thanks for sharing this! I always love hearing how someone you think can never find Christ, finds him, or Christ finds him to put it better :) Im a pretty new Christian myself btw
Happy to hear for both of you! Used to watch Rapunzel a while ago, so that warms my heart. Also converting from Atheism to Christianity is a massive leap, so kudos to you! :)
This is a great story. You've only just scratched the surface, I wish you a fruitful journey, remember the path is narrow and long and it's a struggle everyday, and despair and pride are your enemy. Glory to God in all things.
Well, being though I was sharing my testimony of the way I had been, your observation matches who I used to be. But did you watch the video in its entirety?
Excellent! Keep going! And you are not alone. If you have any questions and desire to discuss anything, I will make myself available for you. I have now been a follower of Christ for 20 years and I am currently a pastor of a church in Florida. Feel free to email me anything you'd like to question, examine, or otherwise investigate. PointlessThorns at g mail dot com (I have to write it like that so bots won't pick it up and use it.)
I'm agnostic about many of the theistic god-claims I've heard of, and I'm atheistic to a fewer number of these types of claims, but I can honestly say, with increasing confidence that the judeo-christian deity is one I'm NOT agnostic about -- it's clear to me THAT one exists only in human imagination. Historically unsubstantiated claims, unknown (and dubious) biblical authorship, biblical internal inconsistencies, biblical internal contradictions, and biblical departures from the facts about our natural world were key parts in my deconversion. Adopting an evidence-based reality is far better than theism in many ways... first and foremost because I don't have to vacate my own evidence-based rationale in order to believe (sometimes) absurd stories in the bible: like talking donkeys, talking serpents, a man living inside a fish for days, a man surviving unscathed in a fiery furnace, burning bushes that speak for god, a sun standing still for any length of time (catastrophic to Earth), human sacrifices, angels, demons, and resurrections. These are extraordinary claims that REQUIRE extraordinary evidence.... there is none, and what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
@@justaman54 When did I invoke or even MENTION either Harris or Hitchens? Exactly -- nowhere. So, it's clear to all now that you're dishonest -- is it also the case that you have nothing substantial to bring to the conversation?
First and foremost, did you even watch my testimony from beginning to end, or did you see the title of the video and immediately jump in with a comment without watching the video? If you didn't watch my entire testimony, please start there. If you did watch the video in its entirety, I'll start here... Well, you made many claims with many presuppositions without providing any evidence for your claims. If you are really seeking Truth and are open to examining the cumulative case of Christianity, perhaps we could focus on one topic that you deem to be the greatest barrier to your belief and start there. What would that be?
@@PointlessThorns #1 I didn't watch the entirety of your lengthy video about your testimony probably for the same reason you don't spend YOUR valuable time watching lengthy testimonial videos from the plethora of non-judeo christian converts on YT. You all CANNOT be right at the same time -- but you all COULD be WRONG at the same time. #2 I made exactly ZERO claims based on presuppositions -- you have just been brainwashed(?) to reply with that because it's easy. The only prima facie position I hold is, "cogito ergo sum." It's hardly a presupposition.... rather, it's an actual experience that neither you nor I, nor any rational being (including non-humans) are able to deny. #3 There is NO such thing as a cumulative case for supernatural claims, and that also hold true for any/all of the judeo-christian superstitions. Shoveling unsubstantiated claims on top of other unsubstantiated claims does nothing for the case of christianity. More basically, the plural of anecdote IS NOT evidence. #4 I'm not only committed to seeking truth -- I'm also committed to believing as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible as well. Christianity, by definition, is an Iron-Age blood cult with extraordinarily absurd claims of magic, perversion, and a host of events that violate the laws of physics, and other fundamental natural facts.
Personally, I have my own relationship with god and in it have had many revelations I can not deny. The Bible is something I still question at least that I feel a lot of it may be human error/imagination based. Other parts feel true to me. Just a take..
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My position is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._* And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 11 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality. 1. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god. 2. I personally have never observed a god. 3. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god. 4. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 5. I have never been presented with any _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality. 6. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true. 7. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 8. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 9. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 10. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 11. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have been presented have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._ ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
First, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to write your comment. The length of your comment showcases a certain level of effort you were willing to apply. Further, I appreciate your response because it was not irrational attacks and emotional outbursts. However, I do need to ask you an important question before addressing certain points. Did you watch this entire video? Or did you merely see the title of this video and then decide to comment on the video? If this discussion is to be genuine and fruitful, then I will need you to watch this entire video. Once you confirm that you have watched this entire video, then I will begin addressing each one of your points one by one so that we can discuss.
@@Theo_Skeptomai Very well. Thank you for confirming that you did in fact watch the video in its entirety. And because you watched that video, you should know by now that I have fulfilled requirements 3 & 4 of your 11 listed points. To start, I appreciate the fact that you provided for me your definition of "atheism" because I believe it is of utmost importance for us to define our terms if we are to have a fruitful discussion. However, I disagree with your definition of atheism, and so perhaps we can start there. You defined atheism as "suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented". The problem I have with your definition is that it is intentionally ambiguous and seems to be intellectually dishonest. Your definition of atheism seems to resemble more closely the definition of agnosticism. Agnosticism comes from two Greek words (a, “no” or “without”; and gnosis, “knowledge”). It literally means, “no-knowledge” or “without knowledge.” There are two forms of agnosticism: (1) GOD is unknown; (2) GOD is unknowable and cannot be known. The first form is open to possibility; however, the second form is closed-minded, negatively dogmatic, and self-falsifying. Immanuel Kant believed that knowing reality is impossible. The argument that we cannot know the real world is self-defeating. The very statement of “we cannot know reality” is a statement that presupposes knowledge about reality. To say, “I know that reality is unknowable” is to make a claim to know something about reality. Complete agnosticism is self-defeating. Augustine of Hippo noted rightly that “no one indeed believes anything unless he has first thought that it is to be believed.” One who knows only some things about reality cannot affirm in the same breath that all of reality is unknowable. Do you know all things? If you can admit that you do not know all things, then you can admit that something outside of your limited experiences and understanding is possible. In fact, to learn is to discover a new area of Truth you didn’t know before. Imagine a pie chart where only 10% of the pie is colored dark gray and 90% is colored light gray. If the entire pie represents all knowledge and understanding of the entire universe regarding all of reality and the 10% represents everything you know, wouldn’t it be possible that GOD exists in the 90% area you do not yet know? What, then, if GOD transcends reality and is beyond the universe? If you do not even know all there is to know of this reality within the universe, how could you possibly know anything of that which transcends the universe? If GOD does transcend the universe, we could only know GOD if GOD chose to reveal Himself to us. Grammatically, the word "being" is the noun form of the verb "to be". Therefore, being is “to be” or “to exist.” No two beings are the same. Philosopher George Klubertanz, in “Introduction to the Philosophy of Being” says, “Being, in any singular existent [existing thing], cannot be entirely and exactly the same as it is in any other thing. It must in each instance be and be known as a definite singular thing uniquely ordered to its own act of existing. It must in each instance include all that is unique and proper to the singular individual, and so it cannot be an univocal intelligibility.” One cannot say GOD is “not that” unless the person has knowledge of “that.” How can a person know what does not apply to GOD unless that person knows what does apply? The negation would imply a prior affirmation. Unless it is impossible to know the real, it is unnecessary to disclaim the possibility of all cognitive knowledge of it or to dissuade people from making any judgments about it. A belief should not be established until all knowable possibilities have been investigated. We must investigate everything we know and then also determine if it be possible that a transcendent GOD revealed Himself to us, thereby allowing us to know what we could not know ourselves. However, it is impossible for anyone to remain an agnostic. Why? We cannot and would not play sports the right way without knowing the start, the finish, the purpose, and the rules. Likewise, in order to play the ‘game’ of life, we need to know those same four principles. How did life begin? What’s the final outcome of life? What’s the purpose of life? In order to live rightly, what rules should we follow? No one honestly remains agnostic. At some point, the person makes a decision as to what that person believes in the affirmative. If you do not have a belief in the affirmative, then you cannot claim to be an atheist; rather, you can only claim agnosticism in that you claim to be without knowledge and you have not yet arrived to the point where you are willing to make a claim in the affirmative. Therefore, if you are suspending your belief, then you have not yet made a claim in the affirmative and would therefore match the definition of agnosticism rather than atheism. But to be certain, I will also present my belief and arguments regarding the definition of atheism as well. I will provide that in the next comment.
@@Theo_Skeptomai In regards to atheism, many atheists would define atheism as the absence (or lack) of belief in the existence of any gods; it is merely the rejection of religious beliefs. All atheists are nontheists, and most are antitheistic. An atheist believes there is no GOD either beyond or in the world. An atheist claims to know (or at least believe) that GOD does not exist. This claim would be a belief in the affirmative. Atheists do not have identical beliefs, any more than do all theists. However, there is a core of beliefs common to most atheists. So while not all atheists believe all of the following, all of the following are believed by some atheists. And most atheists believe most of the following. Only the cosmos exist. GOD did not create humans; humans created GOD. The universe is eternal. If it is not eternal, then it came into existence “out of nothing and by nothing.” A human being is matter in motion with no immortal soul. There is no mind apart from brain. Nor is there a soul independent of body. Unlike pantheists, who deny the reality of evil, atheists strongly affirm the existence of evil. In regards to ethics, no moral absolutes exist, certainly no divinely authorized absolutes. Since values are not discovered from some revelation of GOD, they must be created by humans. But virtually all atheists recognize that each person must determine personal values, since there is no GOD to reveal what is right and wrong. Many atheists believe that human reason and science can produce a social utopia. And recently, there has been a surge of writings by a movement called “New Atheism.” The content of their arguments does not differ significantly from “old” atheism, it is just repackaged and delivered with a louder, more shrill voice. The special emphasis is that religion is the source of many of the great evils of humankind. Not all views expressed by atheists lack truth. Most atheists have a keen sensitivity to evil and injustice. Many atheists are humanists. With others they affirm the value of humanity and human culture. They earnestly pursue both the arts and the sciences and express deep concern in ethical issues. Most atheists believe that racism, hatred, and bigotry are wrong. Most atheists commend freedom and tolerance and have other positive moral values. From the stance of atheism, there are only two possible paths atheists can go: nihilism or secular humanism. In order to arrive at an honest and accurate conclusion about atheism, both nihilism and secular humanism must first be investigated. Now, having once been an atheist myself and now being a child of GOD (Christian), I present to you my belief and arguments regarding atheism. Atheists often argue that they don’t have a claim in the affirmative to defend; however, the claim that they don’t have a claim is a claim that would need to be defended. Atheists claim that their stance is merely a lack or absence of belief, yet they claim to know (or believe) that GOD does not exist. Atheists cannot possess a lack of belief while possessing a belief that GOD does not exist. The atheists’ arguments do not disprove GOD; rather, if GOD is real, our lack of understanding only proves our ignorance and calls attention only to the limits of our finite and fallible minds. In fact, it is unnecessary for atheists to pose an argument against GOD unless they have a belief (GOD doesn’t exist) that needs to be defended. It is inconsistent, illogical, and intellectually dishonest. The atheists’ argument that GOD does not exist is a classic example of the fallacious argument from ignorance known as argumentum ad ignorantiam. Assuming that GOD does not exist because GOD is not seen is saying that something is false because of lack of evidence that it is true. But just because we don’t know something, or can’t readily find evidence in its favor, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s false. Even if one should not believe that something is true, it simply doesn’t follow that one should believe that it is false. There is a crucial distinction between absence of evidence and evidence of absence. A lack of positive evidence for something is not by itself a reason to disbelieve it. If the atheist is to argue that GOD does not exist, the atheist must have positive proof of that belief being right. If anything, an honest conclusion would be to claim agnosticism in that a lack of knowledge exists. The atheists’ argument that GOD does not exist might be understood as resting on a false dilemma: Either GOD exists or does not exist; I cannot deduce existence of GOD with absolute certainty; therefore, GOD does not exist. The argument that GOD does not exist is intellectually dishonest. At the core of all atheism is self-deception and idolization of self (pride). People do not deny GOD and then begin to sin; people tend to grow attachment to favorite sins and then find reasons to justify the attachment to sins and what follows is a disbelief in GOD (who provides absolute morals). Not only do atheists proclaim that GOD does not exist based on their lack of experience, but they also usually seek to affirm moral laws while denying GOD. (We would need to thoroughly investigate morality with integrity.) Truth cannot be relative and must be absolute. For atheism to be true, I believe materialism and naturalism would need to be true. However, I believe that materialism cannot account for minds, personality, moral law, or GOD. I also believe that naturalism is not able to explain either itself or the universe on a purely naturalistic premise. And finally, in requirement number 1 of your 11 listed points, you stated, "I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god". Well, I believe I can provide for you a functional definition of GOD; however, in order to do so, we would need to thoroughly examine the aspects of materialism and naturalism within the topic of creation. How would you like to proceed?
@PointlessThorns I want to address your comments one issue at a time until we can resolve that issue before moving on to the next issue you have raised. Are you agreeable to this approach?
So lets zoom out and look at the big picture, the history and evolution of religious belief. The earliest evidence we have of religious practices, goes back up to 200,000 years as evidenced by symbolic artifacts, cave paintings and ritual burials. Its unknown what the actual beliefs were, but widely understood to be some form of animism, everything having some supernatural agency...then transitioning to simple forms of polytheism, multiple deities but not arranged in any type of power hierarchy. Between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago, when hunter gatherers transitioned to agriculture and began to establish permanent settlements, there was a shift to more organized forms of polytheism, and deities with more complex personages. Around 5000 years ago, the earliest evidence of a more structured polytheistic belief system with a hierarchy of deities were the ancient Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations. About 3500 years ago, the Canaanite civilization emerged, heavily influenced by Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations, their deities and myths carried forward. Its here we see the first indication of Yahweh, though the jury is still out whether he was a storm god, war god, mountain god or god of metallurgy...but believed to be a lesser god in some capacity. When the Israelites split off, they took Yahweh as their national god, the chief god of Yahwism, a henotheistic belief system, he had a consort goddess Asherah, among other gods they took with them to form this pantheon. Around 2500 to 2900 years ago, Yahwism transitioned to Judaism, a monotheistic belief system with Yahweh as the one and only god. In fact, you can see this transition in the Old Testament, with Yahweh jealous, trying to cancel out the other gods and reason for the 1st Commandment. Then of course about 2000 years ago, an apocalyptic Jewish Christian cult emerged, and evolved into Christianity, still monotheistic but with a triune godhead. This is just the evolutionary line to Jesus, there are of course many other pathways to different religions, and others that just hit a dead end. But the point is, religion is clearly a social construct that has evolved throughout human history, with gods made up, redesigned and/or ending up in the dust bin of history, myths carried forward and rewritten, scripture modified and added, etc, to meet changing societal needs. I'm an agnostic atheist, meaning that I reject man made claims like Jesus, Allah, Vishnu and the other thousands of claims, but am neutral on deistic and pantheistic concepts.
First, you contradicted yourself in your statement that "Its unknown what the actual beliefs were", and then you went on to proclaim how you knew what their beliefs were. Next, you listed many internet infidel talking points that lack scholarly work. And then you showcased your ignorance of Judaism and the Bible when you said, "with Yahweh jealous, trying to cancel out the other gods and reason for the 1st Commandment". That's simply false. The tried and true scholars all acknowledge that Judaism is monotheistic. No other gods existed or exist. The existence of other gods was never the reason for the commandment you cited. As it turns out, I've already published an article that explains what you currently do not understand regarding this topic of GOD's "jealousy": "A Jealous God?" pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2021/07/14/picture-scripture-a-jealous-god-exodus-204-6/ You said, "But the point is, religion is clearly a social construct that has evolved throughout human history" False. Belief in God/gods / creation has been the human constant throughout history. You then claimed, "scripture modified and added, etc, to meet changing societal needs" False. Over the thousands upon thousands of manuscripts within the archaeological archives of evidence, the only changes have been misspelled words or slight grammatical errors, etc. Nothing of importance or anything essential ever changed. As it turns out, I already made another video about this: "Can We Trust The Bible To Be Authentic, Reliable, Accurate, and True?": th-cam.com/video/jGX-h8ULa44/w-d-xo.htmlsi=pZFbn_ABdaH7LHUL You then claimed to be an "agnostic atheist". This term, though something widely used online by people who are confused, it is a contradictory term and is to be rejected. Please see the comment thread in this comment section with Theo_Skeptomai. Within that thread, I clearly defined both agnosticism and atheism. And finally, you presented the claim that Jesus is a man made claim, which is a presupposition. In conclusion, if you are willing to investigate with integrity and honestly examine all the evidence, we can continue to talk. But if you're not a true seeker, you can go troll elsewhere. PS - your denial will never be a legitimate argument against my testimony. Did you even watch this entire video? If not, please start there.
@@PointlessThorns I watched your video, which depicts a person in search of meaning and purpose, approval and acceptance from others, frustrated that the reality of life isn't how you want it to be....so you discovered a coping mechanism, Christianity. Interesting how you picked the popular god of your own culture lol then you have to audacity to suggest I have no integrity, honesty and my arguments are illegitimate unless they align with yours. You've got a lot of problems, and Jesus isn't the answer. I would seek out a good therapist, and I do not mean that in an insulting way.
what a load of nonsense and bunk /sigh there is no evidence or proof for any of the thousands of gods, including the one you believe in. Atheism is simply lack of belief in a god. the time to believe in something is when there is proof for it. and there is no proof here.
It is a literal impossibility to possess a lack of belief that GOD exists in the same way you would not possess a lack of belief that bachelors are married. One does not possess a lack. In fact, all denials or rejections you "possess" stem directly from your beliefs. You would not possess a lack of belief in bachelors being married; rather, you would possess a belief in the affirmative that bachelors are not married and that married people are not bachelors because the definition of a bachelor is to not be married. Likewise, you would not possess a lack of belief that GOD exists; rather, you would possess a belief in the affirmative that GOD does not exist. And your belief that GOD does not exist would stem from many of your other beliefs within your worldview. If you're going to be aggressive enough to attack the beliefs of others, at least have the integrity and confidence to declare your beliefs while also being able to defend your beliefs. But saying you possess a lack of belief is intellectually dishonest. If I reasoned like an atheist, what I say and do is either self-defeating or self-refuting. Here’s an example: "I claim a lack of belief, yet I believe that GOD does not exist. And it is unnecessary for me to pose an argument against GOD unless I have a belief (GOD doesn’t exist) and that belief would need to be defended but I won’t defend it because it’s actually a lack of belief, which is inconsistent and illogical. Everything was created by nothing, out of nothing, and for no purpose or that the universe has always eternally existed, yet it exists without reason. Everything in nature with a design is without a Designer and order came from chaos. Materials could somehow collaborate in order to generate life, which produces emotions, thoughts, distinct personalities, and a will to act. Mere matter in the shape of a brain is capable of producing thoughts and those thoughts are somehow material rather than immaterial even though I can’t weigh my thoughts or dye them in an experiment. Non-life produced life and minds came from a non-mind. Morality is nothing more than a matter of opinion and so Adolf Hitler must be praised for living out his moral truth. Life is a program of survival and so sacrificial love would be a malfunction, not an innate desire to fulfill a greater purpose. In fact, saving someone’s life is rendered pointless in a purposeless existence, and so what I consider meaningful love would still be without purpose because everything and everyone ultimately comes to nothing. But evolution is a programming of survival even though I can’t explain who programmed the programming. And there’s no purpose so I should never expect to experience joy or expect for things to go “right.” In a random and purposeless existence, pain and suffering should be expected due to the inevitable destruction due to chaos and disorder. Without intelligent design, all that exists is unintentional creation destined for disaster. The purpose of life underlies all approaches to solving the mystery of evil and suffering. And without creative purpose, I have no reason to complain. In fact, I have no reason to trust my own thoughts because our “minds” are an illusion created by the physical processes that are occurring in our material brains. But if this is the case, our thoughts are merely the result of a series of physical causes (and resulting effects). You might believe you are thinking freely about what I just wrote, but in reality your “thoughts” are simply the consequences of neural “dominoes” falling, one against the next. In a world of strict causal physicalism, free will (and freely reasoned thoughts) are simply an illusion. So… I can’t really trust that thought I just had or anything I just wrote." And that's why I'm no longer an atheist. Atheism is intellectually dishonest and does not correspond with objective reality. Now, would you like to know why I am now a Christian? You claim there is no evidence for Christianity. But there is. Christianity is a cumulative case and evidence surrounds and abounds. Did you come here to investigate with integrity or did you come here to vomit hate without any intentions of examining your own beliefs? How would you like to proceed? Or would you not like to proceed at all?
thanks for sharing this! I always love hearing how someone you think can never find Christ, finds him, or Christ finds him to put it better :)
Im a pretty new Christian myself btw
I would love to hear your testimony. Have you recorded it? Have you written it out?
@@PointlessThorns yes actually! :D On my other channel here it is: th-cam.com/video/4mlGOLK1JeI/w-d-xo.html
Happy to hear for both of you! Used to watch Rapunzel a while ago, so that warms my heart. Also converting from Atheism to Christianity is a massive leap, so kudos to you! :)
This is a great story. You've only just scratched the surface, I wish you a fruitful journey, remember the path is narrow and long and it's a struggle everyday, and despair and pride are your enemy. Glory to God in all things.
You sound manic
Well, being though I was sharing my testimony of the way I had been, your observation matches who I used to be. But did you watch the video in its entirety?
@ it’ll take a while to get through, but I will
Thanks for your testimony. Very powerful…
I’m on the same journey as you. “Seeking,” as we speak.
Excellent! Keep going! And you are not alone. If you have any questions and desire to discuss anything, I will make myself available for you. I have now been a follower of Christ for 20 years and I am currently a pastor of a church in Florida. Feel free to email me anything you'd like to question, examine, or otherwise investigate. PointlessThorns at g mail dot com (I have to write it like that so bots won't pick it up and use it.)
I'm agnostic about many of the theistic god-claims I've heard of, and I'm atheistic to a fewer number of these types of claims, but I can honestly say, with increasing confidence that the judeo-christian deity is one I'm NOT agnostic about -- it's clear to me THAT one exists only in human imagination. Historically unsubstantiated claims, unknown (and dubious) biblical authorship, biblical internal inconsistencies, biblical internal contradictions, and biblical departures from the facts about our natural world were key parts in my deconversion. Adopting an evidence-based reality is far better than theism in many ways... first and foremost because I don't have to vacate my own evidence-based rationale in order to believe (sometimes) absurd stories in the bible: like talking donkeys, talking serpents, a man living inside a fish for days, a man surviving unscathed in a fiery furnace, burning bushes that speak for god, a sun standing still for any length of time (catastrophic to Earth), human sacrifices, angels, demons, and resurrections. These are extraordinary claims that REQUIRE extraordinary evidence.... there is none, and what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Here comes the Sam Harris/Hitchens acolyte 🙄
@@justaman54 When did I invoke or even MENTION either Harris or Hitchens? Exactly -- nowhere. So, it's clear to all now that you're dishonest -- is it also the case that you have nothing substantial to bring to the conversation?
First and foremost, did you even watch my testimony from beginning to end, or did you see the title of the video and immediately jump in with a comment without watching the video? If you didn't watch my entire testimony, please start there.
If you did watch the video in its entirety, I'll start here... Well, you made many claims with many presuppositions without providing any evidence for your claims. If you are really seeking Truth and are open to examining the cumulative case of Christianity, perhaps we could focus on one topic that you deem to be the greatest barrier to your belief and start there. What would that be?
@@PointlessThorns #1 I didn't watch the entirety of your lengthy video about your testimony probably for the same reason you don't spend YOUR valuable time watching lengthy testimonial videos from the plethora of non-judeo christian converts on YT. You all CANNOT be right at the same time -- but you all COULD be WRONG at the same time.
#2 I made exactly ZERO claims based on presuppositions -- you have just been brainwashed(?) to reply with that because it's easy. The only prima facie position I hold is, "cogito ergo sum." It's hardly a presupposition.... rather, it's an actual experience that neither you nor I, nor any rational being (including non-humans) are able to deny.
#3 There is NO such thing as a cumulative case for supernatural claims, and that also hold true for any/all of the judeo-christian superstitions. Shoveling unsubstantiated claims on top of other unsubstantiated claims does nothing for the case of christianity. More basically, the plural of anecdote IS NOT evidence.
#4 I'm not only committed to seeking truth -- I'm also committed to believing as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible as well. Christianity, by definition, is an Iron-Age blood cult with extraordinarily absurd claims of magic, perversion, and a host of events that violate the laws of physics, and other fundamental natural facts.
Personally, I have my own relationship with god and in it have had many revelations I can not deny. The Bible is something I still question at least that I feel a lot of it may be human error/imagination based. Other parts feel true to me. Just a take..
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My position is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._*
And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 11 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality.
1. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god.
2. I personally have never observed a god.
3. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god.
4. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
5. I have never been presented with any _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality.
6. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true.
7. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
8. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
9. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
10. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
11. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have been presented have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._
ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god.
I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*
I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
First, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to write your comment. The length of your comment showcases a certain level of effort you were willing to apply. Further, I appreciate your response because it was not irrational attacks and emotional outbursts.
However, I do need to ask you an important question before addressing certain points. Did you watch this entire video? Or did you merely see the title of this video and then decide to comment on the video? If this discussion is to be genuine and fruitful, then I will need you to watch this entire video. Once you confirm that you have watched this entire video, then I will begin addressing each one of your points one by one so that we can discuss.
@PointlessThorns I have watched your video in its entirety.
@@Theo_Skeptomai Very well. Thank you for confirming that you did in fact watch the video in its entirety. And because you watched that video, you should know by now that I have fulfilled requirements 3 & 4 of your 11 listed points.
To start, I appreciate the fact that you provided for me your definition of "atheism" because I believe it is of utmost importance for us to define our terms if we are to have a fruitful discussion. However, I disagree with your definition of atheism, and so perhaps we can start there. You defined atheism as "suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented". The problem I have with your definition is that it is intentionally ambiguous and seems to be intellectually dishonest. Your definition of atheism seems to resemble more closely the definition of agnosticism.
Agnosticism comes from two Greek words (a, “no” or “without”; and gnosis, “knowledge”). It literally means, “no-knowledge” or “without knowledge.”
There are two forms of agnosticism:
(1) GOD is unknown;
(2) GOD is unknowable and cannot be known.
The first form is open to possibility; however, the second form is closed-minded, negatively dogmatic, and self-falsifying.
Immanuel Kant believed that knowing reality is impossible. The argument that we cannot know the real world is self-defeating. The very statement of “we cannot know reality” is a statement that presupposes knowledge about reality. To say, “I know that reality is unknowable” is to make a claim to know something about reality. Complete agnosticism is self-defeating. Augustine of Hippo noted rightly that “no one indeed believes anything unless he has first thought that it is to be believed.”
One who knows only some things about reality cannot affirm in the same breath that all of reality is unknowable. Do you know all things? If you can admit that you do not know all things, then you can admit that something outside of your limited experiences and understanding is possible. In fact, to learn is to discover a new area of Truth you didn’t know before.
Imagine a pie chart where only 10% of the pie is colored dark gray and 90% is colored light gray. If the entire pie represents all knowledge and understanding of the entire universe regarding all of reality and the 10% represents everything you know, wouldn’t it be possible that GOD exists in the 90% area you do not yet know? What, then, if GOD transcends reality and is beyond the universe? If you do not even know all there is to know of this reality within the universe, how could you possibly know anything of that which transcends the universe? If GOD does transcend the universe, we could only know GOD if GOD chose to reveal Himself to us.
Grammatically, the word "being" is the noun form of the verb "to be". Therefore, being is “to be” or “to exist.” No two beings are the same. Philosopher George Klubertanz, in “Introduction to the Philosophy of Being” says, “Being, in any singular existent [existing thing], cannot be entirely and exactly the same as it is in any other thing. It must in each instance be and be known as a definite singular thing uniquely ordered to its own act of existing. It must in each instance include all that is unique and proper to the singular individual, and so it cannot be an univocal intelligibility.”
One cannot say GOD is “not that” unless the person has knowledge of “that.” How can a person know what does not apply to GOD unless that person knows what does apply? The negation would imply a prior affirmation. Unless it is impossible to know the real, it is unnecessary to disclaim the possibility of all cognitive knowledge of it or to dissuade people from making any judgments about it. A belief should not be established until all knowable possibilities have been investigated. We must investigate everything we know and then also determine if it be possible that a transcendent GOD revealed Himself to us, thereby allowing us to know what we could not know ourselves.
However, it is impossible for anyone to remain an agnostic. Why? We cannot and would not play sports the right way without knowing the start, the finish, the purpose, and the rules. Likewise, in order to play the ‘game’ of life, we need to know those same four principles. How did life begin? What’s the final outcome of life? What’s the purpose of life? In order to live rightly, what rules should we follow? No one honestly remains agnostic. At some point, the person makes a decision as to what that person believes in the affirmative. If you do not have a belief in the affirmative, then you cannot claim to be an atheist; rather, you can only claim agnosticism in that you claim to be without knowledge and you have not yet arrived to the point where you are willing to make a claim in the affirmative. Therefore, if you are suspending your belief, then you have not yet made a claim in the affirmative and would therefore match the definition of agnosticism rather than atheism. But to be certain, I will also present my belief and arguments regarding the definition of atheism as well. I will provide that in the next comment.
@@Theo_Skeptomai In regards to atheism, many atheists would define atheism as the absence (or lack) of belief in the existence of any gods; it is merely the rejection of religious beliefs. All atheists are nontheists, and most are antitheistic. An atheist believes there is no GOD either beyond or in the world. An atheist claims to know (or at least believe) that GOD does not exist. This claim would be a belief in the affirmative.
Atheists do not have identical beliefs, any more than do all theists. However, there is a core of beliefs common to most atheists. So while not all atheists believe all of the following, all of the following are believed by some atheists. And most atheists believe most of the following. Only the cosmos exist. GOD did not create humans; humans created GOD. The universe is eternal. If it is not eternal, then it came into existence “out of nothing and by nothing.” A human being is matter in motion with no immortal soul. There is no mind apart from brain. Nor is there a soul independent of body. Unlike pantheists, who deny the reality of evil, atheists strongly affirm the existence of evil. In regards to ethics, no moral absolutes exist, certainly no divinely authorized absolutes. Since values are not discovered from some revelation of GOD, they must be created by humans. But virtually all atheists recognize that each person must determine personal values, since there is no GOD to reveal what is right and wrong. Many atheists believe that human reason and science can produce a social utopia. And recently, there has been a surge of writings by a movement called “New Atheism.” The content of their arguments does not differ significantly from “old” atheism, it is just repackaged and delivered with a louder, more shrill voice. The special emphasis is that religion is the source of many of the great evils of humankind.
Not all views expressed by atheists lack truth. Most atheists have a keen sensitivity to evil and injustice. Many atheists are humanists. With others they affirm the value of humanity and human culture. They earnestly pursue both the arts and the sciences and express deep concern in ethical issues. Most atheists believe that racism, hatred, and bigotry are wrong. Most atheists commend freedom and tolerance and have other positive moral values.
From the stance of atheism, there are only two possible paths atheists can go: nihilism or secular humanism. In order to arrive at an honest and accurate conclusion about atheism, both nihilism and secular humanism must first be investigated.
Now, having once been an atheist myself and now being a child of GOD (Christian), I present to you my belief and arguments regarding atheism. Atheists often argue that they don’t have a claim in the affirmative to defend; however, the claim that they don’t have a claim is a claim that would need to be defended. Atheists claim that their stance is merely a lack or absence of belief, yet they claim to know (or believe) that GOD does not exist. Atheists cannot possess a lack of belief while possessing a belief that GOD does not exist. The atheists’ arguments do not disprove GOD; rather, if GOD is real, our lack of understanding only proves our ignorance and calls attention only to the limits of our finite and fallible minds. In fact, it is unnecessary for atheists to pose an argument against GOD unless they have a belief (GOD doesn’t exist) that needs to be defended. It is inconsistent, illogical, and intellectually dishonest.
The atheists’ argument that GOD does not exist is a classic example of the fallacious argument from ignorance known as argumentum ad ignorantiam. Assuming that GOD does not exist because GOD is not seen is saying that something is false because of lack of evidence that it is true. But just because we don’t know something, or can’t readily find evidence in its favor, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s false. Even if one should not believe that something is true, it simply doesn’t follow that one should believe that it is false. There is a crucial distinction between absence of evidence and evidence of absence. A lack of positive evidence for something is not by itself a reason to disbelieve it. If the atheist is to argue that GOD does not exist, the atheist must have positive proof of that belief being right. If anything, an honest conclusion would be to claim agnosticism in that a lack of knowledge exists. The atheists’ argument that GOD does not exist might be understood as resting on a false dilemma: Either GOD exists or does not exist; I cannot deduce existence of GOD with absolute certainty; therefore, GOD does not exist. The argument that GOD does not exist is intellectually dishonest.
At the core of all atheism is self-deception and idolization of self (pride). People do not deny GOD and then begin to sin; people tend to grow attachment to favorite sins and then find reasons to justify the attachment to sins and what follows is a disbelief in GOD (who provides absolute morals). Not only do atheists proclaim that GOD does not exist based on their lack of experience, but they also usually seek to affirm moral laws while denying GOD. (We would need to thoroughly investigate morality with integrity.) Truth cannot be relative and must be absolute.
For atheism to be true, I believe materialism and naturalism would need to be true. However, I believe that materialism cannot account for minds, personality, moral law, or GOD. I also believe that naturalism is not able to explain either itself or the universe on a purely naturalistic premise.
And finally, in requirement number 1 of your 11 listed points, you stated, "I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god". Well, I believe I can provide for you a functional definition of GOD; however, in order to do so, we would need to thoroughly examine the aspects of materialism and naturalism within the topic of creation. How would you like to proceed?
@PointlessThorns I want to address your comments one issue at a time until we can resolve that issue before moving on to the next issue you have raised.
Are you agreeable to this approach?
So lets zoom out and look at the big picture, the history and evolution of religious belief.
The earliest evidence we have of religious practices, goes back up to 200,000 years as evidenced by symbolic artifacts, cave paintings and ritual burials. Its unknown what the actual beliefs were, but widely understood to be some form of animism, everything having some supernatural agency...then transitioning to simple forms of polytheism, multiple deities but not arranged in any type of power hierarchy.
Between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago, when hunter gatherers transitioned to agriculture and began to establish permanent settlements, there was a shift to more organized forms of polytheism, and deities with more complex personages.
Around 5000 years ago, the earliest evidence of a more structured polytheistic belief system with a hierarchy of deities were the ancient Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations.
About 3500 years ago, the Canaanite civilization emerged, heavily influenced by Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations, their deities and myths carried forward. Its here we see the first indication of Yahweh, though the jury is still out whether he was a storm god, war god, mountain god or god of metallurgy...but believed to be a lesser god in some capacity.
When the Israelites split off, they took Yahweh as their national god, the chief god of Yahwism, a henotheistic belief system, he had a consort goddess Asherah, among other gods they took with them to form this pantheon.
Around 2500 to 2900 years ago, Yahwism transitioned to Judaism, a monotheistic belief system with Yahweh as the one and only god. In fact, you can see this transition in the Old Testament, with Yahweh jealous, trying to cancel out the other gods and reason for the 1st Commandment.
Then of course about 2000 years ago, an apocalyptic Jewish Christian cult emerged, and evolved into Christianity, still monotheistic but with a triune godhead.
This is just the evolutionary line to Jesus, there are of course many other pathways to different religions, and others that just hit a dead end.
But the point is, religion is clearly a social construct that has evolved throughout human history, with gods made up, redesigned and/or ending up in the dust bin of history, myths carried forward and rewritten, scripture modified and added, etc, to meet changing societal needs.
I'm an agnostic atheist, meaning that I reject man made claims like Jesus, Allah, Vishnu and the other thousands of claims, but am neutral on deistic and pantheistic concepts.
“nuh uh” - christian’s response to this
First, you contradicted yourself in your statement that "Its unknown what the actual beliefs were", and then you went on to proclaim how you knew what their beliefs were.
Next, you listed many internet infidel talking points that lack scholarly work.
And then you showcased your ignorance of Judaism and the Bible when you said, "with Yahweh jealous, trying to cancel out the other gods and reason for the 1st Commandment". That's simply false. The tried and true scholars all acknowledge that Judaism is monotheistic. No other gods existed or exist. The existence of other gods was never the reason for the commandment you cited. As it turns out, I've already published an article that explains what you currently do not understand regarding this topic of GOD's "jealousy":
"A Jealous God?"
pointlessthorns.wordpress.com/2021/07/14/picture-scripture-a-jealous-god-exodus-204-6/
You said, "But the point is, religion is clearly a social construct that has evolved throughout human history"
False. Belief in God/gods / creation has been the human constant throughout history.
You then claimed, "scripture modified and added, etc, to meet changing societal needs"
False. Over the thousands upon thousands of manuscripts within the archaeological archives of evidence, the only changes have been misspelled words or slight grammatical errors, etc. Nothing of importance or anything essential ever changed. As it turns out, I already made another video about this:
"Can We Trust The Bible To Be Authentic, Reliable, Accurate, and True?":
th-cam.com/video/jGX-h8ULa44/w-d-xo.htmlsi=pZFbn_ABdaH7LHUL
You then claimed to be an "agnostic atheist". This term, though something widely used online by people who are confused, it is a contradictory term and is to be rejected. Please see the comment thread in this comment section with Theo_Skeptomai. Within that thread, I clearly defined both agnosticism and atheism.
And finally, you presented the claim that Jesus is a man made claim, which is a presupposition.
In conclusion, if you are willing to investigate with integrity and honestly examine all the evidence, we can continue to talk. But if you're not a true seeker, you can go troll elsewhere.
PS - your denial will never be a legitimate argument against my testimony. Did you even watch this entire video? If not, please start there.
@@user-vt3vo1yd3v Nuh uh
@@PointlessThorns I watched your video, which depicts a person in search of meaning and purpose, approval and acceptance from others, frustrated that the reality of life isn't how you want it to be....so you discovered a coping mechanism, Christianity. Interesting how you picked the popular god of your own culture lol then you have to audacity to suggest I have no integrity, honesty and my arguments are illegitimate unless they align with yours. You've got a lot of problems, and Jesus isn't the answer. I would seek out a good therapist, and I do not mean that in an insulting way.
@@user-vt3vo1yd3v Yep, you hit the nail right on the head!
Glory to God that He gives you the strength to share your testimony! Powerful!
Thank you for sharing your story
what a load of nonsense and bunk /sigh there is no evidence or proof for any of the thousands of gods, including the one you believe in. Atheism is simply lack of belief in a god. the time to believe in something is when there is proof for it. and there is no proof here.
It is a literal impossibility to possess a lack of belief that GOD exists in the same way you would not possess a lack of belief that bachelors are married. One does not possess a lack. In fact, all denials or rejections you "possess" stem directly from your beliefs. You would not possess a lack of belief in bachelors being married; rather, you would possess a belief in the affirmative that bachelors are not married and that married people are not bachelors because the definition of a bachelor is to not be married. Likewise, you would not possess a lack of belief that GOD exists; rather, you would possess a belief in the affirmative that GOD does not exist. And your belief that GOD does not exist would stem from many of your other beliefs within your worldview. If you're going to be aggressive enough to attack the beliefs of others, at least have the integrity and confidence to declare your beliefs while also being able to defend your beliefs. But saying you possess a lack of belief is intellectually dishonest.
If I reasoned like an atheist, what I say and do is either self-defeating or self-refuting. Here’s an example:
"I claim a lack of belief, yet I believe that GOD does not exist. And it is unnecessary for me to pose an argument against GOD unless I have a belief (GOD doesn’t exist) and that belief would need to be defended but I won’t defend it because it’s actually a lack of belief, which is inconsistent and illogical. Everything was created by nothing, out of nothing, and for no purpose or that the universe has always eternally existed, yet it exists without reason. Everything in nature with a design is without a Designer and order came from chaos. Materials could somehow collaborate in order to generate life, which produces emotions, thoughts, distinct personalities, and a will to act. Mere matter in the shape of a brain is capable of producing thoughts and those thoughts are somehow material rather than immaterial even though I can’t weigh my thoughts or dye them in an experiment. Non-life produced life and minds came from a non-mind. Morality is nothing more than a matter of opinion and so Adolf Hitler must be praised for living out his moral truth. Life is a program of survival and so sacrificial love would be a malfunction, not an innate desire to fulfill a greater purpose. In fact, saving someone’s life is rendered pointless in a purposeless existence, and so what I consider meaningful love would still be without purpose because everything and everyone ultimately comes to nothing. But evolution is a programming of survival even though I can’t explain who programmed the programming. And there’s no purpose so I should never expect to experience joy or expect for things to go “right.” In a random and purposeless existence, pain and suffering should be expected due to the inevitable destruction due to chaos and disorder. Without intelligent design, all that exists is unintentional creation destined for disaster. The purpose of life underlies all approaches to solving the mystery of evil and suffering. And without creative purpose, I have no reason to complain. In fact, I have no reason to trust my own thoughts because our “minds” are an illusion created by the physical processes that are occurring in our material brains. But if this is the case, our thoughts are merely the result of a series of physical causes (and resulting effects). You might believe you are thinking freely about what I just wrote, but in reality your “thoughts” are simply the consequences of neural “dominoes” falling, one against the next. In a world of strict causal physicalism, free will (and freely reasoned thoughts) are simply an illusion. So… I can’t really trust that thought I just had or anything I just wrote."
And that's why I'm no longer an atheist. Atheism is intellectually dishonest and does not correspond with objective reality.
Now, would you like to know why I am now a Christian? You claim there is no evidence for Christianity. But there is. Christianity is a cumulative case and evidence surrounds and abounds. Did you come here to investigate with integrity or did you come here to vomit hate without any intentions of examining your own beliefs? How would you like to proceed? Or would you not like to proceed at all?
😊