Atheist Debates: But that's the Old Testament!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ค. 2024
- Part of the Atheist Debates Patreon project: / atheistdebates
When pointing out potential problems with the Bible, one of the more common responses is, "But that's the OLD Testament". So, what does this mean? What exactly are they saying? Do they really know that they're admitting a problem and then trying to solve it...and failing?
"But that's the OLD Testament!"
So are the Ten Commandments.
+JMUDoc That's my go to response, works every time.
+Sexton Hardcastle That has not worked when I tried it. I usually get 'you are mispresenting it' or 'that's your interpretation'. And that's when I get really angry, and then they will not talk about the original topic, but how I am angry. It's really frustrating.
+LukeSumIpsePatremTe I've been through that. Christians usually do that when they know their arguments aren't rock solid but it's not just christians that do that though lol. So many people I've debated have done that...completely change the subject to avoid the original discussion.
+LukeSumIpsePatremTe So are they claiming the ten commandments are not in the old testament?
No theists I know will debate me, even informally. They all know I watch Matt's videos. :P
Lurch Murphy I know I have done similar things too, and I'm not proud of it!
It's not enough to say 'you have changed the subject'. It's also important to show what the subject was and then repeat the contradiction.
nitehawk86 And if someone will debate you, they will just come to you, state their opinions, and then shut their ears. Or they will tell you what you think, and the whole conversation is about 'no, I don't think that', and then they just say 'yes you do'.
Real debates, where people try to convince others and will listen what you have to say, they are so rare.
I had once Jehowa's witness at my apartment to have a conversation with. I tried to understand what she said and I listened carefully. When I thought she contradicted herself, I stopped her and explained why I thought there was a contradiction. When I articulated my point, she nodded her head, like she agreed with me. When I got to the end, she said something like 'that's not a real problem... Lets talk about this'.
I don't think she did it deliberately, but I felt violated. You don't nod your head and then in the end say 'you just got it wrong', and then continue from there.
Those are reasons why I don't like debates. On textual format it is easier, because you can show what they said before, you can have your time to think what they said.
Come on Matt everyone knows the only stuff from the Old Testament that counts are the parts about the gays.
Cornwall1888
And the creation story. Don't forget the creation story. They need that part to disprove science.
+Paul T Sjordal And definitely not the pro-abortion parts.
+Cornwall1888 funny i heard a chat with Matt "the dick" Slick ........ one of the hosts was gay .... during the podcast "the dick" said he couldn't condone the gay relationship ........ minutes later he played the "old testament " bullshit
+Cornwall1888 Except ofc when the Christian is Gay themselves, in which case you have to quote Jesus in one of his friendlier discussions
Haaklong Nguyệt because they get warm fuzzy feelies
One of my Christian family members claims that the atrocities of the Old Testament don't matter because people didn't care as much about their loved ones back then. The lack of critical thinking sickens me.
The Holy Spirit reveals truth (who Jesus Christ is) to the born-again believer and only to those who believe and have faith. Not those who are religious and think their religion is going to help them have a relationship with our Creator/Redeemer (Jesus Christ).
@@paulgemme6056
It seems to me that Christians are always thinking that the holy spirit is revealing truth to them, but those truths are contradictory to the truths that other Christians think that they are getting from the holy spirit. I think that Christians mistake their own internal thoughts with influence from this holy spirit that they believe in.
Christian: I eat shellfish. It's okay because it's only bad in the OT.
Also Christian: I don't accept you for being gay because the Bible says it's not okay in Leviticus.
I know not all Christians think this way, but I've seen quite a few that do.
I think we should love one another.... But also we don't want our fellow Brother or Sister do go to hell so we tell them to repent and be baptism.... We don't mean do to it out of angry but out of love....
@@reneemerritt6572 then you worship a sick god.
Nate Franco
Telling people who the can love and how they can express that love isn’t courage, it’s tyranny and oppression. How the fuck does two gay men having sex in the privacy of there own home affect your life in anyway whatsoever? I’m not even gay but I don’t give a shit what people do in their own homes. If a dude wants his wife to stomp on his balls with high heels who am I to say he can’t? How presumptuous to speak for god and call yourself courageous while pushing tyranny. I don’t think god is concerned with how people have sex, he’s got bigger things to worry about, but you sure seem to care about it so who’s the real pervert.
@Nate Franco hey, do you do discuss? There's something familiar about your writing, here...
You people will never understand. The Law of Moses was given to the children of Israel. Not to gentiles. You need to disern the covenants between who they are allocated for. You can pick and choose things from the OT. Sin is sin in the OT and in the NT.
There is a reason why theologians did not select 'perfect communicator' as one of the divine attributes.
Surely maximal knowledge and power would cover this
Oh god, good thing they didn't... "What do you mean, it doesn't make sense? The Lord is a perfect communicator, by definition. It is you who is in error, not the bible."
+Penjacker Rekcajnep But they did, lol. God is omnipotent: He can do anything. As JamboNeesy said: Surely that would cover it?
+Razid M.S. Well +JamboNessy
"Omnipotence" would also cover "omniscience" and "omnipresence", but that didn't prevent them from explicitly including the latter two attributes.
***** It really seems like there are a lot of holes in the Bible, huh? It's almost like it's man made or something :P
A perfect god doesn't get a do-over.
changing with the times
But a sinful man does....and a perfect God, gives man a do-over.....
It seems Genesis happened twice, though.
lol..."pants of the field"......someone pray that I learn to type....that should be..."plants of the field" which refers to cultivated field crops like early grains as apposed to wild plants that earlier hunter/gatherer Homo sp. depended on. ....
standswithfist806
If God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of everything, there's no way around the sinful man being his wilful creation.
So interesting that god supposedly has so many human-like characteristics... maybe because he was made in man's image?
I wish I could thumb up your comment but I cant so all you get is this text praise. +
LuisCubing Wow! One of the best comments ever and so very true!
LuisCubing Seems like that of course...we are the gods...everyone is a part of it like every drop of water makes the oceans. Ironicaly, it even says the kingdom is within one's inside.
Surafel Melaku sure it makes claims but has nothing to back them up. Why should I or anyone take that claim to be true?
Isn't that a HUGE egotistical remark to make? Of all the species in existence WE are made in his image? LOL religion is such a cancer.
You have better eyebrows than most girls I know.
:D
lol...i was in awe of Matt's eyebrows as well :)
Thanks for ruining Matt for me... Can - not - unsee
do Matt and A-ron Ra purposely do their eyebrows like Dr. Evil from old TV shows.....???.....(is it hiding a row of sixes?....lol)
I was just thinking about that
Today is Sunday. Matt is my Sunday school teacher.
Adam Sanders YES.
Adam Sanders darn. Yesterday was sunday! 😥
Today is monday
Today is Sunday. Devine intervention? Or coincidence? 😂
Today is easter Sunday. Matt bless you all
People pick and choose what makes them feel comfortable in the book, and ignore the things that make them feel uncomfortable.
The Bible is made for cherrie picking really. There are verses for everyone there. One contradiction just went through my mind:
Jesus says to the rich man that he must give away all his money to the poor and then follow him.
But in another verse in the book it says that the one person that doesnt work shall not eat.
If you interpret that really hardcore you can rant and kick on the poor beggar who sits at the door in the supermarket.
"He is a sinner! He doesnt work! I work! Why cant he?"
You really could act like this and if someone asks you what the f--k you are doing you just answer:
"Well! The Bible says that lazy people that doesnt work shall not eat!"
Its pretty bisarre.
I don't observe them bring uncomfortable. They just brush things off or rationalize one way or another. Conversations I have are ridden with logic fallacies. Note, the vast majority of Christians never read the Bible, circa 80% in the States. They know fragments from church or school and priests obviously skip over the problematic fragments. Church has centuries of experience doing it.
Here's the problem i have with the "that is the old testament" claim.
-Without the old testament, there is no genesis, no eden, no fall, no original sin.
-Then, there is no reason for jesus to have been sacrificed on the cross in order to save humanity from original sin and the fall.
So what was the point?
@Hocus Smokus its an amusing mythology certainly
@Hocus Smokus That doesn't really make it true though.
@Hocus Smokus But he's not real either...
@Hocus Smokus Not really sure about that... Do you have any real evidence for your beliefs?
@Hocus Smokus basically no you dont have evidence ... Didnt need you to make up a situation where you havr evidence which isnt really evidence...
I love how Matt changes location. It's like walking through a park and stopping for a bit to continue talking.
The David Attenborough of atheism perhaps...
The only Bible I could take serious would be the Director´s Cut published by himself.
Then it would probably be in pre-Akkadian and we find that the fundies and atheists have trouble with KJ English. See www.ancientscripts.com/akkadian.html & www.arch.cam.ac.uk/about-us/mesopotamia/mesopotamia-history/mesopotamia-languages
@@davidconklin9552 the King James Bible has the same issues as every other Bible. They are interpretations of interpretations of an oral tradition passed down through decades if not centuries before it was ever written down. Every Bible fails because of this.
the zack snyder cut of the bibel lol
See, its arguments like these which converted me to an atheist. I was once a christian, but I was questioned by my peers and started watching Atheists on TH-cam. I had always been a more logically minded and sceptical than the rest of my family and all this kind of "stuff" converted me. Stay Sceptical.
@Luh Tunka aware of what?
You actually can still believe in a creator and ditch all of man's religions...just because they are clearly primitive stories passed down from superstitious people...
@@richardlawson6787 Yes, you actually can still believe in Bigfoot without the stories that go with it too. I would prefer evidence before I believed.
When people start arguing how "that's the old testament" I go back to asking them do they believe that Jesus is God or a separate being. If they claim it's the same being then I ask them why would God change stance on many moral claims within 2000 years? Did he learn more about morality within those 2000 years or did he just change his mind. If they say he changed his mind then I argue that if he did it once before he can do it again and therefore he cannot be trusted. If they claim he learned something new then I go after the weakness of his knowledge and his inability to see the future. If they claim that Jesus was a separate being then I ask them if they realize that they don't believe in one God but rather two. And I go on asking them if both of these gods are equally knowledgeable and powerful or not? If yes then why do they have different stance on morality, if no then I ask them which one is more knowledgeable? If they say Yahweh then I claim that Jesus is therefore wrong about morality and Yahweh was correct. It can go on in circles like that but hopefully they realize that the reasoning behind their original claim just doesn't add up.
+Greg Kowal Well arnt you the clever one....lol Well let me as a Christian tell you my beliefs. I do not believe the Old testament to be the infallible word of God. I believe that it was written by men who either were or thought they were inspired by God. But they are man and are fallible. God is not. The Bible did not get zapped into our world. It was a computation of writings, that were put together by the Church.
As a Christian I believe in the teaching of Jesus I do believe he was sent by God. I think Jesus was an aspect of God, a manifestation of the word of God in the flesh so to speak. He is a part of God. I take the New Testament to be eyewitness accounts to his teachings and the three years he preached about God. I take that evidence along with other historical events and my own personal experiences coupled with science all form, my my personal beliefs. You can dispute the evidence of course or not accept is as valid you can also dispute Tacitus, or Pliny the Younger, or Josepus or Lucian as well, all ancient people of history, all mention Jesus at one point. ( not his divinity) If you do not dispute any of these secular historical figures, why would you dispute Jesus?
You can try to pigeon hole God and trip up a Believer, but that tells you that the person is not able to articulate their reasons for their belief it does in no way invalidate them. No one not a believer or non believer has all the answers. I don't think that is the way it is supposed to work, but that is my belief. No one will be 100% right or wrong.
Laurie Durnan And your imbecile God who decided to pass his knowledge and laws through the people and one writing couldn't do it correctly. He couldn't predict that the writings will be full of nonsense and end up screwing his message to the people upon which your afterlife depends? Ridiculous.
"As a Christian I believe in the teaching of Jesus I do believe he was sent by God" - It's funny how you know which writings are false because people made mistakes and which ones aren't and coincidently they all match your personal beliefs. I wonder why. I also wonder what mechanism do you use in order to come to a conclusion which sentence in the Bible is God's words and which one is just fallible men twisting his words.
"I take the New Testament to be eyewitness accounts to his teachings and the three years he preached about God. " - but it couldn't be since the NT was written years after his death. So you are already wrong. It's not eyewitness account.
"I take that evidence along with other historical events and my own personal experiences coupled with science all form, my my personal beliefs. " - what evidence , historical events and science are you talking about? You need to elaborate with examples.
"You can dispute the evidence of course or not accept is as valid you can also dispute Tacitus, or Pliny the Younger, or Josepus or Lucian as well, all ancient people of history, all mention Jesus at one point. ( not his divinity) If you do not dispute any of these secular historical figures, why would you dispute Jesus? " - So much wrong logic in here. First yes it is disputed that no historian outside of Bible actually mention Jesus. What they mention is a cult called Christians. There is no mentioning of Jesus and his divinity. And even if he was mentioned there is no reason to believe in his claims. There are plenty historical sources that currently mention Scientologists and other religious figures yet it does not prove that the claims of those religions are true. It just simply mentions their existence but in the case of Jesus even that is missing.
Well your first problem would be that you assume my imbecile God decided to pass down his knowledge in a way that was infallible. That is your assumption. I personally think that if he wanted it clear it most likely would not be a problem for him... Your presupposition is to assume you know Gods intention.
As for the eyewitness accounts, there is plenty of dispute on the dating but it is generally accepted that the earliest COPY is around 60 to 70 AD if it was a copy then of course the originals are even earlier. Paul's letters are dated to around 38AD and he refers to the Gospels. So yes, as I said you can dispute the historicity of them, but I do not. You an dispute any writings from that period of time which was my point. I have no reason to dispute them. The fact that the secular writers point to a cult of Christianity seems to me to ask the question as to why there is a cult following and the explosion of Christianity after his death, not before. It would have taken something remarkable to happen to have first Century Jews abandoning their traditions that they have held for hundreds of years, to follow the radical teachings of one man who was humiliated and killed in the end.
MY assumption would be that unless something happened they would have been inclined to think they backed the wrong guy. Their Messiah was expected to be a warrior to rule over them, not to humbly die on a cross. The fact that all his disciples died refusing to refute their stories, should speak volumes. It is not the same as a modern Martyr as they would have known for sure if it was a lie because they would have been the ones to make it up. Why would they make it up anyway. What would have been the motive? They asked for no money or power. Why would they travel the world for years enduring hardship and persecution and eventual horrific deaths to perpetuate a lie they made up.
Laurie Durnan " Well your first problem would be that you assume my imbecile God decided to pass down his knowledge in a way that was infallible. That is your assumption. I personally think that if he wanted it clear it most likely would not be a problem for him... Your presupposition is to assume you know Gods intention." - This assumption arrises from the claims of religious people. Christians claim God loves people and wants all of them to be saved by accepting him and his message or otherwise be doomed to everlasting punishment. How can God assume that people will believe in the Bible if the book is full of stupid claims that are devoid of reality and them blame them for not believing in punish them to hell. Either your God cares about my wellbeing and loves me and therefore would make sure that his one and only message that was to be passed on in writing would not be tainted with bullshit, or he doesn't give a shit about his book and knows that plenty of people will reject it as it just doesn't make any sense and end up going to hell for it. So yes I assume that your God would be smart enough to figure it out and make sure that if my eternal life depends on me accepting the book as any value he would make sure that the book makes sense and isn't full of bullshit.
"As for the eyewitness accounts, there is plenty of dispute on the dating but it is generally accepted that the earliest COPY is around 60 to 70 AD if it was a copy then of course the originals are even earlier. " - What copy? The earliest gospel was Mark's and was written somewhere around 70AD which makes it almost 40 years after Jesus' death. That's no eyewitness account.
"Paul's letters are dated to around 38AD and he refers to the Gospels. So yes, as I said you can dispute the historicity of them, but I do not. " - St.Paul never actually met Jesus. So what eyewitness accounts are you talking about?
"The fact that the secular writers point to a cult of Christianity seems to me to ask the question as to why there is a cult following and the explosion of Christianity after his death, not before. " - Same reason why historians wrote about other recent cults who you completely will agree with me are just pure cults and their claims are false. There are thousands of cults around the world and newspapers and historians mention their existence yet you would agree that mentioning an existence of a cult does not necessarily mean that the claims of the cult are true just because someone will mention you in his book or article. Would you?
"It would have taken something remarkable to happen to have first Century Jews abandoning their traditions that they have held for hundreds of years, to follow the radical teachings of one man who was humiliated and killed in the end." - Nonsense. Look into history books and you will see that there were many people who called themselves prophets in those days and plenty of cults. Today we see the same thing. New religions come and go and some do well while others disappear quickly. Scientology is quite popular today and it is quite a recently newly formed religion , does it mean that their religion is true since they have gained so many followers? You can answer that on your own.
"MY assumption would be that unless something happened they would have been inclined to think they backed the wrong guy. "
Man have you not seen the news in the last 40 years? Crazy cults and suicides ? They all backed the wrong guy and yet they killed themselves for the cause.
"Their Messiah was expected to be a warrior to rule over them, not to humbly die on a cross. The fact that all his disciples died refusing to refute their stories, should speak volumes. It is not the same as a modern Martyr as they would have known for sure if it was a lie because they would have been the ones to make it up. Why would they make it up anyway. What would have been the motive? They asked for no money or power. Why would they travel the world for years enduring hardship and persecution and eventual horrific deaths to perpetuate a lie they made up." - You are so naive. Read a newspaper from time to time. Examples of what you speak of are on a daily basis. People follow crazies and believe in the nonsense all the time. Millions of people keep buying into homeopathy , anti-vaccine movement, anti-GMO and other nonsense and they are convinced they are right even after countless scientific studies prove them wrong. There will always be thousands or millions or people who blindly believe. Millions of Muslims, Hindus and other religious folks out there who are convinced their belief is correct and they will die for it. Yet you don't agree with them and think they die for wrong and false cause. Islamic terrorists claim to die as martyrs for Allah. You think their religion is false yet they deeply believe in it and die for wrong cause. Why? You claim people don't do that unless their belief actually had any merit. So are you saying Allah and Islam is real? Of course not. You believe in Jesus and God of the Bible.
As for your first point, again you make too many assumptions, All Christians do not believe in the same things. I am a Christian and I do not follow the Old Testament, I do not think that is the word of God......... It is a bunch of scrolls that were put together by men and a book was created.........
I believe in the New Testament it is very clear... The rules are pretty straight forward. No mistaking what the Man is saying,.... Therefore God is making it perfectly clear for you or anyone else. The New Testament is not the only place you can find God. You do not want him, therefore you will not find him. You have every right to deny God and he will not stop you, you are completely free to choose. It seems you prefer to spend your time finding reasons to dispute him rather than find him and again your choice.
Second point, the first copy is Marks and his is dated around 40 years, it is a copy therefore it stand to reason the original would have been early. The ref to Paul was because he references the Gospels and the Disciples by name. Paul clearly states in his letters he never met the living Jesus, He also clearly states he met the risen Jesus. withing 5 years of his death.
Third point is you missed my point. Why did there become a Cult following of Jesus, a Jewish Rabbi, that was mocked beaten and Killed. The Jews were looking for a warrior Messiah that would lead them, it would have taken something pretty big to have them let go of their traditions. You have to keep in mind these were first century Jews. They held their traditions very very dear.
Your fourth point makes no sense so I will leave it alone. There is no logic at all to it.
Your last point is also wrong. There were not following what they believed to be true, They were there and saw it for their own eyes, they did not rely of someones word!! If it was all a lie it would have been their lie. They would have been the ones to start the whole story and then go around the world for years preaching for no money. no power nothing. Except the clothes on their backs and food for the day. Why would they do that for something they made up. There is no logic in that at all. They died because they would not deny what they saw.
Thank you for this Matt. Your 'Bible studies' (if I may call this that) are so helpful because you 'fight the steel man'. You explain the Christian position honestly, not seeking to mock or exaggerate, and then proceed to deconstruct it. There's a place for the satire of Hitch and the scathing of Dawkins, but atheists who want to talk knowledgeably about the Bible should come to you!
JoelJoel321 don't leave out Robert Ingersoll.
Hitch does not satire and Dawkins does not scat. Please re-framed from critiquing these good men wrong.
Erman ,Carrier and to a lesser extent Fitzgerald do will in this regard
"old test" Oh good the commandments no longer apply! Also why is the old test in the new bible?
@@HappyKillspee not scat, scathe.
“How much longer till we start hearing but thats the New Testament.” 😂
😂
It would be the middle testament since it's no longer new.
I'm sure that's what the Mormons say already...
That will never happen, but would be quite hilarious.
When we get the Newer Testament
~ No intelligent discussion like this did I ever hear in years of church sermons, buybull classes or study! I lost a friend once from simply questioning her book of fairy tales, as if it were an attack on her personally! There is nothing correct or right about religion - just lots of wordplay, word salad, male delusions/patriarchy, and blah blah blah. Thank you, Matt, for intelligence, reason, and most important, TRUTH. Cheers, DAVEDJ ~
Its hard to ask questions when people refuse to answer them.
Forget asking them how they know the bible is true. Go straight to how they determined which version was the correct one. I feel like that question is harder to avoid.
Computer not correct. Read the history of the KJV.
susancdwpg What do you think Im saying?
Do you mean BIBLE TRANSLATION, Sir? Bible means BOOKS. It is compilation of books and sacred means OLD or antique. But people translated it into HOLY BOOK, not OLD manuscript because misinterpretation by different kind of language. The ORIGINAL written in Hebrew and Greek. Not all of us able to read it, because most of us able to read only in our own language or English. That's why you found lots of BIBLE VERSION by different translation.
If you buy iPhone from China, is that mean ORIGINAL or false, Sir? The answer is the same like that. If you understand what i mean.
We don't even have the original manuscripts. We just have thousands of copies passed down for hundreds if not thousands of years. And every Manuscript has differences. Buy a NIV study bible and as soon as you do flip it open and look for "in some manuscripts it says this etc..." EVERY MANUSCRIPT IS DIFFERENT
For me, it is really a manner of the speech. Modern ones have a controlled and straightforward manner of speech, like the NIV.
KJVs and anything like that, antiquated and somewhat... archaic. But that makes sense since all those early translated manuscripts came from 14th century Europe.
But here is the thing. Both of these book speech styles all mention Jesus, and do not divert, denounce, or demean, or detract from the absolute fact of his dying on the cross for our sins, and all that it means. The Bible is God's word, and God calls his own to lead a life that is edifying, in light of that sacrifice. Thinking about it, the manner of speech really does not mean a whole lot when it is still the same thing that is read.
I understand the argument that the Old Testament law is no longer relevant because Jesus came along and now we no longer need the laws regarding ceremonial cleanliness. My biggest problem with it is, why would you worship a god that ever encouraged those things to begin with? Why would you worship a god that ever told his people to stone children who disobeyed their parents, murder gay people, etc. that reveals something about the character of the Christian God regardless of whether or not those laws are still relevant.
they were laws given to the hebrews for their nation to abide by.. just as each country today has different laws to abide by.. some countrys kill drug dealers and some kill murderers ect hope that can help.
I understand that. The laws are barbaric. That said, how am I to believe that an all powerful all knowing loving God is to have created them?
An allpowerful god probably hasn't written them. Those passages were most likely written and created entirely by man. Leaders of ancient societies used past populations spirituality to govern their societies.
The bible should be treated just as what it appears to be, an extended arm of the ruler. The church of the past was vastly different to the church we have today. Law, politics, culture, norms and spirituality all aggregated under the umbrella of religion of the past. Luckily, we've moved past that.
Yes, as we, the world moves away from all these things you speak about everything is getting soo much better. Uh, just a minute......
that has nothing to do with the world getting worse.
If there is no god, why are vampires afraid of Crosses?
Checkmate Atheist!
+Captain Obvious Thanks, I had a good laugh.
Captain Obvious if we are going to talk about psychology
As Richard Pryor said: "The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because Vampires are allergic to bullshit"
Hey yeh, vampires are rampant where I live,,,,doh
Maybe they were frightened of being crucified as was the thing from the 6th BC century, just about the time of Prince Vlad, who was all vampires eternal and paternal Father.
Your move Captain....man over board.
But the New Testament introduces us to Hell and everlasting torture. You may say the Old Testament is awful, but what is worse than infinite torture? Personally, I say the New Testament is worse.
th-cam.com/video/SJUhlRoBL8M/w-d-xo.html
Frankly even the Jesus god they created is immoral by current standards...if a tv preacher told his audience to give up everything and hate their family society would rightfully call that preacher demented and evil
yadda yadda "but it's not to be taken literally" is the other cop out often in the same sentence as "But that's the Old Testament!"
It's not literal. Atheists accepting the same misinterpreted premise in order to reject it, without instead correcting it, are the ones copping out. I've heard an actual Rabbi state that the stories are just stories used to teach meanings. They were never meant to be taken literally. Why can't atheists get that? It goes right in line with their thinking.
@Amy Xoxo It's all allegory. If there's no God, how could it be anything else? Ironically, the first thing the proverbs teach is that you should seek wisdom and understanding. Faith or belief are never mentioned.
Who takes metaphors and hyperbole literally? Answer: atheists! For research, see www.academia.edu/36826104/FIGURES_OF_SPEECH_USED_IN_THE_BIBLE--Bullinger
@Darren Laurens I've heard of them. I don't really know exactly what their premise is or any specific claims they make but just the name evokes prejudice.
@@seanhammer6296 So if you are talking about the bible containing spiritual truths and meaning, what is the meaning behind how to treat your slaves
I've always found most striking how the character of "god" in the old/new testaments are literally *polar opposites of each other.* Merciless to merciful, meek to overbearingly arrogant and boastful, a pacifist to a bloodthirsty omnicidal warlord, I could go on.
stop describing the human condition.... its embarrassingly too revealing.
@@ericscaillet2232 what?!
I know this is a very old comment, but look into the concept of the Demiurge that the early Gnostic Christians had. The barebones of it is that the OT god was actually a lesser god called the Demiurge that created the earth and man, but was vengeful and wrathful because he wasnt actually the complete ( or full powered, essentially ) god. Jesus was then born in order to reunite mankind with actual true God ( i.e. the NT God ) and banish the Demiurge. Pretty interesting story that actually makes a lot more sense in the context of the Bible, but then Christians couldn't say there was just one and only one God, so it ruled out as heresy.
@@Gadget-Walkmen he's saying that all of the biblical god's characteristics are distinctly human.
@@steveswangler6373 I can’t tell if he’s a religious nut or not, based on his Channel and who he follows. Is he being sarcastic against religion or not?
It's utterly odd that a christian would use this argument when the fact of the matter is the new testament writings would not even exist if it wasn't for the old testament. They literally created a Jesus from the old testament.
nontheistdavid Yet they do. I did. Anything for that mental gymnastics work around...
@@bigsiskrishere You realize Jesus is a historical person who existed...right? Not that he necessarily was/is the Messiah, but he lived in Palestine and that he fulfilled numerous expectations for who the Messiah would be as predicted by the old testament. There are historical records outside of the Bible that confirm this, such as the writings of Josephus. Not to mention, people just after Jesus death believed (right or wrong) that he was the Messiah and were willing to die for that belief. You can claim that Christianity is wrong, but it is historically illiterate to say that Jesus was invented out of the Old Testament.
@@spaceburrito7975 No, I agree that he was an existing person. What I was referring to was the mental gymnastics in saying "But that was the old testament!" when the principles of the New Testament are all found in the Old, and the New would not make sense without it.
@@spaceburrito7975 followers of the Peoples Temple cult were also willing to die by the hundreds in the belief that they would be flying up to a spaceship. People are incredibly susceptible to delusion. Willingness to die, especially in a religious cult context is not strong evidence of anything, just that their brainwashing was particularly potent. This supposed jesus figure lived in a time so long ago that it's really difficult to make any definite statements about if he really existed or not. People that claim he definitely existed usually have a religious bias.
@@gerardt3284 Willingness to die is evidence that they were not dying for something they knew to be a lie: so they were either sincere or brainwashed as you say. Either way, they truly believed why they were dying for. But saying it's so long ago we can barely know anything is just simply a poor historical claim. There is much we know about the past, and in regards to Jesus, there is more evidence and records for his life, the way he died, and the movement that arose after his claimed resurrection than there are of many other historical events that we call fact without questioning them.
Matt, thank you so much. I live in India and in a state that claims to be 100% Christian. They probably aren't aware that there are atheists plenty. It's tough. But I have 'deconverted' many by debates on Facebook using your method, tactics and arguments.
You are my inspiration. I'm so proud of you. You probably haven't even thought or expected that you would be reaching so far and remote a place like mine.
If people are too stupid to understand God, why doesn't God make them smarter so he can communicate with them?
Well that would be to easy and not fun at all
God is sadistic
20:52 Hardcore parkour lizard :D
Clearly a dinosaur. Your not allowing for the Law of Perspective! 🤣
NEC and Flat Earth all in one comment 👍🏼😜👍🏼
YOU TRIPPIN'!!! 🤣🤣🤣
Love that lizard!
"I would argue that keeping slaves... probably more harmful than *most* lies and, *perhaps* adultery"
I don't think the wife will mind your saying that slavery is unequivocally worse than any act of adultery. I'm assuming that hedging language was just force of habit.
Seriously though, how can anyone accept a text that doesn't condemn slavery but ranks shouting 'goddamnit jesus christ' when you stub your toe in the top 10 sins?
If all God's wishes were natural and effortless, then you wouldn't need laws and it would not deserve a reward for following them. If God created humans abiding and good, it wouldn't be fun for him, as there would be no one to punish, threaten, tease and torture. He had to introduce this element of randomness, them to observe, akin to what we do to rats with labyrinths and food levers in lab experiments.
@Σאgßと no, it’s actually not such a good verse. In fact, it’s a pretty stupid verse.
Such an amazing and concise expository. Thank you for putting this together.
I think if Christians could, they'd get rid of the old testament, except without the Adam and Eve story there was no reason for Jesus to die for their sins.
I still wonder how God needed himself to die to appease his anger over Adam eating the apple.
@@gusgrizzel8397 the buy-bull never says it was an apple
@@tlibito You miss the whole point.
@@gusgrizzel8397 No he didn't. He made a good point which is that anyone who has read the Bible knows the forbidden fruit wasn't mentioned to be an apple. It doesn't say what it was. Before you start talking about the Bible, read it all first. That goes for atheists and christians. Everyone should read the Bible before determining if they believe or not. If not, they shouldn't speak of the matter at all.
@@strangeroamer3219 You miss my point. I said "apple", could be any fruit, but (LOL), that wasn't the point. I asked why God needed himself to die to appease himself. How does that happen?
In Mark 7:7-10, Jesus tells people specifically to obey the Old Testament law that disobedient children should be killed (the one prescribed in Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, and Deuteronomy 21:18-21).
+Dr Shaym " Jesus tells people specifically to obey the Old Testament law that disobedient children should be killed"
Jesus says nothing of the sort. He is calling the Pharisees on their hypocrisy, in no way is he saying what you imply. The Pharisees claim to be following the Old Law but aren't. That is what he said. That verse is not directed at Christians at all.
+Lana Stompanato you need to go back and re-read the bible. you missed something...
+christopher Bliss I read Mark 7 and nothing in those verses is anything like what Dr Shaym claimed.
Lana Stompanato
John 14:15 says, "If you love Me, keep My commandments.
Matthew 5:17 says, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill"
Not that it matters anyways... You realize that the collection of books in the bible contradicts itself time after time.. You can literally just choose how you wish to interpret the bible, Btw- the ten commandments are in the O.T - None of it is first hand writings, All of it has been interpreted, re-interpreted, translated, edited, re-translated and edited some more.
Hell, even the bible itself in it's entirety has entire books added and removed throughout history, with catholics and baptists and protestants each having their own "hand picked selection of books" they call their bible.
+christopher Bliss Read all of Chapter 5 of Matthew. He makes clear what he means by fulfill in verse 17. In Matthew chapter 5 Jesus says the Old law isn't enough. It isn't enough not to kill, you shouldn't hate. Not enough not to commit adultery, you shouldn't lust. Not enough to refrain from stealing, you shouldn't envy.
Read all of John 14, where he makes clear that he is NOT talking about the old law at all. He is talking about his own teachings to them, his disciples. Read just a few verses farther and this is clear.
23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching."
"Btw- the ten commandments are in the O.T - "
Exactly and 99.9% of Christians don't keep the Sabbath (Saturday) holy like the Jews did. They aren't supposed to. Those commands were given to Israel. You realize the Ten Commandments requires Israel to keep Saturday sacred, right?
Matt thank you for opening my eyes. This whole thing is painful but being ignorant hurts more. Thanks for all you do
At 9:17 ─ Matthew 5: 17-19 (New International Version):
(17) “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (18) For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (19) Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Cameri
what does this comment mean? I mean - you dropped in a quote. but I'm not sure why.
james barrett jr - Do you realize that I provided a time reference in the video (9:17) where Matt discusses this passage? Do you realize that this is some of the best evidence in the whole NT that Christians cannot just pretend the OT doesn’t matter?
Do you realize that nothing in the NT is observable nor reliable evidence.
@@jdbarret1 Do you realize that I quoted the passage BECAUSE IT SUPPORTS MATT'S ARGUMENT? I am with him on this, and actually if you look elsewhere in the comments, I argued with Christians that their position was untenable (i.e. that the NT supersedes the OT) because the language in Mat. 5: 17-19 is extremely clear. Since they believe that the NT is true and "better" than the OT, then why do they try to explain away this passage? Because it tells them the Laws of the OT still stand, and that Jesus is here to see them implemented to the letter.
It is important, in discussing these issues, to use the Christians' own evidence to show them how irrational their position is. It seems to me that this is what Matt does in this video. When he says Matthew 5: 17, he invites us to check for ourselves. I simply provided the text in the comments for ease of reference.
I've had this discussion many times over the years with all sorts of "Christians", it usually ends up with them yelling, sweating, veins popping out of their foreheads and they storm off.
I love the smell of Napalm ... anytime of day ...
Hope you do new episodes soon - watched all of them several times already :)
Your series here is fantastic. It’s a teaching tool for future generations.
Your sound quality and production is getting better every time, Matt. This is the best quality video shot outdoors I think. Great job, love your content
This was exellent! These kind of informative videos are great. Keep up the good work for reason and science
Always love your spot-on analysis. This time, you have a nature background I love almost as much as the articulation. So, all is excellent and so enjoyable. Thanks!
That nature background was given to us as a gift to enjoy. Made/created by our Wonderful Master Creator himself Jesus Christ/God. Bless his name. The name above all names!
Dear Matt, thank you so much , sincerely. Your clarity and grounded insights have had the most profoundly liberating effect on the bullshit guilt I have burdened myself with for so many years. Thank you
Thank you Matt for this information. I have been recently watching all of your videos and has definitely put things into perspective. Keep up the good work.
This is one of the best videos you have ever done - and that is saying alot considering how much amazing stuff you have done. Thank you Matt!
You're use of different backdrops is so calming, Such a beautiful area ^-^
Nice one, Matt.
Thanks Matt. I'm greatful for this great content that you laid out for everyone.
love these videos Matt. keep them coming
Matthew amongst one of favorite people on planet earth 🌏. Thank you for being alive and teaching your great knowledge 👍🏽
The New Testament is not actually more peaceful than The Old Testament. The Book of Revelation is one of the most unpleasant writings within The New Testament.
Its place in the Bıble canon has often been questioned - Luther for example considered leaving it out.
You’re very professional and spot on. I appreciate your great delivery and your accuracy. Thank you.
Rock solid as always Matt. Keep the videos coming!
So...how can they even say "ignore the Old Testament" when the whole bible is held to be The Word And The Truth Etc? You can't dismiss any part of the bible. Xtians, it's all meant to be true.
A bit of a conundrum, eh?
+Jonathan Peden Christians don't dismiss the Old Testament. It was a covenant with Israel. Jesus gives us a new covenant with Christians. That isn't dismissing any of the OT. it is all true.
+sarabellumm no they didn't. it still matters and applies as much if not more than the old
+sarabellumm ummm no Jesus actually specifically says that he has not come to change the law of Leviticus and that not one rule of it would change
+Reality Forge I don't think one jot or tittle of the old law in Exodus and Leviticus was changed. Israel made a covenant with God to abide by those laws. None of those laws were given to Christians. Look at the laws, what do they say? They all say "Moses said to Israel ..." When Moses was bringing down the stone tablets given by God, what did God say? Wasn't it:
'27 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” See Exodus 34:27.
When Exodus 31:16-17 explains why about the Israelites keep the Sabbath, it says: "16 The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. 17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, ... ".
These aren't laws given to humanity as a whole. Gentiles that the Jews met weren't expected to keep the Sabbath or tithe or make burnt offerings, only Israelites. Just read Exodus and the other books of Moses, this is all very obvious. The new covenant that Jesus has with Christians is a better one for us.
Hebrews 7:22 "Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant."
Hebrews 8:6 "But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises."
None of that means the old covenant (law) passed away or was changed. The NT is just an announcement of Jesus and the new covenant he brings.
+Mario Pendic I didn't say it didn't matter. You are just trying to apply a covenant between God and Israel to a group (gentiles and Christians) that it was never meant to apply to.
You know.. I've never seen Matt lose a debate to a Christian ever.
He certainly made Jordan Peterson look silly :)
@@paulmccarthy1527 He would never win a debate with his Creator.
The Holy Spirit reveals truth (who Jesus Christ is) to the born-again believer and only to those who believe and have faith. Not those who are religious and think their religion is going to help them have a relationship with our Creator/Redeemer (Jesus Christ).
I noticed the opinion who had win the debate is prone to bias and perhaps very subjective, especially if the average follower isn't trained in logic. The debate Matt left recently was good example. Many folks in the comments were satisfied with Andy's performance, whoever this guy was. I was shocked moderator allowed it to happen. At moments it looked like college level snarky exchange on his end, but it was probably appealing to his audience.
@@paulgemme6056prove it
Thank you for your insight and aid to our community, Matt.
Excellent video Matt!
A Christian who believes in evolution also needs to ask what god did while humans were still gradually evolving
klabauther . Jacking off!
LOL....klabauther...that was great!
I get your joke but lots of folks don't understand that Omnipotence means that one has power over ALL things, including time. God does not exist in linear time. He isn't prophesying or predicting the future. He exists simultaneously in the past, present and future. If He was bound by time (or space)...well; by definition, He wouldn't be "omnipotent"......
klabauther lol humans have not evolved and never will,humans are the same as they have allways been.greedy,lustful,and power hungry that will never change.there are 2 classes and allways will be the strong and the weak, the strong always crush and opress the weak.that will never change.only Methods of how one is strong or weak.allways the wealthy were and still are the strong they stick together and defend each other,the poor are weak especially when single and even when they band together they are still weak. the only thing that changes is the tools the methods allways stay the same.evolutionist give me a really good laugh it is amazing how much they are like the village idiots.
klabauther a true Christian does not and will never believe in evolution.
@@ladydragon7777
I don't think we're talking about the same kind of evolution. We _have_ evolved, our bodies have not always looked like this.
I always give Christians five options:
a) The god of the old testament is not the same god as the god of the new testament.
b) The god of the old testament is the same god as the god in the new testament but he got psychiatric help and is cured.
c) The god of the old testament is the same god as the god in the new testament and you can justify his psychopathic actions.
d) The old testament is a lie. God didn't do those things and you will be tearing the old testament out of your bible forthwith.
e) Your claim in conceded and you admit you cannot hide from the immorality of the old testament.
L1ttleT3d . Nice try.
F) the God of the OT is the same God of the NT, and the God of the universe can divide up the ages of man into various epochs of administration if He is so inclined (just as a king can divide up his land into different provinces, with different administrators, and even slightly different rules across those provinces. Eg, King Artaxerses over the vast Persian empire ...or any other king in history)
Bear in mind that no NT author ever suggests that the moral character of God changed, indeed, that at the return of Christ, His enemies will suffer a fate that would make the OT look tame (1 Cor 15, 2 Thess 1, Rev 19, etc). Same God.
So you get an F ;)
(Btw, I lean towards Covenant Theology. As might be expected in a short video, the issues of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology were not presented with clarity or precision. But still, pretty darn good for an atheist).
If the God of the NT is the same as the God of the OT, then God is STILL a bloodthirsty, warmongering psychopathic toddler with anger issues.
Tim you are talkin' algebra to folks holdin' a Big Chief tablet and a big pencil....
Here ya go, you gotta address your audience on the 2nd grade bible level they are on:
Kids, Think of this God as a mama of many people:
Same mama but she lives a l o n g time...and so her rules change because the kids and the land and the events change...She stays the same...but her actions towards the first child will be very different from her responses to the children born 2000 or 3000 years later......because the kids have different insight etc...
See Tim...you are teachin bible 101, Freshman bible to kids that are still gluein' macaroni onto cardboard and cuttin' out felt puppets in "Sunday school".
The church needs to back up....turn off the K-love tunes and teach some VERY, VERY, VERY basic history of the middle East, Old Testament review, origins of the Gospel Writings etc....
These folks aren't dumb, they just have almost no background in the bible. You know this when they say really STUPID things like, " I've read the bible 3 times!!!"......They don't even see that that is like saying, " I worked out 3 times and I'm still fat!"....then again...maybe God will just wipe us all out and start all over....seems like the sensible thang to do....
ya might wanna do a little study on those little girls they took...READ...they shaved their heads so everyone knew they were off limits...Don't confuse the Quoranic teachings of " possessing them in ones hand" with the Israelite doctrines...their book is green...the other one is usually black...lol..
Yeshua clearly told folks that He didn't come to change the law...but to fullfill it (do the necessary stuff to take care of the crime/sentence/fine etc)...Now if you get a speeding ticket and I pay your fine..the OUTCOME for you is VERY different but the LAW stayed the same...reply back if ya want...good points on your behalf...
Turning the other cheek is a GREAT idea!!...Lets say you and me are in a bar and someone calls you a name...You can reply back hatefully or you can think..."heck if a truck hits this guy tonight, I'd never care or know, why even let this guy's words bother me".... that is turning the other cheek...BTW that phrase is a NT statement and has some cultural implications in regard to Roman culture...
hmm so changing rules to fit situations isn't allowed...I'd say an in-flexible God is imperfect...God establishes Covenants that have limited durations. That is a key component of the OT.
Thank you, Matt. I've been watching your videos since last summer (when I first became an agnostic). I learned so much. The correct understanding of the term "atheism" (and learned so many terms that were new to me), the arguments and answers of both sides, and so many other great things. I practically watch your videos any time I have free time. I also enjoy your partners from teh Atheist Experience. BTW, I love Tracie's hair! :) I do.
Absolutely wonderfully presented video. I'm now subscribed. Thanks.
Regarding the weak and imperfect God of Dispensationalism, God forbade Adam and Chava (Eve) from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then punished them for the sin of doing so, BUT they couldn't have known yet that disobeying God was evil because they didn't yet *have* the knowledge of good and evil...and *couldn't* until they ate the fruit. Thus the Original Sin for which all Mankind is now "condemned by default" is a sin the original sinners *couldn't* know was a sin until *after* they had sinned. What loving heavenly father would set up his children to fail like that?
He told them not to eat it don't blame God for their action.
bulldogsbob
Yes, he told them not to eat it, BUT he didn't give them the knowledge of Good and Evil, so they didn't know disobeying him was a sin. They couldn't know they had sinned until AFTER they ate the fruit. Moreover, if God is...as advertised...all-knowing, then he would have known, the very second he thought to create them, that such would be the outcome. Thus, he KNOWINGLY created Adam and Even, KNOWING the result would be the condemnation of them...and all future generations...and HE chose to do it anyway. I'm not blaming THEM for THEIR actions, I'm blaming HIM for HIS...or at least I would be if I actually believed any of it.
OmniphonProductions
IF you didn't believe it you would not be bothered by it I don't believe pagan Gods exist as such pagans don't bother me in the slightest.
I place the blame on man where it belongs God warned them the consequences of disobeying him.
bulldogsbob
I'm not bothered because I believe it. If anything, I'm full of joy because, upon rational analysis, I've finally come to realize how ridiculous it is. I'm bothered because I've spent most of my life being persecuted (actively and passively) by arrogant, self-righteously ignorant theists who refuse to see the countless, obvious flaws in their scripture, even after having it spelled out for them, who would rather cling to Bronze Age fairy tales than to study ACTUAL history or science. I'm bothered because billions of people in the world are content to be intellectually lazy because, "God did it," is so much easier than actual understanding.
OmniphonProductions
There are no flaws in the Bible only foolish atheists who don't understand what it says.
For example thou shall not kill is actually thou shall not murder no contradiction there.
The evidence supports Christianity not atheism.
The most disgusting thing in the Bible is the description of the second coming of Christ, and it's in the freshest, newest book of the Shiny New Testament.
You forgot the 3rd coming... In the book of Morons... I meant Mormons
I love that end note so much I've watched this in its entirety a few times just so said end note can hit as hard as possible.
I love these videos. Thanks a lot, brilliant content.
lol the 42 apologetics with the dislikes
Apologists
Could it be, is it possible, the reason the bible is convoluted is because humans wrote the bible based on the popular views and understanding they had at the time which are now different so they conflict?
no
yes
Drake Danos ....the cognitive dissonance is strong with you
Not to mention, it was written by more than one person and compiled. It turned out exactly as you would expect, in-cohesive, full of errors, and contradictory. It should be dismissed entirely.
great work once again -thanks Matt
Thumbs waaay up. great work Matt!
I wish you would have said more about: "The bible is written by men led by the holy ghost". You could have elaborated with the "holy ghost" being one third of the holy trinity. So...perhaps the holy ghost was being unclear, or men misunderstood. Whichever way, both god and jesus simply allowed this misunderstanding between the holy ghost and the men who wrote god's word down to blunder ahead. The other question is: why has god and jesus and the holy ghost not fix these blunder by now? Why do most christians, muslims and jews insist that their holy words are flawless, even when they tell them different things from the same god which they all worship?
Why would I distrust 66 books by 40 different writers over 1,500 years?
The answer lies in the question.
Within that question lies the answer to how you could actually trust what was written. Just curious if you have ever actually studied (not just read, but understood) any of what you are off offhandedly dismissing? Didn't think so.
Umabari is there any way to know for sure if u r understanding or misunderstanding? It seems many are convinced that they understand the bible yet they all disagree...
Like Jeopardy?
@Paul Simon McCarthy Please, do give the examples that you have against the bible being "divine".
Don't get me wrong, I am an atheist, and not siding with Umabari or any christian.
I just want to hear what you have to say, so I might even learn something new from you (if the case), since I haven't fully read the bible yet.
@Paul Simon McCarthy Unfortunately, I can't think of any particular assertions at the moment.
If you have multiple arguments written down, or whatever comes to mind, just list them 1 by 1.
Side Note (unrelated):
But I suppose I have an issue with people who are "moderate christians", and claim that religion is not a bad thing, that the bible is metaphorical, and that only "some people were bad, and gave it a bad name."
(Even though the belief system pretty much wants you to unconditionally trust in authority, and makes you lose critical thinking, and is unable to get new members without brainwashing, and makes you think in black and white, and creates apologists etc., which basically guarantees that people don't question or analyze the absurd)
Witch hunts were done by regular, moderate-for-their-time people, which seems to not be acknowledged.
Nowadays, the moderate christian will only be highly intolerant, completely discriminatory, and irrationally hateful towards various groups, for no reason.
Yet they claim that people of faith have always been good.
It more like seems that people are not as bad nowadays, because many secularists spoke up against them.
Additionally I heard someone say "science answers the how, while faith answers the why. Faith is only intimate. Why shouldn't science and faith be able to coexist?"
This also seems not true, as people made sure that others believed as well, or else. Not so intimate, if you ask me.
There doesn't have to be a "why", in the first place, and religion hasn't done anything but impose, control, and make people superstitious, all throughout history.
So saying that it's only an intimate thing sounds like only what they want to believe (most likely because they were raised with a bias towards believing).
And finally, they don't coexist because the "how" resides in what can surely affect us and be observed (as well as changed by us), while the "why" assumes that there has to be a why, in the first place.
How would you respond to them (if you were to encounter them)?
Disclaimer: if my text was hard to read/follow/understand, I'm aware of it. Too bad I can't speak as well as I wish I could.
I really really like the scenery, thank you. It makes stressful topics more pleasant.
My christian friends I have this discussion with always go to this. This video helped me out a lot, thank you and keep up the good work.
"But that's in the OT!"
"So is the creation of earth and the story of Adam and Eve."
i am not a very religious person, i really don't know what to believe, but what i do respect about you is how you present your view. you are not a jerk and i applaud you for that.
I absolutely am in love with this video format. Everything that is just sit and talk should be outside imo
Good stuff Matt, as usual.
20:51 a little lizard jumped off your left (screen) shoulder :)
Greetings from Germany, from a Mexican. I love that here nobody cares about religion (apart from the muslims). The maximum would be if you ask someone about it, the would say: mehh... yeah I guess I kind of believe something.
Back in Mexico you get harassed all the time with religion, it becomes kind of normal, you just learn to ignore it and keep your mouth shut in public. Now that I live in non religious country, I'm very sensitive to it, now it does bother me. I didn't expect that reaction from me.
Keep up the good work Matt, I love your stuff!
Where do you live in Germany, cause actuallythere are big differences between the areas. The areas in the northern east of Germany are pretty atheistic, and religion is if any a personal thing, but if you go to Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg or into the Pfalz things change big time... in several schools there are still crosses in every classroom, in many schools you do not get ethic or philosophie classes, if you choose to not attend religion class. And I was actually attacked by my surrohnding for being antisocial when I statet, that when I had children I would not get them baptised, for no matter what I believe, I strongly believe that this us a choice for an afult to make on his own, not one to make by parents for their children. But yeah, things are more relaxed in Germany when it comes to Religion, the church separation is promoted by almost all instances here... some Muslim extremists and a handful of small parties that never ever got even 1% of votes in elections being the exception.
¡Viva el Santísimo Niño De Praga! ¡Viva la Santísima Virgen De Guadalupe! ¡Viva la Purísima Virgen del Carmen!
Atheist: "The bible endorses slavery."
Christian: "That's in the old testament!"
Atheist: "But Jesus endorses Mosaic law from the old testament."
Christian: "You're interpreting it wrong!"
Love the beautiful scenery in these videos. Fight the good fight Matt.
I just discovered your channel. It's nice to hear a rational discussion without accusations and name calling.
We have been lied to concerning the origin of life. God/Jesus Christ cannot lie. Man can lie because he is finite (limited). The devil - Satan is a liar and the father of all lies. So, when we lie, we are under the influence of the devil.
Matt Dillahunty situated in the 'Garden of Eden'.... now that's ironic!
and folks tell me all the time that there is no such thing as a talking snake.....(serpent)
why didn't God make us perfect and smart too.?
TheDano1947 because he-she-it is an insecure sadistic meglomaniac that was so bored that god created us to watch even though god already knows every detail of every life. Makes perfect sense.
God made me perfect and smart two
Bubba Reednick "smart two" ?😂😂😂You mean 'smart TOO'😂😂😂😂😂
M7xR55 its sarcasm genius
@thedano...he did,look at us now...:)
Hi Matt, I enjoyed this video. Very interesting (as usual). Have you done one (or are you planning to do one) all about the Socratic Method - which you reference briefly in this talk - and its history and advantages? That would be nice to see. Keep up the good work.
Best regards,
Mal
Great series; very useful information
Jesus's quotes simplified, "I have come to save you from punishment, but you shall still have to follow the old laws while also having the option to break a lot of them, which according to the old laws I told you to *follow* would be a crime punishable by imprisonment in hell."
Basically God wasted his time sending his "son" down here.
So they admit more than half their silly fairy book is crap, how does anyone believe this in 2015?
It's more than half. The OT is much larger than the NT.
When are you coming to Las Vegas? Would love to attend a lecture or debate. What’s the best way to access your tour schedule? Big fan! Recently discovered Atheist Experience and can’t get enough! Keep up the great work!
Great job, Matt!
I always wondered when they say that. I want to ask them...do you think that it was the same guy? if he once was horribly evil does that mean that god changed or the morals? should god have to pay for his own sins? Should god be prosecuted for war crimes? If this book is so full of evidence, shouldent we be able to convict him?... anyway it demonstrates the character of god if you take the book as 'gods word', the god demonstrated does not show good moral character.
Their answer is usualy go read what x has to say about this. They make it a philosophical argument open to interpretations. Once they have an explanation that they are ok with,they stop questioning. And believe me,their standards are really low. So they make the answer to "what about the old testament" a somehow deep metaphysical philosophical one that you and i cannot understand as they often claim. It takes faith. My response is: bullshit.
M-Set claiming that 'we are not smart enough to understand this super deep idea' is a pretty effective one. That is why many people like leaders who can do the thinking for them. Also remember that the majority of people are not well educated. It leaves people very vulnerable.
Even with my relative good education and understanding that in the rational sense the bible does not make sense, the idea of there being a deeper truth combined with the very primitive fear indoctrination of 'what if i am wrong' has allowed Christianity hold onto me for a very long time. Only recently have i fully understood how much of an emotionally abusive relationship Christianity is. Even then the it is hard to get rid of that fear indoctrination completely out.
I consider myself a relatively light case of indoctrination, I live in a liberal state with many other religions, I was exposed to a relatively liberal forms of Christianity (even the version of LDS* i was exposed to was relatively light), I was exposed to several forms of Christianity, I was aware of how the bible was put together. I was rather surprised when i recently decided to examine my beliefs how much had remained and that it was largely to fear of being wrong and that i might not understand the deeper truth. I actually had to use emotional arguments before being able to examine things more rationally. Even then 'what if your wrong' still float in my head, just not with as much power as it used to.
Ever thingk of this? The Rages of Sin is Death right? Now the New testament, if you have read in the later chatpers of the Book off Jihn during the last Supper Jusus broke the Bread and then the wine, One of The Deciples clears asks Jesus to Show them The Father, The Father reference is God. And then Jesus said, those who have seen Him have seen the Father. that cleared that He was telling them, He is God, but in the Flesh right? So sence Jesus was crusified, that would Mean God died for Sins, and that would include His own, right? So by that He basicly did a action that made sin to be forgiveable even though We are still sinners, We can be forgiven. But We must repent and receive His Holy Spirit in order that We can be from the state We been in to be transformed into better people. and also have His very spirit also be apart of us, as We were of him to begin with butsin broke that bond of relationship. What ever you think or decide, there is alwasy some thing We over look, Like why God judges If we were innocent, and many of us are not, I know that for a fact. I held a grudge on My wn Uncle from 1007, to 2016. He died, and I never forgave Him. i could have and should have, but I did not. I held on to Bitterness even though as family I loved Him, but I did not forgive Him for smoking crack and making Me and My Mom and Step father Homeless when We owned a house, and then going to School as a Homeless kid where I could be made fun of. I have no idea, I hope My Uncle is in Heaven, but if not, it was My own faught for not forgiving Him.
If I was God (ha), I could come up with a far better method of ensuring every human being on the planet was aware of me and what was required of them. It wouldn't involve any book or church or preacher to tell them. And their would certainly be no threat of eternal damnation hanging over them.
+bonnie43uk Yup, I'd start with showing my face for one, and for two- not confusing the living hell out of people about what I want from them, and for three. I'd start making "a better life" possible for everyone.. yknow, protecting, guiding and providing? Oh, and my set of morals would be far better.
I'm trying to understand how an omniscient God could ever "come up with" something. An omniscient God would already know everything that could ever happen, including everything God itself could ever do. Therefore with such a God there can be no novelty, and thus no "coming up with" something. When you or I "come up with" something, we create ideas, processes, or procedures that we did not have before, and did not know in advance that we would invent.
If I was God, and I wanted real persons to have personal relationships with me, I would act like a real person. For example, if I (being a real person) have a personal relationship with another real person, and that real person becomes aware of some serious threat heading my way, that real person will try to warn me, proactively and unambiguously. But God never does that. He sits back twiddling his thumbs while the hurricane, tornado, volcano, terror squad, crippled airliner, or tsunami bears down on a church full of people praying. If people want to have any usable advance warning about impending calamities, they have to obtain them through their own hard work. They can't rely on God to behave like any real friend would, and share what he knows we need to know.
+Daniel Mocsny Exactly. What would give a god ambition to "do" anything? If it is (and knows) everything, and exists outside of time, wouldn't everything have been done already? (This is of course going with the idea of an "eternal" God consciousness that wasn't created itself). Yet, what would "everything" be, outside of time? Otherwise, you have to consider that there might be some measurement of time that confines this "God". This is falling within the area of characteristics which provide the argument against free will, under God. God knows everything that everyone is going to do before they do it (so from his creation), and so he creates billions of souls to suffer. If God can know all of this, and do all of this, couldn't he just play out every scenario possible, in his consciousness? Just process it instantly and know all possible outcomes? But "play out", and "instantly" aren't even correct ways to describe that, because he is supposedly outside of time. Really, he should just "have" that "knowledge". So there is no reason to think we would even be simulacrum in the processing mind of God, because there wouldn't be any processing, as that requires time. Even if there was some sort of "god time", is it even reasonable to think god would have ambition to do this? To consider that God has "ambition" or "intention" is another arrogant way humans ascribe human traits to the concept of God. If we start considering that there is some sort of time for God, then we are considering that God itself had a beginning, and that just wouldn't work for the apologists. Then God seems to potentially be some sort of super powerful alien entity (even though that's what it seems to be from religious explanations anyway), that then needs an answer for what created it, which ruins the argument for creationists. But these are just obvious examples of the silliness of people believing in a God, and then attempting to ascribe specific characteristics to it. It makes sense how the concept of God was manufactured, when you consider the evolution of human thought and culture, but at this point, it's at least unnecessary.
Daniel Mocsny, tsunami bears!!! That's intense.
Thanks Matt, as always, respect!
Thanks I really appreciate you helping me to clarify my own thoughts on this subject
Oh man I hate that phrase
I am totally amazed by how the human mind is able to make words written on a page not say what they are actually saying (Matthew 5: 17-19 is one among many examples, or Jesus' words at Luke 16: 17: "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law"). This is beyond my comprehension. Meanwhile, at the other end of the continuum, there are still some literalists, at the start of this third millenium, who believe Noah's ark was actually built and served the purpose it was built for. How can the human brain stray so far from rationality is truly beyond my comprehension. Just fascinating.
Perhaps the explanation is psychological? Cognitive dissonance? I don't know.
Never underestimate the stupidity of humans.lol
I loved that lizard that leaped and crossed that branch (on the left side of Matt's right shoulder) at 20:53.
Would demand for more content sooner but these video have a lot of content like a jack in a box and the beautiful scene behind you make it worth watching aswell as listening. Plus ik it takes time and it's all worth it.
Plus the drunken peasants and your atheist experience show is also pretty good enough to supply for my demand.
"Why" questions have close to no use in science, but yet, they'r used a lot when trying to disregard scientific knowledge, simply because THEYRE USELESS!! Science never tries to answer "why" things happen, just how! The "whys" rest in the realms of speculation and curiosity..
But they surely are amazing when used against the religious mass.. they are the ones always claiming that everything have a reason, but are simply unable to answer "why"..
It's really easy (and honest) to just say "I don't know", instead of forcing yourself into ignoring your own sense of morality, trying to justify a book, that you claim to be the perfect source of morality..
+Leo Stamato ""Why" questions have close to no use in science"
That is a ridiculous statement. Most of the biggest discoveries of science answer why questions. Why do planets seem to wander around the sky and stars don't? They are orbiting the sun. I can't think of a major individual scientific discovery that can't be framed as an answer to a why question.
+Justine theChiefJustice
Those are "how" questions, not "why" questions. Leo's talking about teleological questions, which are meaningless in science.
TheZooCrew Of course they are why questions. Why just asks for what reason something happens. Of course we want to know the reason planets appear to move differently than stars in the sky. How they do it is a different question.
Justine theChiefJustice
*Of course we want to know the reason planets appear to move differently than stars in the sky. How they do it is a different question*
You misunderstand. The purpose of my comment is to differentiate teleological questions from empirical inquiry. Typically, the "why" question is asked as if there is some intent behind the workings of a phenomenon. I say that these questions are meaningless because there's evidently no intent behind the movements of the planets and stars and science doesn't investigate that anyway. Instead, science investigates _how_ something happens, and that can lead us to the reason things happen.
+Leo Stamato Without a satisfactory, logical, justification to ask how, then science wouldn't exist. The scientific method is not science; it is philosophy. Some of the answers to "why questions" are the aforementioned justifications. I don't want to read too deeply into your worldview, but you seem to at least tread near to Scientism, a disgusting, dogmatic perversion of Empiricism and the illegitimate child of Epistemology and Science.
I love when Christians bring up this argument. Lets grant that the immoral content contained within the OT does not apply anymore, their god isn't let off the hook. In the Christian theology, God (who is all-loving) inspired men to write the entire Bible.There should therefore be absolutely no immoral passages contained within the book. Some Christians in my experience have said that slavery for example was widely accepted at the time as it was part of culture. But if God is the supposed objective source for morality, I'd expect him to be morally above what was at the time, otherwise he is indistinguishable from being the mere imagination of the society at the time. And if God is the source for objective morality, is God still okay with slavery today? Or did he just change his mind as time went on, thereby making his morality subjective? God cannot have objective morality while also being a moral relativist, its a contradiction!
So in conclusion, if a god out there exists, its certainly NOT the god of the Bible.
I learn a lot from Matt all the time. Good stuff.
Matt. Did you ever do that video on the NT you mention in this one? I've appreciated this video so many times.