or as he would say: "true is what is good for people, roughly speaking, so..."
Derek Moore Bill was painful in that discussion. Peterson made for an interesting counterpart to Craig's usual spiel. His argument never changes, and only really "works" when matched up against an atheist. He had no idea how to dialogue on the nuances Peterson was bringing up. Can't wait to see Peterson and Dillahunty together.
Put more succinctly:
_If you can't show it, you don't know it._
-- Aron Ra
Troubleshooter125 lol. I made a comment about this above.
Troubleshooter125
and “we don’t know it “ doesn’t mean that it don’t exist.
-we can’t imagine god but we know that god exist, simple.
Thank u :)
+dot Until and if you can produce demonstrable, reliable evidence which supports the existence of a god, my attitude toward that concept remains at least ambivalent ("I don't know") and at most negative ("What god?!?). Those who want to insist that a god exists can either put up or shut up.
Troubleshooter125
thank u for your reply,
first of all god is one who created every creation what we have ever saw
god can see every element of universe at once with his one force
our brain can't imagine his physique ( also he is physique less ) neither no one can see him with the naked eye ( until we go to paradise where we'll see him )
the
god is above the seven skies and at that same time he is also closer to us then our juglar vein
god listens every thing same even he can listen the footsteps of an small ant and at the same time he is listening all sounds without any confusion
god is the first, nothing first from him
god is the last, nothing can become last than him,
nothing can move in this world without the permission of god even the leaf of a tree can't move without his permission.
He is colourless, he don't have a physique,
he is free from everything, every bad habit,
No one can damage him or No one can make him more good,
He don't need any smallest or bigger creation to be with him, he dont take any type of help with anyone in the universe,
he can't tired, he can't sleep
He can't be situated in any particular place
He is placeless, colourless,
No one can be similar to him, nothing look like God,
He is not Atrocious
He is all-loving and he is a peace lover
Everything is praising GOD
Have a good day! :)
Troubleshooter125
brother,
-we (humans )have only rods and cons in our eyes,
-we don’t have such tools which can observe or measure anything out of spacetime fabric.
-we and our tools everything exist in spacetime.
-by using whole scientific knowledge we can only do the following things :
1)we can just modify things to fulfil our own wishes accordingly.
(even still everything have its disadvantages)
2)we can just know how everything works
(not even completely such as we named mysterious things like dark energy dark matter etc)
-----------
-we can’t imagine any form out of spacetime fabric
-our brain neurones can’t know or can’t imagine that how god created everything because our brain neurones are not God,
(but in a little way Allah has told us in quran that in how much time period he made everything etc)
-our brain neurones can’t imagine what is existing out of time and space
-we can’t know that from where everything in spacetime came into existence. (due to all above reasons)
----------
so all of above LIMITS of human beings are showing that when we say the word “nothing” it means that , According to us(humans) it can’t be define by us or it can’t be Imagine by us,
thats why we named it “nothing”
means here we are speechless or can’t say anything about it.
---------
as i proved above in my first proof that everything came from an unimaginable source somehow which means that the source is “UNIMAGINABLE” for us for our brain neurones, BUT IT DOESN’T MEAN THAT IT DON’T EXIST,
----------
I PROVED THE EXISTENCE OF AN UNIMAGINABLE SOURCE FROM WHERE EVERYTHING CAME INTO EXISTENCE SOMEHOW,
-----------
now we should listen to the prophets and messengers (approx 124,000) from adam to prophet mohammad,
who are claiming to be the messengers of Allah,
------
now forget for sometime the NAME OF UNIMAGINABLE SOURCE “Allah” ok ?
-FIRST YOU SHOULD READ, TEST AND EXAMINE IT WHAT THEY BROUGHT TO US FROM THAT UNIMAGINABLE SOURCE (ALLAH)
-what is message of messengers ?
-what they taught to mankind
-what they defined about Allah
-what they told us about the reason of our existence
-what they told about that why god created us and so on,
so please overall,
YOU SHOULD FIRST SEE THE QURAN AND HADITH WHICH ARE EVIDENCES OF ALLAH
test them, analyse them,
then you’ll realise that either that guidance is from the true and real CREATOR or not ?
Hope you understand it what i am saying.
Thank u :)
Outstanding discussion, Matt.Thanks for continuing to help me think better!
LOVE YOU MATT!! I have learned MORE from you than any other human being on this planet! THANK YOU!!
Matt you personally saved my life. I was in a dark place for a long time...years...I live alone and attempted suicide by overdose 2 times in 2 days.I got online after waking up from the 2nd and saw one of your atheist experience videos when opening up youtube. You personally saved me man. 2 years later and I'm doing great! you have been so inspirational to me Matt. Please Keep up the amazing workings. And know this. You are changing real lives of real people in the world. I'm 28, I want to be like you when I grow up :)
Logic Monkey dont mean to pry but how did he save your life?
Maybe he gave him a new outlook on how the world works when you use logic and reason to explain things rather than myths and fantasy.
At first it was just his personality and finesse of logic that sucked me in. Its not like I loved life or anything, but I indeed was interested in How Matt operated. I was still willing to end it for a 3rd time which was with my pistol that sat on the desk while watching matt's videos, video after video. I came to really grasp how effective he was, how clear and confident on the subject he was. I realized I don't have to fix everything. That I don't have to make sure everything is ok or getting better. That I can instead simply focus on one thing and make that thing great, Like Matt does.
I was on the brink of where depression anxiety stress and despair can take you. I was overwhelmed. Matt's functioning on online showed me I can laser in on one thing and get good at it. That method of one thing at a time. one step at a time, one point at a time is what helped me release 99% of my stress to work on 1% at a time...without the 99% killing me, making me so weak I couldn't address 1%. Matt's clarity and organization/laser focus method for addressing issues and achieving goals/understanding is exactly what saved my life. I was trying to carry the world. I cant carry the world x] I'll stick to carrying myself. Becoming stronger to aid others along the way.
Basically It was an organization issue. Instead of having a schedule or game plan it was basically day to day with 100 huge issues. So it was a constant "present" of 100 issues rather than an organized game plan of 100 issues 1 for the present and 99 for the future 5years. I was basically being smothered by 5 years of issues every moment of the day because it was only a constant present with no future.
Excellent chat, Matt!!!
I've been conversing with a couple of local LDS missionaries for about two months, and this issue has been brought up often. I appreciate having a more refined answer now, thank you.
Beautiful piece of work Matt! A real oratory masterpiece.
Call me cynical, but doesn't WLC's and his ilks "Inner Witnesses" talk directly to their Bank accounts?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"---Upton Sinclair
Or a more up to date version "screenshot or it didn't happen" .
Kevin Short, screenshot in the era of photoshop?
Pat Pezz
"screenshot in the era of photoshop?"
Well my graphic artist friend can spot photoshopped pictures immediately.
And stop being pedantic, you know what the meaning is:)
I'd be more inclined to call it unfair if it was someone who wasn't as up their own ass with their vaunted academic credentials as Craig is. He should know better, but he's happy spreading this nonsense because...well...I'm not a mind reader.
Perhaps inner witness is simply inner dialogue?
What's more likely, the inner dialogue is synaptic activity between areas of the brain or an undetectable, external agent is communicating through undetectable means?
"Because I said so" should only be acceptable to the very young, as in kid: "why is it bedtime" mom: "because I said so", and this quickly becomes less appropriate as we grow up, regardless of the authority figure saying it. Even if it's a cop telling us, they need a valid reason, usually a law, and that law will usually have a reason, not always valid, but 'because I said so' is simply not enough for any adult conversation.
Love your work
Matt being brilliant as he always is - really well done.
Jesus is Lord. Matt is confused.
I agree, it is an unfair criticism. I feel like people do the same thing with "ghosts" all the time
What about the epistemic circularity that everyone who wants to pass out of solipsism must confront?
"My senses are sometimes reliable"
and
"My memory is sometimes reliable"
Are both, at the very least, circular, if not unfalsifiable, assumptions.
Don't debate Craig, he is not genuine.
I love the "inner witness" stories that are easily explained and written off as dementia or schizophrenia.
While I agree that offering supplemental arguments isn't contradictory with not offering substantiation for his "inner witness", the two do conflict when Craig ignores overt problems with the supplemental arguments in deference to the inner witness. Hell, Craig even explicitly states that reason is merely a sidekick, whose role is to find excuses to maintain belief.
I would argue that there are instances whereby personal experience can be corroborated or validated as in the evidence for veridical NDE's or if perhaps your mother says she not only saw her dead grandmother, but her dead grandmother imparted to her some news of a future event such as the imminent death of another loved one , and that death indeed comes to pass in a timely way. But most skeptics don't like to deal with those so called "anecdotal" accounts because they don't fit in with their own narrative. Evidence is evidence. Choosing to not consider evidence because it doesn't fit in with your world view is counterproductive no matter which side of the fence you're on.
9:50
Matt: "We open up my wallet and find out that I have $17 in my wallet. What have we learned?"
Me: "Covid hit Matt hard."
Matt: "Not much."
Me: "Damnit..."
High Matt :) Bad delay on the picture ..
If somebody told me that their grandmother's Ghost came to them and told them anything I would laugh my ass off
Omg...I went down this rabbit hole with a guy on imgur. He was saying that he could dismiss any claim if it felt wrong. This includes global warming.
is that the same area you used to do the show at in the summer and fall of 2009 when the studio was getting fixed up or renovated? if so, i see you changed the background and got a new couch.
On the point that we ought to give up beliefs that are unfalsifiable I think Crieg would respond by saying that some beliefs (like the inner witness of the Holy Spirit) are properly basic in the sense that Alvin Plantinga expounds. Crieg has made several podcasts on the subject that I highly recommend to anyone who is interested in the subject.
You know I don't agree with a few or maybe more of your ideals, (I am very skeptical and you are usually on the opposite side) but you are one of the few people on that side that is logically and actually wants to talk and learn and not only do I respect you to the utmost for that but it excites me and I wish there were people like you who I could talk with in person. You keep away from hyperbolic terms and you actually debate. You actually make a difference and show that there are some valid people on "your side" that fight for good
The timing of this release was perfect for me. I am in the midst of having a discussion of, how could we know an entity that claims itself to be a god or God, how could we know? How could we know we are not being deceived in the Arthur C. Clarke notion of superior intellect vs a lesser intellect.
The "inner Witness" is an unexamined inherited bias, no different than the "validity" of one's native tongue.
Great video thanks! The analogies are most helpful and important, that’s what people can relate to when they are acting inconsistent with reality.
What's the difference between delusion and inner witness?
If a spirit says I have $200 in my wallet, then I pull it out and there’s only $17, I’d ask it what the fuck it did with the rest of my money!
Personal experiences are just that, personal. They are by no means justification to extend those experiences as evidence to convince others.
Topic suggestion: Bias investment, cognitive dissonance, and other reasons people can be hard to convince.
5:47, _“I was asleep in bed, and I woke up, and I saw this, or had this experience, or had this feeling […]; how do you explain that?”_ - it’s most likely going to have been a hallucination, caused by lack of sleep. Happens to me every time I have a high enough sleep deficit.
I Love your work Matt Dillahunty
Even if you could convince others that you experienced something, that still wouldn't prove anything. Many people are convinced that Joseph Smith saw the golden plates, for example.
I sure would like for you to interview Jordan Peterson on his religious views. he sure loves talking about them and helping out. And maybe start filming outside again :)
Now that theyve talked, how do you feel?
Just love when so many of these inner witness claims come up they start with "This one time when I was high", or "drunk", or "sleeping", or any other number of things where we would otherwise know that the mind is not fully in a sober state and that these situations have mostly known/understood experiences within the chemistry of our minds.
Most people these days don't take dreams seriously, yet they still think the "revelations" from their holy book that were from dreams (specifically stated dreamed) are somehow different. It would simply be great if the vast majority of religious people put the same skepticism and rationale into their beliefs as they do their day to day lives, instead of excusing the irrational claims just because they are in a multi thousand year old book.
Discussions about lived experience arguments always make me think of dr v.s. ramachandran and his lectures on the brain. They've found the spot for out of body experiences, for divine revelatory experience, and they can turn them on and off.
I am what I am
Digz the Swag King So...are you Yahweh...or Popeye?
If ALL of these people had personal revelation by God, why do they all not believe the same IDENTICAL BELIEFS??? These individuals own belief system allow for them to be deceived (by the devil or demons) which is clearly spelled out in the Bible! These people believe that others that are also fellow believers can, and many times are, wrong about the other persons aspects of Christianity. So how can the spirit of God reveal that he exists and that Christianity is true…and yet…they are wrong about the details of this god-revealed revelation? The apostle Paul said that even Christians can, and WILL BE, deceived by both man and evil spirits. The only thing that one can deduce is that personal revelation is not a reliable path to truth nor evidence that it is from God. Why would the devil convince a person that God exists? Well, chances are they are prone to believe these things anyway and perhaps to keep them busy with worshiping God WRONG and thus, not make them eligible for a Heavenly reward.
What about the "inner witness" of the Virgin Mary or Lord Krishna? The simple fact that your experience happens to be YOURS does not make it more reliable than anyone elses. Believers (and I used to be one) have a bad habit of assuming that their intuitions are infallible simply because they are THEIR intuitions. If the Hindu's intuitions are fallible, then so are yours, regardless of how "certain" you feel.
Love your videos, Matt. Keep up the fantastic work.
When Evangelical Christians [or others] presume to judge which conflicting Bible quote is the "true" one, how can they be sure that, since the choice means dismissing another Bible quote, that the source is God and not a demon, never mind mental issues?
William Lane Craig is the most annoying man alive.
Matt, what do you think about zagbetons in Africa???
When dealing with somebody who claims to be convinced of the existence of the particular God they worship due to an inner witness, all I can ever do is point out that people of other religious faiths are just as sincere in their claims that they received an inner witness that their God exists (and/or that their particular faith is true). If they think that other people must (or even might) be deluded or in error about their inner witness, how can they be confident that their inner witness is true?
Often, people will respond that all witnesses are equally valid and that God reveals himself in different ways to different people. In which case, I respond by asking them whether they would therefore consider belonging to a different faith instead of theirs, since obviously it doesn't matter.
I see a ghost from time to time. The mirror doesn't lie
I'm convinced that WLC is a career charlattan, and pushing an alleged belief based on non-demonsrrable assertions is irresponsible. Don't defend an enemy.
I had religious experiences and believed God revealed himself to me when I was a Christian, yet here I am.
The more I think on what you have said the more I think the idea of a God will always be with us
know what i like? you having a more-- well, say a more-carefull rational approach, id say bloodless n dry, but maybe more the try to really avoid all bogus. i feel like havin to explain, like introducing some more - not physical and exactly-as such described things, bringing intention n will n subject n whatnot. buts good, like when it passes that head it's at least of sound n reason.
What about that reality exists? That seems to be a good presupposition to be unfalsifiable, albiet, far more complex than we recognize it to be.
One problem i see with the first four minutes concerning revelation is that God chooses whom He will personally reveal Himself to. On occasion it maybe in a church with a group of people that God reveals personal details about someone in the church and all agree and know that what is said is true. Craig's testimony would be vaild as God can use anyone. Praying for you Mr. Dillahunty that you would receive a revelation from the Lord of His love for you.
He refuted why selective revelation is awful. He did this on the atheist experience, it is one of the most popular videos.
I don't think it is entirely untestable. Revelation would involve some transference of information; learning something or applying a new interpretation. The supposed revealee could explain in detail what was revealed. You could strip away all the information that comes from literature and other traditions to find the kernel of the supposed revelation.
Do this for more people who claim to have had a revelation from the same source. Cross-reference the information. If there is a contradiction, then there are a few possibilities:
1) The source is not revealing truth, but planting lies and therefore not the Spirit of the stories.
2) Not every subject received genuine revelation from the real Spirit. So split them into non-contradictory groups and start defining the pantheon of spirits ad absurdum. By each subject's argument, they should have to accept that all are real gods until they come up with a method of distinguishing _the_ Spirit from lying spirits and from deluded people.
I had a friend make this case to me for why she believes in Jesus, I said "well, how can you be sure it was Jesus? For example, a Hari Krishna might tell you that it was an avatar of Krishna that you experienced and that Krishna cares more that you experience his presence than he does what name you call him." I find the tactic of proposing alternative, equally plausible answers is better at making people doubt the truth of their claims than trying to convince them they're wrong because (insert scientific reason here).
Why do you keep calling him Dr William Lane Graig. His real name is Leisure Suite Larry. And btw he's not much of a dr.
The inner witness is proof of Gods existence and the illiterates are happy with that!
I had to see the brainwashing of my younger brother before I rejected the inner witness myself.
You should debate David Wood. You are now in his league and have to debate him. It would make for a great debate.
Crane Sebastian Not only was I not aware that there were 'leagues'...but I have no idea who David Wood is.
can't really see how there even could be a debate
He’s a sociopath that fantasized about and attempted murder that now runs a Christian apologetic TH-cam channel. He uses the same terrible reasoning that you have debunked on the Atheist Experience for years, so there’s no real reason to converse with him. His “testimony” video below is only interesting so far as there’s anyone who actually takes him seriously after having watched it.
th-cam.com/video/DakEcY7Z5GU/w-d-xo.html
So when you are talking about religion. generally organised religion and specifically organised abrahamic monotheism.
You are no longer talking about belief in a god versus the absence of a belief in a god but sets of cultural values codified over centuries and expressed in contemporary religious ideologies.
Sure, you oppose religion. Are you an anti-theist. maybe you could say that anti-theists potentially have a lot more in common (with one another) but then anti-theism is ideological and atheism is not - so you would expect that, surely?
Your voice purporting to represent atheism (and solely atheism?) becomes suffused with socio-political goals does not make them arise necessarily out of atheism.
Perhaps that is one of the problems with the atheist movement. For all the talk of inclusivity as an aspiration what attempts are made to make Buddhists feel welcome? To make those who still cling to woolly spiritual claptrap want to attend and add their voices?
From what I have seen the very opposite appears to be the case with movement atheism seemingly aligning itself with the sceptics community and thereby immediately marginalising a huge number of people. And nobody seems particularly bothered by that.
The problem is that I think your viewpoint here is simply skewed. Skewed, I propose, because the types of atheist you interact with online are a very selective and non-representative bunch.
If you look at the 2011 YouGov survey of over 63,000 respondents
d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/2l6avzlerp/Religion.pdf
19% chose “I do not believe there is a God or gods, or any other spiritual power”
and
10% chose “I do not believe in a God, but do believe in some higher spiritual power”
So i suggest to you that there are a whole lot of atheists out there who nonetheless have not abandoned notions of the supernatural. In fact, I personally know people who have lost their deistic religious belief but then gone searching through all manner of new age bullshit for something else to cling to, or who simply refuse to accept that their “cannot be more to life than this”
I had a dream last night about cats. When I woke I thought I saw a cat sitting in the doorway to my bedroom. It's a sign we must sacrifice to the one true god Bast!!!!!!!!!!
Black sabbath called the show?
So it's now 2018 and we still have adults who still believe in fairy tales? Wow
Rusty Ryan : A doctor, who specializes in skin diseases, will dream he has fallen asleep in front of the television. Later, he will wake up in front of the television, but not remember his dream.
Matsui : When I was four years old, I watched my mother kill a spider... with a tea cosy. Years later, I realised it was not a spider - it was my Uncle Harold.
( Oceans 12 )
1:40 whats he saying here? The "sense of sibinatus"? Whats that?
Sensus Divinitatis
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensus_divinitatis
Major work on this has been done by Alvin Platinga.
Kyssifrot awesome, thanks!
You can drill down into their experience. It often shows them how brittle it is.
Recently in a 5 minute conversation with a friend their main "experience" that convinced them of God's existence was shown to be just a charlatan moving a lamp when they were 11 years old.
Just with a few questions they came to this conclusion themselves. The mainstay of their faith was an obvious fake and they'd never critically thought about it.
13:41
I think Matt should go on a demon summoning expedition lol
I can't agree with the opening statement because you're enabling spreading wrong logical arguments on purpose, and irrelevant arguments distracts from the point that matters. When you're busy discussing other arguments, *you don't get to that inner witness argument at all*. If WLC don't believe there is a sufficient argument other than the personal witness for his God, he should make no argument for his God, period.
Giving Billy the benefit of the doubt, when he makes arguments for god, he's saying that if he didn't personally believe based on the inner witness of the holy spirit, he _would_ believe based on the arguments he gives. It's just that since he has the inner witness of the holy spirit, he doesn't need any other reasons. He _does_ think the arguments he gives are sufficient to justify believing in god. Though that raises the question of why god bothered to give him the inner witness of the holy spirit at all, which also ties into the question of why god is being so conservative in the distribution of this inner witness stuff
the problem with it is that it only gives the story teller the ability to argue. They're supposed to be "presenting" an argument, not "having" one.
It is not God being conservative.
One must be a open in the first place.
The human mind is the only thing that separates people from God.
God is always looking out through everyones eyes waiting.
Though the mind stops true vision from occurring.
Kingfillins does people who are "open in the first place" agrees with which religion is true?
Kingfillins
How can it be determined whether or not a person is "a open in the first place"?
The way this usually shakes out is that if you believe, you were "a open in the first place," if you don't, even if you previously did, you were never "a open in the first place." This makes the claim unfalsifiable. That's a problem because it means the world looks exactly the same whether that claim is true or false, which makes it inconsequential and useless. It also means you can't be justified in believing it's true, nor that it's false, as there's no way to verify that either is the case.
How does one become "a open in the first place"? I'd like to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible, so if any gods fit into the "true" category, I want to know about it. Is that not enough to be considered "open"?
This is something I experience on a daily basis. I became Christian because of an experience in which I believed I perceived God. However, after having gone through a BA in philosophy, I recognize just how careful I need to be with treating this experience as evidence that God exists. Yes, I do "feel" as though God is there (even if only vaguely). Even then, I don't allow these vague feelings, or denominational interpretations, to over ride my ability to critically think about truth.
It's strange, but despite feeling as though God is there, I feel more comfortable calling myself an agnostic atheist (or "spiritual" but not religious Christian).
Do any other agnostics and/or atheists here go through this? I'd love to know.
+ Phileos Sophia Interesting. I can't say I've experienced that myself. I deconverted at about 14 in no small part because I never "felt" god. Other people say they feel such things, but I have never experienced anything close to what they describe.
Why did your experience lead you Christianity rather than any other religious position?
I was reading the Bible, and the god I perceived told me I was saved. Now, keep in mind, these words were not audible nor "just assumed" on my part. The best way I could explain it is reading a text message in my head. Hence why I was led to Christianity over any other religious position.
I never experienced anything like that, but I can look at all the people who have, *of mutually contradictory religions* and not think much of it. That's a really good filter in general, whether something alleged to be magical evidence for a supernatural claim applies just as well to mutually contradictory versions, like a muslim, a jew, a christian, a mormon, and a pastafarian all praying and feeling vague sensations of ease and comfort.
No I don't have that experience. I've never believed in claims about deities, spirits, etc.
some delusions are worse than others. fine. but what about the preacher types who are convinced there is a god and they want you to believe in one too? what about those people? I think they are fair game to put in looney asylums.
WOOO dat Dillahunty
Matt, please stop saying you know that "nothing" is impossible. You even ignored Dr. Krauss when he presented the evidence that "nothing" DOES exist. You are doing exactly what theists do; Making statements of "fact" in light of evidence to the contrary.
DB Cisco I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. Krauss' "nothing" is NOT identical to the philosophical "nothing"...and he acknowledged this. Words have differnt usages and, of the two of us, you're the one dismissing one usage while appealing to the non-standard usage. Nothing, in philosophical terms has no properties, it's not a 'thing' that could exist as that would involve it having properties, leading to a contradiction.
I haven't "ignored" Larry, I've engaged with him, many times and addressed the different usages. His 'nothing' has properties...which means it's NOT identical to the philosophicl nothing...or ANY normative usage, which is why he's accused of trying to redefine nothing. Something else that he acknowledged in our Chicago event.
You can't criticize X by appealing to not-X.
The 'nothing' I'm talking about - cannot exist (via reductio ad absurdum).
The 'nothing' Krauss talks about - is different from the one I'm referencing.
Wrong Matt. When did you get training in quantum mechanics ?
You state as FACT that "Nothing doesn't exist" and that "Something can not come from nothing".
You are as dishonest or stupid as any theist. I find your statements to be a grave disservice to us atheists.
DB Cisco Goodbye. Go get some 'training' in philosophy.
Quantum Mechanics isn't a philosophy. Please prove your claim that "something can not come from nothing". BTW, Thermodynamics does not apply because a quantum vacuum is a 100% Open System. I love your disquisitions but you are out of your league when it comes to science.
Stop pushing God away, Matt. You don't have an intellectual barrier between you and God - you have a _moral_ one. You want to do what you want, when you want, without submitting to God's will for your life.
Is it bad that I thought it said "inner whiteness" at first? Lol
Nobody has special access to reality.
Howdy, you _seem_ switched on but there are some problems! @ 12m:17s You glossed over the possibility for a person lying about his or her "inner witness" claim a bit too quickly (and, perhaps, smoothly). @ 14m10s - You correctly pointed out that a person making an "inner witness" claim could be _mistaken._ However, a person who makes an "inner witness" claim will be quick to assure you that he or she is not mistaken - _especially when that person is _*_lying!_*
You must not brush aside the possibility for lying as you did (I hope that wasn't intentional). No meaningful progress can be made with someone who rejects the possibility for being mistaken and if they do admit the possibility, then there is no conversation.
>> Rather than suggest the person could be mistaken (we both know the person could be) it is much better to point out that he or she could be *lying.*
say 80% of my atheism-troubles would be just-gone, of it wasn't strangely-married with materialism. that is just a- funny idea. say lets keep it simple science n say matter is atoms, even then we are talking about things, sure, but very weird n uncomprehendable things, floating in relation to one another, hold by unvisible forces n with electrons doing quantum-shit - already here world - all what we call-such - is a immense interprational "creation", with many not being as ... motherboard-coded as knife in head is a problem.
the space between the atoms is the biggest part of any "massive" thing, we are 98% (a-round) no-thing, like not bad for mostly-nothing.
I too have felt the presence of the Holy Spirit, and received messages from God through signs and through other people, but that's not the sole reason for acknowledging God. Everything about the universe and the human condition is pointing straight to God. The case for God is a cumulative one. You don't have an intellectual barrier between you and God, Mr. Dillahunty. You have a _moral_ one.
Everything about the universe and the human condition actually points away from god. Try again.
No. Logic, reason, truth, morality, genetic code, etc -- all point _away_ from mindless physicality. You are not a soul less accident of space, Josh. Let go of your pride and pray for discernment.
Fjord Hassion all of those are labels that humans put on attributes of the natural universe. You don’t just get to say TRUTH and point to god without actually demonstrating a causal link. What mechanism are you using to determine that god is the source behind our genetic code and not just natural factors of how life changes and evolves on its own?
What is more logical, Josh? Mindless physical events accidentally making super-computers, or computer engineers making super-computers? Which one makes more sense? Be intellectually honest.
Fjord Hassion Until you demonstrate that the supernatural exists the natural will always be a better explanation. Your example is flawed because we know supercomputers exist, we have mountains of evidence supporting the fact that supercomputers exist. No such evidence exists for god. And guess what, we have mountains of evidence for natural processes (what you call random) being the origin of life on this planet. You’re engaging in so many fallacies it’s nonsensical.
To give a short answer, all the available evidence shows that indeed it is more likely that we came about by the natural processes of the universe (calling it random though only shows a lack of understanding regarding abiogenesis)
I meme to show corroborative witness .
God exist
The atheist says “you cannot prove there’s a God.”
It’s easy to prove the existence of God.
Remember these two words, contemporary witness and corroborative witness.
1- God exists because Jesus said so and he is God made man. Jesus is both a contemporary and the corroborative witness for God. The majority of all the scholars in the world including atheist and sceptic scholars believe for a fact that it's indisputable Jesus existed and was crucified and died. Robert price, Chris Forbes of the Zeitgeist film along with Bart Erhman and many others clearly admit the majority of the scholars believe Jesus existed.
2- Jesus exists because 12 apostles the contemporary witnesses to Jesus. This is corroborated by the very disciples that took over the apostles churches. We have two men in history outside the Bible that corroborate the witness of the apostles. Papius and Polycarp. Irenaeus a personal convert of Polycarp tells us he heard Polycarp speaking of the apostle John.
Papius says he heard the voice of John the apostle and says Matthew originally wrote that gospel in Hebrew. Polycarp was a convert John the apostle and he in turn had convert called Irenaeus.
3 - Irenaeus is a corroborative witness to Polycarp as he wrote five volumes called the church against heresy and talks about Polycarp's adventures with John the apostle. He confirms John in fact did write the Gospel of John and was the apostle the Jesus loved found in the Gospel of John.
So here is how it works, "God exist because Jesus said so, Jesus exist because the apostles said so, the apostles exist because the disciples or converts of those apostles said so and this is exactly what leading atheist scholars believe as well as the majority of all scholars. From atheists to skeptics to agnostics to scholars that are biblical scholars are just plain historians the majority believe Jesus existed. " leading atheistic scholars believe Jesus existed and the apostles and those converts of those apostles. Everything Well everything except God LOL"
4- The majority of all atheistic scholars along with skeptics, biblical scholars, agnostic scholars and just out right historians all believe by way of majority Jesus indeed existed was crucified he had 12 apostles and they made claims to the resurrection. This is admitted by Mystisist atheist Dr. Robert price who says he's in the minority because he doesn't believe Jesus exist among scholars.
5- Jesus existed and he is a contemporary to the existence of God and now the Romans have spoken of Jesus numbering in more than half a dozen. All placing Jesus in the Roman empire in the land of Palestine crucified by Pontius Pilate. You know, Tacitus and Pliny etc. They bring contemporary witness to Roman history. The corroborate the fact that Jesus existed in the empire.
7- Rabbis beginning in 70 A.D. all outside the Bible and hostile to Christianity all plays Jesus in Palestine in the first century. Josephus, the Talmud and the Mishnah and several other Jewish authorities talk about Jesus. This is corroborative evidence that Jesus was Jewish he lived in Palestine he was indeed crucified on the night of the Passover and they corroborate his existence in the land of Palestine. Josephus clearly mentions John the Baptist being killed by Herod. This confirms the fact that John the Baptist is a witness to Jesus. On top of that he fulfills the prophecy in Isaiah chapter 40.
7- Archaeology is a contemporary witness to the existence of Jesus. The ossuary of James, the bowl that accuse Jesus of witchcraft found in Egypt corroborates the statements made by the Romans in the Jewish rabbis that accuse Jesus of practicing sorcery. The second century graffiti of Alex was worshiping his stubborn donkey God who died on the cross etc.
You can be sure Jesus is believable and he's the contemporary witness to God and he corroborates the existence of God.
The best of the best Apologist in the world.
garyhabermas.com/
jamesbishopblog.wordpress.com/category/about-jesus-christ/
www.inplainsite.org/html/the_need_for_apologetics.html
- [ ]
"God exists because Jesus said so" that hobo didn't even know to wash his hands.
Very well put together but no matter how much history you throw, it’s a claim upon claim that Jesus was God. It’s all anecdotal evidence. Claims that we can’t prove or disprove
DIVINE CONDESCENDTION & ILLUMINATION COMES FROM GOD & OUTSIDE OF US - Not Inside - Until We're BORN Again - That's Born FROM HEAVEN - Tragic That It Hasn't Happened To You - ( Maybe One Day ) - " Until Then " - No Thank You Lier & Deciever 🙏🤗🙏
"Inner Witness" of the holy spirit? I have never heard of this before... What is it?
It's an inane rationalization, put forward by WLC, for believing what he wants to believe.
"The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit." - William Lane Craig
- - rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig
Is pretending the voice of the holy spirit within you is directing your every move, your every thought. But it is just yourself your own inner voice. Look up [CRISIS APPARITIONS] And see how powerful the mind can be.
The sense is only peculiar to those who have not, or are less able to have such expierience.
You or me are irrelevant if another person has an enlightening connection with what ever it is.
The fact there are con artists and magicians is irrelevant.
We know very little about consciousness and its potentials. So using "what we know" as a perimeter to suggest what can and can't be or be possible is a weak perspective. The reality that is manufactured via group psychosis is hard to measure when one is manifested into it. The logical and experiential faculties employable are limited. We may via science detect the atom or particle. That in a sense is magic to the naked eye. The question is, is it possible to detect or expierience the atom or particle via conscious or unconscious expierience?
Some would say or know it is impossible.
How would you test if someone could expierience the atom or particle?
You see you can only speak from your own limited perimeter and everyone else can only do the same. That does not detract from the fact that something is possible or not. All that you have is a best guess. Thats fair enough.
Though that is why you cannot win a debate on these matters.
You will always be left wanting becuase you methodology is by its own design is limited.
James Randi is a fraud.
It is about debunking. It is about ideation and ego based postulation.
It is about limitations. Fair enough.
To think that god or what ever is there to prove that it exists or meet some double blind trial criteria is twaddle.
The Skeptic etc, is irrelevant in the equation other than their self imposed importance they may imagine.
The questioning is one of the stumbling blocks to expierience.
Do a video on veganism.
@Dan Ryan morality
@Dan Ryan he did one? whats the name where can I find it?
Dan Ryan It has nothing to do with religion or atheism, but Matt has spoken a lot about secular morality and it seems that an youtube blowhard called Vegan Gains has jimmied up his followers to hassle Matt so he can try to score morality "points". Except him and his pack don't seem to be able to argue their case very well and don't seem to want to listen to Matt regarding what he actually thinks on the subject.
Same here. My position is pretty much like Matt's. It may be that being Vegan is morally virtuous, but I've not been convinced that it's necessarily a moral obligation, and judging by the way Vegan Gains and his posse seem to argue, I won't be getting convinced of that any time soon.
1: "...say nonsense like going vegan will stop global warming or the decline of wildlife will be reversed by going vegan, as if agriculture isn't directly responsible for said decline."
Agriculture is one of the main contributors to global warming and certaintly doesn't contribute to its decline.
2: It's not immoral to eat meat per se but needlessly killing an animal when other alternatives are available is immoral. Not in a traditional sense but as a general consensus. And as Matt continuously likes to point out, morality is contingent on well-being and killing an animal thus causing it harm is not in line with its well-being, therefore it is not justified.
Unevangelical atheists accepted that religion is definitively human. Though not all human beings may attach great importance to them, every society contains practices that are recognisably religious. Why should religion be universal in this way? For atheist missionaries this is a decidedly awkward question. Invariably they claim to be followers of Darwin. Yet they never ask what evolutionary function this species-wide phenomenon serves. There is an irresolvable contradiction between viewing religion naturalistically - as a human adaptation to living in the world - and condemning it as a tissue of error and illusion. What if the upshot of scientific inquiry is that a need for illusion is built into in the human mind? If religions are natural for humans and give value to their lives, why spend your life trying to persuade others to give them up?
The answer that will be given is that religion is implicated in many human evils. Of course this is true. Among other things, Christianity brought with it a type of sexual repression unknown in pagan times. Other religions have their own distinctive flaws. But the fault is not with religion, any more than science is to blame for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or medicine and psychology for the refinement of techniques of torture. The fault is in the intractable human animal. Like religion at its worst, contemporary atheism feeds the fantasy that human life can be remade by a conversion experience - in this case, conversion to unbelief.
Evangelical atheists at the present time are missionaries for their own values. If an earlier generation promoted the racial prejudices of their time as scientific truths, ours aims to give the illusions of contemporary liberalism a similar basis in science. It’s possible to envision different varieties of atheism developing - atheisms more like those of Freud, which didn’t replace God with a flattering image of humanity. But atheisms of this kind are unlikely to be popular. More than anything else, our unbelievers seek relief from the panic that grips them when they realise their values are rejected by much of humankind. What today’s freethinkers want is freedom from doubt, and the prevailing version of atheism is well suited to give it to them.
It's unfalsifiable to believe I am conscious. Should I abandon that belief?
I think that's the one thing you can actually be totally sure of!
How can you question or think something if you don't exist? Moron.
"I think therefore I am"
-- René Descartes
JosephM1750 you have the temerity to call me a moron in the midst of a straw man? Takes balls, but unfortunately not a brain. Existence was not in my argument, only consciousness.
I finished watching your video here just now. I read scripture out loud when i read it. The Holy Ghost one night spoke a verse out through my mouth along with me as i read John 8:12 out loud. This passage God was giving specifically to me only. When these happen these are called manifestations they are however given for certain reasons- mine was for guidance. He also spoke into my human spirit not my head although God can do that- after that a few words those words i cannot share. He is the same Spirit Jesus baptizes with. This cannot be done again for anyone else and this experience was definitely not just me reading out loud. Other experiences were happening simultaneously while this was going on but i cannot share those. Here is a passage revealing the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of Jesus- Matthew 3:11I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
I claim to be conscious. It is certainly an unfalsifiable claim because there is nothing that could convince me that I am not conscious. Yet you insist that I should give up this claim because it's unfalsifiable. You are clearly wrong here. I think this is the same situation concerning claims of firsthand experience with God. God is just the experience of one's own consciousness reflected upon in such a way as cannot but produce delusional states of mind.
What?
that's actually something I've noticed I disagree with AronRa about(at least the way he words his argument.)
many times he has said, "if you can't show it, you can't/don't know it."
but obviously this isn't true. for example, if I'm talking to Aron, and tell him I saw a coyote out of my kitchen window one day, and he doesn't believe me, how can I prove it? does my lack of ability to prove that I saw this mean it didn't happen, or that I can't know that it happened?
sure, he could say i was mistaken, or that i am remembering wrong, but by that logic, I could dismiss any evidence he cites for say, evolution, by saying that maybe _he_ is remembering the evidence incorrectly. or worse, the people who did the experiment messed up, remembered wrong, or whatever.
anyways, to your point, I could cite the population statistics for coyotes in my area, find photos from other people who saw coyotes, show that i am an expert in zoology, and the local wildlife, explain tjat i saw the animal up close for 45 minutes, etc.
however, the one thing I(somewhat) disagree with, is as far as I can tell, Craig never even brings up what he means by his "experience" or "witness" of the holy spirit.how did he experience this? what happened? when did it happen? how does he know he's not mistaken?
You're cherrypicking his statement, "If you can't show it, you don't know it," and taking it out of context with what he's applying it to. God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis that no one can prove or disprove. No one has good evidence of God outside of personal experience, meaning that no tangible evidence exists. This is what Aron Ra references when he makes that statement.
Coda he may very well mean this(however some of the contexts in which he says it makes me somewhat doubt this, and he also uses it when referring to non-supernatural, potentially falsifiable claims.)
however, my main criticism of this(and other statements aron makes/has made) is how he often makes broad generalities, or speaks in absolutes.
I don't say this to cherry pick(I don't see how this is cherry-picking), or to be pedantic(especially since aron is one of, if not my favorite youtuber), but to point these things out. aron is great when it comes to science, but over the years I've noticed he makes a lot of(usually minor) logical/philosophical mistakes, or unnecessarily overstates his arguments/claims(for example, one that comes to mind off the top of my head: "the bible is absolutely wrong about absolutely everything.)
I suppose I have never heard him use that statement against non-supernatural claims. I agree with you that he has made broad statements that tend to either generalize or could potentially lead into a shift of the burden of proof onto himself ("God is absolutely not real!"). I also agree that he needs to be a lot more keen on his wording, specifically when it comes to absolutisms. When it comes to logical fallacies, I've heard him make them, but they don't always detract from his point; granted, it could mislead others who tend to be on the Atheist sensationalist side.
+Mockturtlesoup1
I think you are unjustly refuting Aron Ra here... cause all you have is the memory / conviction THAT you saw a coyote... meaning you think/believe you did see a Coyote, but you can't even show it to yourself to ascertain it. maybe it wasa daydream? or you saw a reflection of a TV screen? Or just a normal dog with shaggy brown fur?
if you hada photo/video, paw prints or maybe just fur of a coyote to DNA test, that would make it easier to accept that what you THINK happened actually happened. Unless you have any such evidence, it is at best an annecdote and at worst a selfdelusion.
"you can't know it" is a pretty specific formulation. What YOU mean by "know" is "remember" or "believe". What Aron Ra means is "being absolutely certain it actually happened"... which is a FAR higher treshold than yours and actually DOES require more than just a short glimpse out of the corner of an eye. Even if the Coyote had held still long enough for you to sketch it and thus intensify / corroborate the memory it would already be far better proof for actually happening than just "but i KNOW that I saw it".
People KNOW they did see Elvis walking around alive and well... Is that enough evidence to convince YOU that they actually saw the very person Elvis Presley? Come back from the dead or having pretended to be dead and hiding now in some remote location? Or do they THINK they saw Elvis and there is another explanation? Like remembering wrongly, mistaken identity of a person looking a bit LIKE Elvis, Elvis impersonator travelling somewhere or even something like hinted at above: a reflection of something else like a Poster or TV Screen and them thinking it was an actual person they saw in that glass/mirror...
We "know" that our memory is a lousy basis for anything, we change our mind all the time about what happened in the past, we misremember, associate things not connected to the actual event and so on... or we forget details. That means that we should put a lot of sceptcism to any claim based solely on "i remember what i saw/experienced/did" and nothing else to support the claim. Which kind of makes Aron Ra right and you wrong. Sorry.
Feno 3000 yes, I understand that, but that's why I also said that this would equally apply to aron's memory of the evidence for evolution, or even to the scientists who did the experiments and wrote the scientific papers. how do we "know" they that they observed and recorded the experiments/data/evidence accurately, and then remembered it accurately when writing the papers?
that's like saying I can't know I have a brother until I do a DNA test or something.
I mean, I of course get what you're saying, but I don't think aron is referring to "absolute knowledge" when he says, "if you can't show it, you don't know it."
also, he's not saying that _he_ can't know something is true if I can't show, he's saying if _I_ can't show something to be true, then _I_ don't/can't know it.
for example, let's say you and I went to high school together, and had a mutual friend(we'll call him Dave.)
5 years after graduating you and I are still friends, and are having lunch one day. I tell you I ran into Dave yesterday, and we spent the day together.
does it really make sense for you to tell me I don't/can't know that I saw Dave yesterday?
regardless, it's not a huge deal, just something I've noticed.
Jesus really existed and did miracles and came back from the dead he proved he was the Son of God.
When it comes to the Bible, just pick it up open it at just about any page and read it. You might as well be reading Harry Potter. Its just full of supernatural claptrap. How anyone in this world of science and enlightenment can believe such rubbish is beyond me.
*For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God* 1 Corinthians 1 18
God knows and loves you, Dennis. Repent of your sins and pray for discernment.
Fjord Hassion Quoting bible verses won’t get you anywhere in the real world. You may as well be quoting lord of the rings.
No, Josh. The word of God convicts you precisely. Your denial of truth does not affect truth. You've been brainwashed by the shallow, secular progressive world view of people like Matt Dillahunty.
Fjord Hassion you have to actually demonstrate the book is true. It’s indistinguishable from any other book.
The scriptures are the most studied, scrutinized and verified texts in all of antiquity. You can deny God all you like, but no serious historian questions that Jesus of Nazareth walked the earth and was crucified under the authority Pontius Pilate. The reason you want to deny scripture is because you want to do what you want when you want, without submitting to God's will for your life.
In his book Perceiving God, Christian philosopher William Alston compares the first-person experience of God with other immediate experiences like sense perception. He argues that we cannot confirm the veridicality of seeing an object in a non-circular way (e.g. you have to sense that your senses are reliable); and similarly, he argues the Christian cannot confirm the veridicality of their experience of God in a non-circular way. But, he claims, they don't have to, and it's a kind of "epistemic imperialism" to demand that theists give an independent (and non-circular) confirmation of their experience, while taking one's own sense perceptions at face value. This is pretty much what Matt is doing.
He's talking about people who try to argue for the existence of said deity. What you said may be true, but even if it's 100% accurate, it's hearsay to everyone else and in no way a reason to believe. If you think that person shouldn't have to justify their beliefs with other evidence, so be it, no one has to prove anything to anyone if they don't want to.... but if that person does care to convince other people, they sure as hell need evidence outside of their experience. That's the point I got from the video.
If there's a unique sense of God's existence, it seems to me to be much less reliable than other senses. My sense that there's a table in front of me can be verified over and over again. People's sense of God seems to be all over the place; different people believe wildly different things about him and what he wants.
It's not epistemic imperialism. The reason we trust sense experience is in order for investigation to get off the ground in the first place. Religious experience should be doubted by the person having it because it's akin to Jones seeing a car, whereas everyone else sees a computer, window, fan, etc.
I agree with all of you. We need to trust our sense experiences in order for investigation to get off the ground in the first place, and god claims are all over the map and much less reliable than other forms of perception, and claims of "I felt the presence of God" is not going to convince a skeptic or anyone else of the existence of your God.
My point is that Matt's insistence that the theist "confirm" the veridicality of their experience is the wrong way to go about objecting to this specific kind of argument. It shows Matt's unfamiliarity with the most well developed philosophical arguments of this kind, and it ends up giving the educated Christian philosophers something to point to as a flaw: "Look at Matt Dillahunty, he doesn't even understand Alston's argument".
Matt's argument begs the question, and fails to meet the argument where Alston has left it. The better thing to say is what all of you did, and to add that first-person experiences of God carry no epistemic weight, and they face the daunting problem of religious diversity.
+Spencer
_while taking one's own sense perceptions at face value_
I was struck by this part of your comment, because I _don't_ do that, not in every situation.
In ordinary situations, sure, I do assume that I'm seeing what I think I'm seeing. But if I see a pink and green elephant floating in the air, I'm not going to assume that my senses are operating correctly. That's because we have no good reason to think that floating pink-and-green elephants actually exist.
I saw and heard a 'ghost' once, a few years ago. Of course, it wasn't really a ghost. I thought it was a person walking into my bedroom in the morning. I could see the expression on his face and describe the clothes that he was wearing.
When I jumped up to confront him, there wasn't anyone there. At that point, I didn't take my own sense perceptions at face value. Instead, I figured out what I had really heard and really seen, which my mind put together in a convincing fashion that wasn't actually true.
So I'm wondering why I can't expect theists to be just as skeptical as I was, especially when it's just a matter of _feelings,_ rather than sensory perceptions at all (but even when it is). My point is, I don't expect _more_ skepticism from them, but rather the same amount of doubt I use for my own experiences.
Wow! A complete straw man video. Spirits do not tell you how much money that you have in your wallet. If a spirit has to prove itself to you, then that is not an honest spirit, but a demon.
You are trying to apply human attributes to non-human entities.
Typical human ignorance.
Is this sarcasm? I cant tell
"Do you think it is moral to own another human being as property or you think it is immoral to own another human being as property."
The way this question is phrased is misleading. It is like asking, is it moral to kill someone without giving any context. Self defense would not be immoral. So my answer is, Yahweh would not have given LAWS to regulate slavery, if it was not something that people would abuse.
From the beginning, Mankind was not created to make slaves of each other. Yahweh alone is our Master, he created us, he own us. We are his property!
Psalm 89:11 The heavens are Yours, the earth also is Yours; The world and all it contains, You have founded them.
This being the case, Yahweh is teaching us the consequences of rebellion. He is teaching us what causes slavery and the way to end all slavery.
Not everyone agrees with his ways, we all rebel against them but in the end he will be proven right. So, the regulated Slavery we read about in the Torah, serves many purposes.
We can clearly see that there is a distinction between Hebrew Slaves and Foreign slaves on the duration of service.
This is because, those who follow Yahweh, and live by his laws of freedom, and love, he calls, his possession, his treasure, HIS people, his children.
The problem most have with the slavery in the bible is with the Foreign slaves. These are the people who do not accept Yahweh as their Mighty One or live by his good laws. They come from cultures that were practicing very wicked forms of worship to false "Gods" and were very barbaric.
Some were very poor who needed work, to earn a living, some were prisoners of war, but all were to be treated well.
Remember Yahweh owns us all, so he placed into the hands of Israel, the people he calls his children, the care of these people. They were responsible for them.
There is nothing in Torah to have prevented them from becoming full citizens in Israel provided they accepted Yahweh as their Mighty one and tried to lived according to all his laws. There is also nothing in Torah that prevented the foreign slave from leaving the land. In fact runaway slaves were to be cared for, so there are no rules saying to go after and return a runaway slave.
It would be foolish to think that the enemies of Israel would be allowed to openly threaten them, so that is one of the reasons for regulated slavery.
Today we have prisons, where people sit around in jail cells doing nothing. Often people come out worse off than when they went in., terrible things happen in prisons.
Slavery also served the purpose of helping those without means of taking care of themselves. Today we have government handouts, but there are many young abled bodied people who do nothing for what they are given. Not all forms of slavery are bad, the Military is a form of slavery, and those who serve are considered the property of the government for the length of their service. There are many reasons Yahweh allowed slavery to continue in the land of Israel. There are many lessons slavery teaches us, but the biggest is that it is a reminder that we all are slaves to sin if we do not put our trust in Yahweh, and seek his ways,that end all forms of slavery.
It is a process, and we are stubborn people and we have listened to many liars because we want to believe them. It is interesting to note that among all countries today where forms of slavery still exist, the united states is one of the least, and I believe that says a lot. While it is true America was not founded to be any specific faith, it was deeply influenced by the Bible and the rule of law. “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
Galatians 3:28, There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Messiah Yahushua. 2 And if you belong to Messiah, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.
Those who become the slaves of Messiah are the Israel of Yahweh, and full citizens, his children, and we serve Yahweh. We become apart of his Family and family serves out of love! Yahweh's slaves become his children, because they have proven they want to live under his laws that set us FREE!
Those who reject Yahweh, are also slaves, and they knowingly or not serve sin and the ONE who is influencing them, the Father of lies.
So the choice is, who will we serve, who are we going to be slaves too?
The slaves of sin, which leads to death, or Slaves to obedience, which leads to righteousness, freedom and life?
Shalom, peace
Michael Deo All you’ve done is use bible verses to explain that youre immoral.
I'm not property.
Herpeslip Herpeslip
"I'm not property."
We are the property of who we serve!
The slave of sin or the slave of righteousness.
Michael Deo You don’t have to be a slave to anything. Your religion has warped your view of reality.
Michael Deo I serve no one, celestial or material. Not a deity, the state, or myself.
I disagree, the power of the Holy Spirit is something that is observable.
The Spirit of Yahweh in a person brings out observable acts of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.
In contrast it can be observed that a person who lacks the Holy Spirit will have less restraint against the desires of the flesh and will more often exhibit actions such as sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, and the like.
Anyone can claim to have the Holy Spirit but if they do not show the loving Fruits of the Spirit, they are either a new Spiritual Creation and just beginning to grow in the Spirit of Yahweh and knowledge of his will or they are lying to themselves. The Holy Spirit, is given by Elohim to those who obey him. This means keeping Torah, living by every instruction he has given, walking as the Messiah walked.
The transformation caused by the renewing of the mind of the believer to seek and do the things that bring forth acts of love is a very observable and powerful witness. The Spirit of Yahweh is experienced inwardly by the person and can be seen outwardly by the world.
The reason we don't see the Holy Spirit strongly in "Christianity" is because it's teaching do not accord with the Sacred Scriptures, the same is true of Judaism and Islam. This doesn't mean Yahweh doesn't work with the resistance believer it just means that the more a person is faithful to what is given, the more the Spirit of Yahweh will grow in them causing them to will and do all his perfect ways.
I can't think of anything more observable, testable and demonstrable, than the contrast between the Spirit minded person and the carnal minded person.
There is nothing so joyfully obvious as the blessings that come along with obedience to the good way and nothing so painfully apparent as the curses that come along with rebellion.
We all know these things to be true, we suppress it because we want to have the freedom to do as we please, but that gets old and never produces the peace that having a clear conscience before our maker brings. The problem is the mind can get hardened in rebellion and often it takes a serious life changing event to cause us to realize how self deceived we have been. The Spirit of Yahweh brings unity, peace, wholeness, love,and life, but the mind focused on the flesh brings division, conflict, pain suffering hate, wars and death.
It would seem that most of the world has been on a downward spiral of rejecting all the things that it once held sacred and true. Atheism seems to be on the rise yet at the same time, the polls show that they are one of the most distrusted groups. That speaks volumes!
There is a serious lack of knowledge about who Yahweh IS and what he requires of us (for our own good) and because of this the love of many is growing cold!
The Scriptures are very clear, if we seek him, we will find him.
Shalom, Peace
I feel like such well-crafted nonsense needs an official title. My suggestion: _"Baseless Assertion: The Comment"_
My favorite part comes at the very end, though. You realize you just spent 9 paragraphs expertly demonstrating exactly why "atheists are distrusted," right? If people buy into this propaganda that in order to be decent people, they must be faithful believers of whatever religion the propagandist is selling, it's trivially easy to demonize those who don't believe.
"In contrast it can be observed that a person who lacks the Holy Spirit will have less restraint against the desires of the flesh and will more often exhibit actions such as sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, and the like."
What fantasy world do you live in? The statistics are in the complete opposite direction. It's comical to me, things like the highly religious states pushing "abstinence only" *having, by far, the highest repeat teen pregnancies of any states in the US.*
As far as just "being a better person" I like to think I'm a good example. I've become overall less judgemental and cruel to people different from me, *far* more empathetic and forgiving since *abandoning* religion. How do you explain that?
It's almost like I *don't* think that everyone who doesn't share my exact worldview deserves horrifying, brutal deaths and eternal suffering for it. And that makes me a bad person to you? _What does that say about you?_
I pity you, I really do. I wouldn't be surprised if you've never met an atheist and just go off what those horrifying christian propaganda movies say about us.
lol
Dan Ryan
Sorcery:
The use of power gained from the assistance or control of evil spirits especially for divining. Mediums.
pharmakeia: drug-related sorcery, like the practice of witchcraft, and Voodoo. See also wiccans and satanism. All rebellion against Yahweh is like Sorcery, witchcraft and is idolatry!
I'm sure you have heard of these things before, and it is no laughing matter.
Shalom, Peace
MegaChickenfish
Below you will find an answer to all your comments, I am sorry it is a little long, I have tried to give an answer to why I believe in what I do.
Thank you!
"The statistics are in the complete opposite direction. It's comical to me, things like the highly religious states pushing "abstinence only" having, by far, the highest repeat teen pregnancies of any states in the US."
I have said that "Christianity" does not practice everything it preaches but this does not change the fact that Sex within a committed loving union of one Man to one Woman for life is still the best arrangement that Yahweh has created for our families and individual happiness. It is the very best for bringing up right minded and emotionally mature children, which in turn produces a strong community and nation.
The bible talks about us human beings as being all slaves to sin, and that only a few actually find and walk out the way that leads to life during the short time we have here. Scripture says all people are liars and only Yahweh is True. It should not be surprising to find that to be true.
According to the study, I see that it doesn't include many other possible causes for the birth rates to be higher, and actually children are a blessing anyway.
It is interesting in contrast that the countries where sex is sold on the streets and prostitution is legal that they have the lowest birth rates. Does the findings in the states where they know the will of Yahweh, where it is taught to procreate and not to kill, not also prove that girls are less likely to accept abortion as an option? Which is worthy of more condemnation, teens yielding to their carnal natures outside of marriage or Murder?
According to the study, the results showed more abortions among teenagers in the less religious states, which would skew the findings since fewer teens in these states would have births. But even after accounting for the abortions, the study team still found a state's level of religiosity could predict their teen birth rate. The higher the religiosity, the higher was the teen birth rate on average.
Adamczyk's (the researcher) own, separate research has shown a nearly opposite correlation, at the [ individual level]. "What we find is that more religious women are less likely to engage in riskier sex behaviors, and as a result they are less likely to have a premarital pregnancy," Adamczyk said during a telephone interview. But for those religious teens who do choose to have premarital sex, they might be more likely to ditch their religious views and have an abortion, she has found.
Earlier marriage among religious individuals could also partly explain the finding. In the south, there is a higher rate of marriage of teenagers. And one possible explanation is just that in the southern states, which are also more religious, people just get married earlier and have planned pregnancies and those have perfectly good outcomes,
The way of betrothal, as outlined in scripture would prevent the awakening of love before it's time if it became the norm in our world. Father's being more involved in the decisions of who children would be betrothed to and children honoring their parents would also be a blessing to them.
The "fantasy world" people are living in is the way things are done now in this age. To think that sexual imagery and the unscriptural sexual behavior we have today does not affect our children in negative ways is to be willfully blind.
The acceptance of pornography and the objectify of the female body has terrible effects on young men and also on young women.
We know this, how can anybody even argue against it, it is so obvious.
"As far as just "being a better person" I like to think I'm a good example. I've become overall less judgemental and cruel to people different from me, far more empathetic and forgiving since abandoning religion. How do you explain that? "
I'm glad you think of yourself as a "better person,"
I like to think I am too but I also am honest enough with myself to understand where that has come from. I live in a country that has been shaped by certain principles and founded on the Messiah and his example.
When I hold myself up to his example I quickly realize that I am not that Good, and you know what, he felt the same way about himself compared to the Creator!
Had I been born somewhere else and been taught differently I would not be the person I am today. That is learned morality, and yet there is a greater growth that only comes from following what is written until the Spirit, the Mind of Yahweh empowers us to not just obey but to also want to because it proves itself as we walk out obedience.
I agree with you about "abandoning religion, " but Yahweh is not a religion. Men have twisted his words to create religions, so you have made a step in the right direction in doing that.
"It's almost like I don't think that everyone who doesn't share my exact worldview deserves horrifying, brutal deaths and eternal suffering for it. And that makes me a bad person to you? What does that say about you?"
I couldn't agree with you more! If I thought the Scriptures taught Eternal suffering for a lifetime of rebellion, I would reject them too. The fact is, the scriptures do not teach Eternal suffering. The whole point of limiting suffering and death to a limited period of time is to prevent those things eternally.
I can prove eternal suffering is not in scripture, it is the twisted teachings of the Roman Catholic Church along with many other things they twist in scripture. The evidence of their idolatry is easy to see.
"I pity you, I really do. I wouldn't be surprised if you've never met an atheist and just go off what those horrifying christian propaganda movies say about us."
I have talked to many Atheists, Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
I try not to judge the individual. Everyone has been taught different things and we are all trying to reason by what we know. I can only speak to what I have studied and what my life experiences has shown me.
I have never found in all the world anyone as truthful as the Messiah!
I have come to believe that there is no one like YAHWEH!
YAHWEH represents ONENESS, WHOLENESS, UNITY - LOVE!
My desire is to reflect that and to helps others, to know Yahweh.
Shalom, Peace
you look like a shaved bald head Buzz from the band The Melvins
same facial expressions and gestures and inflection too