Are Atheists Biased?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 พ.ค. 2020
- A common claim made by various atheists is that they lack dogmatic tendencies and are less biased than someone who is religious, that they only care about evidence, but does this claim stand up to research?
Don't forget to help us create more videos! We need your support:
/ inspiringphilosophy
/ @inspiringphilosophy
Sources:
Wishful Thinking: Belief, Desire, and the Motivated Evaluation of Scientific Evidence
www.researchgate.net/publicat...
Making the truth stick & the myths fade: Lessons from cognitive psychology
behavioralpolicy.org/wp-conte...
Certainty Is Primarily Determined by Past Performance During Concept Learning
www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/...
The Bias Blind Spot: Perceptions of Bias in Self Versus Others
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/...
Cognitive Sophistication Does Not Attenuate the Bias Blind Spot
www.keithstanovich.com/Site/Re...
Are Atheists More Intelligent? - • Are Atheists More Inte...
Bias Blind Spot: Structure, Measurement, and Consequences
pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10...
Are atheists undogmatic?
www.sciencedirect.com/science...
Myside Bias, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence
journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1...
The six types of nonbelief: a qualitative and quantitative study of type and narrative
www.researchgate.net/publicat...
Thomas Nagel - The Last Word
Anger toward God: social-cognitive predictors, prevalence, and links with adjustment to bereavement and cancer.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2...
Relational Reasons for Nonbelief in the Existence of Gods: An Important Adjunct to Intellectual Nonbelief
psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-1...
Cognitive biases explain religious belief, paranormal belief, and belief in life’s purpose
www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manusc...
Priming of supernatural agent concepts and agency detection
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...
Perceptual Biases in Relation to Paranormal and Conspiracy Beliefs
journals.plos.org/plosone/art...
Personality and cognitive predictors of New Age practices and beliefs
miguelfariasuk.files.wordpres...
Supernatural Belief Is Not Modulated by Intuitive Thinking Style or Cognitive Inhibition
www.nature.com/articles/s4159...
Videos we drew from:
• Is Christianity Danger...
• Atheists are biased | ...
• Debate - Alex J. O'Con...
• Is Belief in the Resur...
• What would make you be...
• Video
• Pistis: Greek for "tru...
• Does Neil deGrasse Tys...
• What would make me bel...
![[HIGHLIGHT] หมีLIVEปะ? | EP.171 เห็นแต่ในจอ วันนี้มาต้องขอคารวะ](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gPWLxa0e_Z8/mqdefault.jpg)
I want to also stress a point that I may not have been clear enough on. I am aware some of these atheists I referenced admit they can be biased, for example, cosmic skeptic has said so here: th-cam.com/video/Rpoq080UYRA/w-d-xo.html
So I am not trying to attack anyone personally, just generally trying to go after the claim that atheists often make that they will change their mind if given evidence. I may have also said this in the past so I might be guilty as well. In a more detailed interview I admit my own biases: th-cam.com/video/pGP2S04v38k/w-d-xo.html
@Free Thinker If you are biased in your atheism then it would be unfair because you disregard theism unfairly, and the scientific evidence shows most people are biased in their beliefs and not willing to simply change it based on evidence
Free Thinker Atheism is a unicorn.
We are all on the “same boat in the same water” so to speak. I’m sure we can all be biased from time to time. For me life makes sense because of “God” but I have no problem at all with individuals who claim otherwise. However I do feel that many atheists have a notion of superiority. And I have actually experienced more negative attitude from atheists against me being gay and Christian then from Christians. Most dangerous of all is when we generalize about people.
*QUOTES FROM NOTABLE ATHEISTS*: I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently I assumed that it had none and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption…. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless. …
For myself as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was …liberation from … a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom…. There was one admirably simple method in our political and erotic revolt: We could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever. Similar tactics had been adopted during the eighteenth century and for the same reasons.
-Aldous Huxley (Ends and Means, 270-273)
"In speaking of the fear of religion, . . . , I am talking about . . . the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself. . . . I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that. . . . My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind...This is a somewhat ridiculous situation …. [I]t is just as irrational to be influenced in one’s beliefs by the hope that God does not exist as by the hope that God does exist."
- Thomas Nagel (well known American philosopher)
Socially, when I moved from theism to atheism, and science as a worldview, I guess, to be honest, I just liked the people in science, and the scientists, and their books, and just the lifestyle, and the way of living. I liked that better than the religious books, the religious people I was hanging out with-just socially. It just felt more comfortable for me. …In reality I think most of us arrive at most of our beliefs for non-rational reasons, and then we justify them with these reasons after the fact.
- Michael Shermer founder of The Skeptics Society, and Editor in Chief of its magazine Skeptic
I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.
- Isaac Asimov (well known writer of both fiction and non-fiction)
in the magazine Free Inquiry, Spring 1982, page 9
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion-a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint-and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it-the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’
- Michael Ruse (well known for his work on the relationship between science and religion)
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
- Professor Richard Lewontin (one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology)
I'm an atheist because I think of the universe as a natural, material system. I think of it, on the basis of my own extremely limited experience, as an infinitely replete but morally indifferent thing. It isn't bent on saving me, or damning me: It just is. I find comfort in that, as well as pain; wonder as well as loathing. That's my experience, and my atheism is a reflection of that experience. But it's not an argument; it's an interpretation.
I have taken a leap of atheist faith.
Religious people sometimes try to give proofs of the truth of their faith...But for many people, belief comes before arguments, originating in family, social and institutional context, in desire and need. The arguments are post-hoc rationalizations. This can be true of atheism as well. For me, it's what I grew up with. It gets by in my social world, where professions of religious faith would be considered out of place. My non-faith is fundamentally part of how I connect with others and the world.
The idea that the atheist comes to her view of the world through rationality and argumentation, while the believer relies on arbitrary emotional commitments, is false. This accounts for the sense that atheists such as Christopher Hitchens or Dawkins are arrogant: Their line of thinking often takes the form of disqualifying others on the grounds that they are irrational. But the atheist too, is deciding to believe in conditions of irremediable uncertainty, not merely following out a proof. Religious people have often offloaded the burden of their choices on institutions and relied on the Church's authorities and dogmas. But some atheists are equally willing to offload their beliefs on "reason" or "science" without acknowledging that they are making a bold intellectual commitment about the nature of the universe, and making it with utterly insufficient data. Religion at its best treats belief as a resolution in the face of doubt. I want an atheism that does the same, that displays epistemological courage.-
Irrational Atheism by atheist Crispin Sartwell who teaches philosophy at Dickinson College
@@BibleLosophR Wow. That's a long list of quotes.
Can I get the citations?
It does not take a psychology degree to know that if someone goes around and criticizes his opponents as being intellectually inferior, these people are not going to turn and say, oops, I was wrong.
Yes that's right
which is exactly what atheists do.
i mean, just the fact that they brag on and on about how unbiased and "just waiting for an evidence" they are, is telling me that it is sooooooo not the case. If they know a little bit of human psychology they will admit that evidence wouldn'tbe enough to convince them, if they are so passionate as to brag about their side being the "smart one", they should know full well based on basic human psychology, that they won't just see the evidence and say "OK, i believe now". HUMAN MIND DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT! SPECIALLY ON CHANGING YOUR MIND TO SOMETHING YOU FOR SO LONG THINK IS IRRATIONAL! Not to mention that they often have methodologies that make it completely impossible for anything to count as evidence for God. I'll mention 3 examples in my next comment
First there is one with Peter atkins against hugh ross, where PA says that he would have to see, and that even if he did see he would doubt his sanity, therefore.... nothing would ever count as a proof for God with such a methodology.
The second was michael shermer against david wood (and david does point out how the methodology makes it impossible to see anything as proof of God), Michael Shermer says that highly advanced aliens' tech would be indistinguishable from God, therefore, anything that points out to God, He just says "aliens". That way NOTHING will serve as evidence for God.
Another one i saw was David silverman, the most baffling "nothing will ever count as evidence" methodology saying:
"We are open minded. We just want evidence (the more the atheists brag about this, the more convinced i am that it is BS), the difference is that when we find something that we don't know how to explain naturally and say 'GOD'. We just admit we don't know." See the error in the methodology? When wording the "God of the gaps" objection he framed it in the debate in such a way that shows that EVERYTIME something appears that might actually point to God he's just gonna say "i don't know. The explanation MUST be natural. Can't be God, Can't insert God when i can't explain naturally". So nothing will EVER serve as a proof of this supernatural being cuz if it seems supernatural or done by God the answer will be "i don't know. Can't insert God just bc i don't know the (natural) answer"... if that's his methodology, when is he EVER gonna see anything as proof for God? Never. The more debates i watch the more i see that most atheists just DON'T WANT God to exist, and Christopher Hitchen's christian brother assures that. If that wasn't the case, they wouldn't so often insist in methodologies that clearly make it impossible for anything to serve as evidence for God.
But of course... they "just want evindence".... Bull----!
@@vitormenezesdemattos967 of course it is bull ... there will never be enough evidence.
that is why they use the idiotic term "extraordinary" evidence.
there is no such thing as "extraordinary" evidence.
there is only evidence.
So basically "Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him."
Proverbs 26:12 ESV
Scripture is right again!
@Aiden Pearce Not really. If it's others that believe a person to be wise, it's up to that person whether he/she will love the praise and think so himself/herself or stay humble. What matters is the individual. If overcome by pride that they think they're the most rational beings on Earth than other people, then they're more worse than a fool. Often times even a fool is humble and admit in their heart that they're not better than most people. And I think that's great. Also, true wisdom comes when you don't think of yourself as wise but God. Remember, whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. (Matthew 23:12)
@@UlyssesDrax It is clearly a warning about pride. It is about how a 'know it all' is unteachable. That is not a hard interpretation to grasp unless you want it to be. By the way, King Solomon wrote it. It was inspired by God, but a man wrote it. Proverbs is wisdom literature. None of us claim that God wrote the Bible word for word with his own hand, nor do we claim that he dictated it verbatim such as Muslims claim of the Quran. Christians believe in the inspiration and preservation of the message of the Bible, but we also believe in textual criticism and careful study.
Now, I want you to tell me, since you believe that the Bible is not clear enough, which book has no variant interpretations in the history of books? Has there EVER been a book that was NEVER misinterpreted? Interpretation is up to the hearer or reader regardless of the clarity of the author.
Which other media should God have used to reach more people throughout the history of humanity? Since you have far more wisdom than God, enlighten all of us and give your brilliant answer of how you would do a better job if you were the creator of the universe. Keep in mind that your goal is for people to love you not just to believe that you exist.
oh how true this verse is.
i wished i had had it on my mind while debating atheists and catholics
i mean you can open huge gaping holes and mistakes in their logic and they just CHOOSE to continue being stupid
That's just poetry. Poetry is art.
“In truth, there are only two kinds of people; those who accept dogma and know it, and those who accept dogma and don't know it.”
― G.K. Chesterton, Fancies Versus Fads
I love this Quote.
Beat me to it.
@@JulioCaesarTM He beat me too! Chesterton will always be a legend
So you're saying Dogma equals absolute truth? The Bible is absolute truth for instance there is absolute truth.
40 writers wrote it with no contradictions that means God wrote it that means you have no excuse on Judgement Day.
Let's see how smart you really are after you define your term Dogma.
God is not the author of evil He is the author of free will.
God created hell for the devil and his angels so you don't have to go there, but you will go there if you reject Him & don't look for the truth.
You see God's hands are clean on Judgment Day of any evil you can't pin it on Him.
@@jjphank ahhh! Showing bias toward us non christians.
J Hankins 🤔 sounds like insufficient bias propaganda to me. Still zero proof of god
"I am not biased. I simply follow the evidence."
*I lack belief that that is true.*
I lack belief that you lack belief
@@yournightmare9562 guess what I lack belief in
@@yournightmare9562 I lack belief that you lack belief in his lack of belief.
...you sound like the guy he's talking about...
There is no evidence that you simply follow the evidence
A rich person will never tell you how rich they are.
A smart person will never tell you how smart they are.
A funny person will never tell you how funny they are.
Yet all the unbiased people NEED to tell us how unbiased they are...🧢😒
Have you forgotten the last president that quickly?
He loved to talk about how rich and how smart and how everything he was.
The first one is false. A rich person can definitely tell you how rich they are. A better example would be a humble person telling you how humble they are.
Eh, I know plenty of rich people that need you to know how rich they are 😂
But for real true
That sounds really good but really inaccurate 😂😂😂
@@bellezavudd Have you ever thought he may have done that to rile his opponents? So many people's masks slipped while he was in office.
He's certainly an arrogant S.O.B. but not so stupid as to assume that most aren't aware of his wealth. Every man and his dog knows that Trump is a rich man, and Trump knows that.
A lot of his rhetorical tactics like that were Machiavellian. Plenty who should know better seemed to have fallen for it.
If you think Biden is better man for the job, I got news for you....
Atheist doesn't mean skeptic, everyone should be skeptical
I’m skeptical of that claim.
@Qwerty Then, Knowledge doesn't mean anything. If you are not being skeptical,a flying spaghetti monster is real .
@Qwerty wow. Calling someone stupid because YOU misunderstand what it means to be skeptic? Lmao. Priceless
Absolutely true
Qwerty🤔 skepticism is the denial of insufficient knowledge
90% of my debates with atheist go like this.....
Atheist: "give me evidence"
Me: "OK here you go"
Atheist: "not good enough"
Me: "OK try this one"
Atheist: " not good enough"
Me: "OK I'm done here, you're wasting my time"
Atheist: "No, actually you won't give me any evidence. I win, yay!"
Ok, post your evidence here lets see.
yeah as deji stated, post your evidence here and let's see what value it holds
Well first you shouldn't waste your time debating atheists anyway.
Atheists consider themselves intellectuals and they bow to intellectualism. However God is not a matter of intellectualism God is a matter of demonstration of power. All of the intellect and wisdom of mankind is worthless next to the demonstration of God's power.
However there are those who are of the mind that even if God came down and announced Himself to their faces they still would refuse to believe (they have that mind but it's quite impossible for that to be the case, they would simply harden their hearts against God).
@@lilchristuten7568 If it can be shown that some never experience God's power, would that be evidence to the limit of God's power?
It's disappointing you received a childlike response from nine out of ten non-believers about a question of faith and the heart. Were they under the impression they were entering a competition with you when discussing your evidence?
That is interesting. Claiming that one is unbiased turns out to be an extraordinary claim. That is ironic.
Agreed!
Not only is it ironic, it’s simply not true. There is no such thing as a person who’s 100% unbiased. Every human has bias to various degrees. Myself included.
If you claim that everyone is biased and therefore i'm allowed to be biased about something that's called the tu quoque fallacy
@@yournightmare9562 That's not the claim. The claim is that everyone is already biased which also means you already are.
@@yournightmare9562 The claim is simply an identification of rhe human condition. I mean what did you disagree with?
I am not a believer but I always laid down what my biases are and what have I been influenced by through my studies. Believers and nonbelievers need to do the same, not pretend either side is somehow non-biased and looks at everything with objective eyes.
Well said
agreed man
as an atheist, I agree with most of this. humans can be biased, and it can be much more difficult to spot this in one's self than in others. I hope I'm not biased, but I'm not sure how to discover if I am
Youre right, humans are biased. Theres no way around it. It takes a lot of work and some great parenting just to be less biased, but i doubt anyone can be entirely bias free.
You can search up cognitive biases to see the long list of them to figure out how biased you may be. Ive seen some online tests oriented toward discovering biases also.
Check out the discoveries of Ron Wyatt. And depending how react to the information you'll know if you're biased.
Many have been triggered
I know it was over a year ago. But you are at least in better shape than others by acknowledging your natural human propensity towards bias, rather than saying you dont have it. You wont ever be bias free. Nobody will. But you can be a little less so by trying.
I try to do so as well
Why are you an atheist.
That's a bias right there.
I do hope you have an awakening at some point, though. The claim of being unbiased isn’t a correct assertion for atheists or religious people, and it’s good that you recognize that. I probably am very biased at times too, but I hold God to be the truth and I want to let you know that he’s there for anyone who’s willing to accept him
As a believer I am aware of how biased I am. When I was an atheist my whole thing was I can never be a believer because I need evidence and it's something that can never be proved. In one second at the end of a church service I didn't even want to be at I accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior and all my doubts disappeared. I used to think that people that got saved were caught up in the emotion of the service but I don't even remember what it was about. My dads pastor used to have long talks with me to prove God was real and it didn't help at all. For all my doubts to be erased that quickly I have no other explanation. I don't have all the answers so yeah I'm biased but Im okay with that. I still seek to learn more but I could never bring myself to question it
And what type of athiest were you
the bible is inaccurate type ?
Or
God is unfair type ?
@@rickojay7536 honestly it was a little bit of both
Jesus Christ the good miraculous king who never abandons or forsakes us adores you my friends
may you always run to Him in stress, are happy, are concerned, or simply just waking up :" )
God is good! may you love others and be patient and forgiving with others, as God has loved us
I'm so happy to hear you accepted Jesus Christ's grace and are saved. What a blessing. Welcome brother. We are all wretched sinners only saved through the grace of Jesus Christ.
That's incredible, and a good testimony to share with other nonbelievers.
This is a bit of a tangent, but, _“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!”_ is a statement of epistemology, not truth. Whether or not “extraordinary evidence” is readily available for any claim is separate from whether said claim is actually true or false.
Put another way: Any system of epistemology must balance between two types of error, “false positives” (claims accepted as true which are really not true) and “false negatives” (claims not accepted as true which are really true). You cannot _decrease_ one type of error without tending to _increase_ the other type. For instance, at the extremes, a person who believes _every_ claim irrespective of evidence minimizes false negatives but maximizes false positives-while a person who can never see enough evidence to believe _any_ claim minimizes false positives but maximizes false negatives.
Thus, there is no such thing as a flawless epistemology. And requirements of “extraordinary evidence” will tend to decrease false positive errors only at the expense of tending to increase false negative errors.
Also, excellent video IP. God bless you.
Well for Science their Ordinary claims requires Extraordinary evidence, well to put it simply these "theories" are ordinary claims all of them sound like plausible stories that needed extraordinary evidence. There is no actual proof for any of these theories. Once a new theory has been shown to better explain things you can bet that the upcoming researchers will explore that instead. Which makes Science a false positive.
Science is based on theories and paradigms, various methods, assumptions, intuitions, predictions and preferences. I wouldn't say science *requires* faith in *every* thing. But faith is also essential part of science especially because it is impossible for someone to understand every aspect of your daily life.
If you don't allow your prior beliefs to influence your interpretations of the scientific method, you will encounter problems. Science is a belief system which aims to minimize faith. Religion, on the other hand, is a belief system based completely on faith. This is a satisfactory distinction, but I feel we can make the difference much clearer.
Since people are mostly are objective in their debate but seems most likely that people were subjective and bias in most cases.
To Atheist their logic shouldn't by "God is at fault" or "God allows" followed by your logic "God doesn't exist" therefore it's not God's fault. Which is why they're disproving and confusing things in religion rather than research on their own to mind their own business and avoid unnecessary conflicts. But it's NATURAL that Humans search for God and Atheists just keep asking religious person for proof of God's existence be like "Just show me that God exists" period?
Assuming being Atheist act like "expecting someone to provide proof" but actually never evaluate themselves first "How do you define God? How Humans prove God's existence?" Does these questions never brought up to their thoughts? Atheists behave like false negative when communicates with Religious people, with their Science's theoretical evidences.
How in the world a Human have a power over God? It's logical that humans search their God though. It's natural that God revealed themselves to them as proof of existence. God does not play dice and stop telling God what to do, therefore Human should stop telling a fellow Human telling God what to do.
But it does not increase at the same degree to the decrease of another. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is to simply say that the veracity of the claim should match a particular standard of evidence. A mundane claim like ‘I have a pet dog’ can typically warrant belief via simple testimony. We know dogs exist and people keep them as pets. However, if someone claimed to have a pet dragon, this would require a lot more evidence than just the testimony. We’d want to visibly observe the dragon. We wouldn’t take their word for it, or at least shouldn’t. Similar to this, when someone makes an extraordinary claim like they witnessed someone raising from the dead, we wouldn’t, or at least shouldn’t, believe it simply on their word. Which is the exact reason people don’t believe in the resurrection. Because the level of evidence does not match the level of the claim.
@@Stuffingsalad Natural phenomenon like paranormal was never disproved, they believed machines but without a belief, which result Science always have theoretical evidences on the existence of beyond material world, sigh. I lose hope in humanity's competency on proving things.
David Gumazon No idea what you’re on about. But not being able to disprove something doesn’t warrant belief. We couldn’t disprove Thor throwing lightning bolts being the cause of lighting. The default answer should have been we don’t know. You can disprove immaterial fairies orbiting a far away galaxy. That doesn’t warrant belief. The default position is disbelief. You don’t get to make up a paranormal answer and just go with that because someone can disprove it. You need to prove your hypothesis.
Why do you lose hope? We’ve discovered so much. Come so far. And we’re still learning.
@@Stuffingsalad What does Thor myth have to do with Paranormal in real life? Nothing obviously. I'm not saying all religions are real but Scriptures, Archeological and Geological evidences are far from comparable to fairytale. Yes, there are people make up paranormals and anyone can disprove it, otherwise the other paranormal group took it more seriously which encounters a real thing and disbelief alone can't disprove them. Hypotheticals are not reasonable, rational or logical arguments. They're irrelevant.
Beyond material world? Nothing to prove their theories on Metaphysics and MWI is nothing but Science Dogma. We know Metaphysics and MWI are philosophy but that still from science. Science does is trying very hard and consequently to satisfy the quest for explanations that are in principle out in the world, while metaphysics explores the world where explanations do not work in principle and explores our understanding and our reasoning.
It's nothing interesting though and still everyone tells you you need knowledge and more knowledge... just Science godlike. It doesn't have to be Science when there are other fields besides Science are more helpful in my opinion based on my experience.
I actually find it interesting that atheists claim not to be dogmatic. In my experience 100% of the atheists I've spoken to say faith is some variation of "belief without evidence". When I explain that faith is trust *based on* evidence they call me a liar. It's interesting to me that they seem to believe themselves unbiased when in fact they are trying to tell me on their own authority what I believe and how the religion I follow works.
Ap31920 hello 👋🏼, indeed, I’ve visited and watched many links where the atheist will conclude that same verdict. You may find that they use that same verdict to try humiliate others with IQ intelligence and gullibility.
Hebrews 11:1
I've had the same experience. Maybe that's why many of them simply dismiss any and all evidence offered, because admitting it is such (even if they don't agree with it) would mean our faith IS based on evidence.
And what does it mean to trust? Evidence can only take you so far, after all.
@@alphahuner1116hebrews isnt defining faith, faith, or Pistes , was a COMMON word that the biblical aithors did not think required a definition because its a 100% common word everyone knew.
Hebrews is describing how a particular type of faith interacts with other things in *this* context.
Over time, some Christian teachers started to use this verse as a technical definition.
Short answer: yes
*Drug addictions, and thought addictions are closely related on a neurological level.* Some people are more beholden to the ancient part of the brain (Meso Limbic System/emotional) rather than someone that reasons using the modern part (Frontal Cortex/rational).
"The second system, known as the mesolimbic system, has its cell bodies in the ventral tegmental area, which is medial to the substantia nigra. It projects to several parts of the limbic system, including the nucleus accumbens and ventral portions of the striatum, amygdala, and hippocampus, as well as prefrontal cortex. *This system has been linked to reward-related behavior (Berridge and Kringelbach, 2015). Dopamine levels in the nucleus accumbens increase in response to both natural reinforcers (such as food, drink, and sex) and drugs of abuse (such as amphetamine and cocaine). Additionally, in humans, activity in this region increases in response to more abstract rewards, such as money."*
Marie T. Banich/Rebecca J. Compton, Cognitive Neuroscience, Section: Subsystems, pp. 2/3
*"Dopamine, in fact, is critical in association learning and the reward system of the brain that Skinner discovered through his process of operant conditioning, whereby any behavior that is reinforced tends to be repeated. A reinforcement is, by definition, something that is rewarding to the organism; that is to say, it makes the brain direct the body to repeat the behavior in order to get another positive reward.* ...The connection between dopamine and belief was established by experiments conducted by Peter Brugger and his colleague Christine Mohr at the University of Bristol in England. *Exploring the neurochemistry of superstition, magical thinking, and belief in the paranormal, Brugger and Mohr found that people with high levels of dopamine are more likely to find significance in coincidences and pick out meaning and patterns where there are none."*
Michael Shermer, The Believing Brain, Section: 6 The Believing Neuron pp. 8-10/29
*"Genetic and behavioral factors influencing religiously motivated behavior appear related to dopamine metabolism and signaling. Inclination toward religious behavior and motivation has been associated with a polymorphism on the dopamine receptor gene DRD4 (Comings, Gonzales, Saucier, Johnson, & MacMurray, 2000;Sasaki et al., 2013). Acquired disorders of dopamine physiology also show links to religious behaviors."*
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5478470/
*"Religious and spiritual experiences activate the brain reward circuits in much the same way as love, sex, gambling, drugs and music,* report researchers at the University of Utah School of Medicine."
unews.utah.edu/this-is-your-brain-on-god/
"Dopamine, adrenaline, and noradrenaline are neurotransmitters that belong to the catecholamine family. Dopamine is produced in the substantia nigra and ventral tegmental regions of the brain, and *dopamine alterations are related to schizophrenia (1, 2). ...The “original dopamine hypothesis” states that hyperactive dopamine transmission results in schizophrenic symptoms."*
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4032934/
*"Dopamine In schizophrenia (SCZ), there is evidence that very high levels of dopamine in the limbic system play a major role in emergence of hallucinations and delusions. Antipsychotic medications, which block central dopamine activity, alleviate the hallucinations of psychosis. Drugs with strong dopaminergic effect, such as L-dopa, methylphenidate, bromocriptine, pramipexole and piribedil, may induce hallucinations. D-amphetamine, a direct dopamine agonist, may also induce psychosis and hallucinations."*
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2996210/
*"Here, we show that administration of a drug that enhances dopaminergic function (dihydroxy-L-phenylalanine; L-DOPA) increases an optimism bias. This effect is due to L-DOPA impairing the ability to update belief in response to undesirable information about the future."*
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3424419/
"Tibetan mystics have long practiced a method to create sentient beings (Tulpas) from the power of concentrated thought."
Note: These (Tulpas) are not sentient beings, but a manifestation of the subconscious mind through neural plasticity via neurochemical imbalancing inducing meditation. In other words it's having a dream state while awake, and interacting with a character that's made up of one's own preformed thoughts (building blocks of ideas/concepts that are below conscious awareness) which gives the illusion of sentience. In simpler words it's self induced schizophrenia due to stresses (psychological/physical/environmental) where neurochemical traffic gets rerouted causing hallucinations to any of the five senses, also including involuntary movement, and distorted speech (glossolalia).
www.google.com/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en_ca/article/exmqzz/tulpamancy-internet-subculture-892
Imagine the euphoria experienced by the average person for believing they won a million dollars on a scratch off ticket (it could be a joke ticket yet as long as they believe). Now imagine someone having the same sensations, but being convinced it's a paranormal contact for believing John 3:16.
We evolved to seek pleasure (eating/reproduction), and avoid getting killed (tiger in the grass/competing neighbor/harsh enviroment). With our increased cognitive abilities we made up other reasons for pleasure, and survival beyond basic necessity. The Dopamine Reward System over time bridges gaps in pathways in order to form habits in order to repeat behaviors, and or thoughts. The often cited testimony of getting off an addiction thanks to a God is just a placebo replacement due to the power of the mind (an AA participant I heard of chose to worship the radiator in his room instead of an higher power, and became sober).
Ancient people did not know the neurosciences. Philo of Alexandria thought that joy came from Heaven by way of God's chief archangel the "Divine Word/Right Reason (Logos)".
ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT Book 2
"XXXVII ...And *who can pour over the happy soul which proffers its own reason as the most sacred cup, the holy goblets of true joy, except the cup-bearer of God, the master of the feast, the Word* ?"
ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION, III
"LX ... *the soul very often, when it is delighted, is yet unable to explain what it is that has delighted it; but it is taught by the hierophant and prophet Moses, who tells it, “This is the bread, the food which God has given for the Soul, (Exo. **16:15**)” explaining that God has brought it, his own Word and his own Reason; for this bread which he has given us to eat is this Word of his* ."
The High Priest's headdress had a crown made of a plant known for it's hallucinogenic properties at which a golden plate covered the forehead. On said golden plate was inscribed sacred characters for the name of God.
Josephus: THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS, BOOK 3, CHAPTER 7 (172-178), CONCERNING THE GARMENTS ...OF THE HIGH PRIEST
"6. The high priest's mitre was the same that we described before, and was wrought like that of all the other priests; above which there was another, with swathes of blue embroidered, and round it was a golden crown polished, of three rows, one above another; out of which arose a cup of gold, which resembled the herb which we call Saccharus: *but those Greeks that are skilful in botany call it Hyoscyamus. ...Now the fruit is preserved by this coat of the calyx, which fruit is like the seed of the herb Sideritis: it sends out a flower that may seem to resemble that of poppy. Of this was a crown made, as far as from the hinder part of the head to each of the temples; but this Ephielis, for so this calyx may be called, did not cover the forehead, but it was covered with a golden plate, which had inscribed upon it the name of God in sacred characters. And such were the ornaments of the high priest."*
*Hyoscyamus Niger*
" ...was historically used..., *as well as for its psychoactive properties in "magic brews". These psychoactive properties include visual hallucinations and a sensation of flight. ...The plant, recorded as Herba Apollinaris, was used to yield oracles by the priestesses of Apollo.* "
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyoscyamus_niger
Scrambled neurochemistry is insight to another realm for some people.
The Holy Dopamine Ghost (Thoughts are addictive)
th-cam.com/play/PLQATeZAnm87BaJjBtM1vMIq_gHRmBq3ie.html
Scripture is designed to keep people in the thought addiction, and shut out from the group those that question.
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction." (Prov. 1:7)
"In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." "but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed." (2 Cor. 4:4, 3:16)
"As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not. Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom." (Quran 2.006-.007)
"Fools say in their hearts, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is no one who does good." (Psa. 14:1)
"but whoever blasphemes against the *Holy Dopamine Ghost* can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" (Mark 3:29)
i.imgflip.com/1ydvtk.jpg
@@bleirdo_dude what does this have to do with atheists being biased?
@@darklord7069 Mark the first Gospel written is not conveying history. But is a literary artifice, an allegory (also midrash) of OT scripture (overt/covert) and Pauline theology.
*Mark 5:1-20*
"1 *They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes. 2 And when he had stepped out of the boat, immediately a man out of the tombs with an unclean spirit met him. 3 He lived among the tombs; and no one could restrain him any more, even with a chain; 4 for he had often been restrained with shackles and chains, but the chains he wrenched apart, and the shackles he broke in pieces; and no one had the strength to subdue him. 5 Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always howling and bruising himself with stones.* 6 When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and bowed down before him; 7 and he shouted at the top of his voice, *“What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.” 8 For he had said to him, “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!” 9 Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” He replied, “My name is Legion; for we are many.”* 10 He begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country. 11 Now there on the hillside a great herd of swine was feeding; 12 and the unclean spirits begged him, “Send us into the swine; let us enter them.” 13 So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, *rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea.*
14 The swineherds ran off and told it in the city and in the country. Then people came to see what it was that had happened. 15 They came to Jesus and saw the demoniac sitting there, clothed and in his right mind, the very man who had had the legion; and they were afraid. 16 Those who had seen what had happened to the demoniac and to the swine reported it. 17 Then they began to beg Jesus to leave their neighborhood. 18 *As he was getting into the boat, the man who had been possessed by demons begged him that he might be with him. 19 But Jesus refused, and said to him, “Go home to your friends, and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and what mercy he has shown you.” 20 And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him; and everyone was amazed."*
Philo: In Flaccum
"VI *There was a certain madman named Carabbas,... this man spent all this days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat,..."*
Isaiah 65:1, :4a
"1 *I was ready to be sought out by those who did not ask, to be found by those who did not seek me. I said, 'Here I am, here I am',
to a nation that did not call on my name."*
"4a *who sit inside tombs, and spend the night in secret places; who eat swine's flesh,"*
Psalm 107:4-7 :10-14
"4 *Some wandered in desert wastes, finding no way to a city to dwell in;* 5 hungry and thirsty, their soul fainted within them. 6 *Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he delivered them from their distress; 7 he led them by a straight way, till they reached a city to dwell in."*
"10 *Some sat in darkness and in gloom, prisoners in affliction and in irons, 11 for they had rebelled against the words of God,* and spurned the counsel of the Most High. 12 Their hearts were bowed down with hard labor; they fell down, with none to help. 13 Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he delivered them from their distress; 14 *he brought them out of darkness and gloom,
and broke their bonds asunder."*
1 Kings 17:18
"18 And she said to Eli′jah, *“What have you against me, O man of God? You have come to me to bring my sin to remembrance,* and to cause the death of my son!” "
Psalm 78:49
"49 He let loose on them his fierce anger, wrath, indignation, and distress, *a (legion) company of destroying angels."*
Exodus 14:28a
"28a *The waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen and all the host of Pharaoh that had followed them into the sea;"*
"Mark's imitation also retains some of the distinctive traits of Odyssey, insofar as both stories place monsters in caves, grazing animals on the mountains, and neighbors at the scene. ...Finally, just as Odysseus told Polyphemus to tell others who it was who blinded him, Jesus tells the Gerasene to tell others who it was who healed him."
Dennis R MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, pp. 73
"Detailed analysis of the traditions shared by Matthew, Mark, and Luke provides strong support for the view that Mark provided the template that Matthew and Luke revised, both correcting and smoothing out its language and expanding the Jesus material it contained."
The New Oxford Annotated Bible-NRSV, pp. 1380
The anonymous author of Mark (named out of early church tradition) hints to the reader that it's entirely a parable in which the meaning is an inside secret.
Mark 4:10-12
"10 *When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the parables. 11 And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; 12 in order that 'they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven (Isa. 6:9-10).'"*
More examples of Mark using the OT to flesh out his narrative:
*Mark **1:16**-17*
"16 And passing along by the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon *casting a net in the sea; for they were fishermen. 17 And Jesus said to them, “Follow me and I will make you become fishers of men.”'*
Jeremiah 16:16a
"16a *“Behold, I am sending for many fishers, says the Lord, and they shall catch them;"*
Ezekiel 47:10a, :10c
"10a *Fishermen will stand beside the sea;" "10c fish will be of very many kinds, like the fish of the Great Sea."*
1 Kings 19:19-21
"19 So he set out from there, and found Elisha son of Shaphat, who was plowing. *There were twelve yoke of oxen ahead of him, and he was with the twelfth. Elijah passed by him and threw his mantle over him.* 20 He left the oxen, ran after Elijah, and said, "Let me kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow you." Then Elijah said to him, "Go back again; for what have I done to you?" (compare Mat. 8:21-22) 21 He returned from following him, took the yoke of oxen, and slaughtered them; using the equipment from the oxen, he boiled their flesh, and gave it to the people, and they ate. *Then he set out and followed Elijah, and became his servant."*
*Mark **4:37**-41*
"37 And a great storm of wind arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat was already filling. 38 *But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke him and said to him, “Teacher, do you not care if we perish?”* 39 And he awoke and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, “Peace! Be still!” And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. 40 He said to them, *“Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?” 41 And they were filled with awe, and said to one another, “Who then is this, that even wind and sea obey him?”'*
Jonah 1:6, :11-17
"6 The captain came and said to him, *“What are you doing sound asleep? Get up, call on your god! Perhaps the god will spare us a thought so that we do not perish.”*
"11 Then they said to him, “What shall we do to you, that the sea may quiet down for us?” For the sea was growing more and more tempestuous. 12 He said to them, *“Pick me up and throw me into the sea; then the sea will quiet down for you; for I know it is because of me that this great storm has come upon you.”* 13 Nevertheless the men rowed hard to bring the ship back to land, but they could not, for the sea grew more and more stormy against them. 14 Then they cried out to the Lord, “Please, O Lord, we pray, do not let us perish on account of this man’s life. Do not make us guilty of innocent blood; for you, O Lord, have done as it pleased you.” 15 *So they picked Jonah up and threw him into the sea; and the sea ceased from its raging. 16 Then the men feared the Lord even more, and they offered a sacrifice to the Lord and made vows. 17 But the Lord provided a large fish to swallow up Jonah; and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights."*
Psalm 107:23-29
"23 *Some went down to the sea in ships, doing business on the mighty waters; 24 they saw the deeds of the Lord, his wondrous works in the deep. 25 For he commanded and raised the stormy wind, which lifted up the waves of the sea.* 26 They mounted up to heaven, they went down to the depths; *their courage melted away in their calamity;* 27 they reeled and staggered like drunkards, and were at their wits’ end. 28 *Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he brought them out from their distress; 29 he made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea were hushed."*
"A raft of scholars, including Randel Helms, Thomas L. Brodie, John Dominic Crossan and others, have shown again and again how this and that Gospel passage likely originated as a Christian rewrite of this or that Old Testament passage. What one Testament had Moses do, the other had Jesus do. Fill in the name. What did David do? Joshua? Elijah? Elisha? Turns out Jesus did it, too, and even in the same descriptive words."
Thomas L Thompson, Is This Not the Carpenter, pp. 113-114
@@bleirdo_dude you are literally jumping all over the place. I’m only saying that atheists are biased, all you did was go around in irrelevant topics
@@darklord7069 The Temple cleansing scene in Mark is sandwiched with a symbolic metaphor for Jerusalem no longer bearing spiritual fruit for God as Jesus is the new covenant. It's an apologia for the Romans sacking the Temple in 70 CE in that God hasn’t failed it's his people (God's plan in Paul's OT based Gentile inclusion theology).
*Mark **11:12**c-21*
"12c *...he was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. 14 He said to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again."* And his disciples heard it.
15 Then they came to Jerusalem. And *he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves; 16 and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. 17 He was teaching and saying, "Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? (Isa. 56:7) But you have made it a den of robbers." (Jer. **7:11**) 18 And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him;* for they were afraid of him, because the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching. 19 And when evening came, Jesus and his disciples went out of the city.
20 In the morning as they passed by, *they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots. 21 Then Peter remembered and said to him, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed has withered."'*
Hosea 9:1-17, 10:1-2, :8-10
"1 *Do not exult as other nations do; for you have played the whore, departing from your God. You have loved a prostitute's pay on all threshing floors. 2 Threshing floor and wine vat shall not feed them, and the new wine shall fail them. 3 They shall not remain in the land of the LORD; but Ephraim shall return to Egypt, and in Assyria they shall eat unclean food. 4 They shall not pour drink offerings of wine to the LORD, and their sacrifices shall not please him. Such sacrifices shall be like mourners' bread; all who eat of it shall be defiled; for their bread shall be for their hunger only; it shall not come to the house of the LORD. 5 What will you do on the day of appointed festival, and on the day of the festival of the LORD? 6 For even if they escape destruction, Egypt shall gather them, Memphis shall bury them. Nettles shall possess their precious things of silver; thorns shall be in their tents.*
7 *The days of punishment have come, the days of recompense have come; Israel cries, "The prophet is a fool, the man of the spirit is mad!" Because of your great iniquity, your hostility is great. 8 The prophet is a sentinel for my God over Ephraim, yet a fowler's snare is on all his ways, and hostility in the house of his God. 9 They have deeply corrupted themselves as in the days of Gibeah; he will remember their iniquity, he will punish their sins.*
10 *Like grapes in the wilderness, I found Israel. Like the first fruit on the fig tree, in its first season, I saw your ancestors. But they came to Baal-peor, and consecrated themselves to a thing of shame, and became detestable like the thing they loved. 11 Ephraim's glory shall fly away like a bird - no birth, no pregnancy, no conception! 12 Even if they bring up children, I will bereave them until no one is left. Woe to them indeed when I depart from them!*
13 *Once I saw Ephraim as a young palm planted in a lovely meadow, but now Ephraim must lead out his children for slaughter. 14 Give them, O LORD - what will you give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. 15 Every evil of theirs began at Gilgal; there I came to hate them. Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of my house. I will love them no more; all their officials are rebels. 16 Ephraim is stricken, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit. Even though they give birth, I will kill the cherished offspring of their womb. 17 Because they have not listened to him, my God will reject them; they shall become wanderers among the nations."*
"1 *Israel is a luxuriant vine that yields its fruit. The more his fruit increased the more altars he built; as his country improved, he improved his pillars. 2 Their heart is false; now they must bear their guilt. The LORD will break down their altars, and destroy their pillars."*
"8 *The high places of Aven, the sin of Israel, shall be destroyed. Thorn and thistle shall grow up on their altars. They shall say to the mountains, Cover us, and to the hills, Fall on us. 9 Since the days of Gibeah you have sinned, O Israel; there they have continued. Shall not war overtake them in Gibeah? 10 I will come against the wayward people to punish them; and nations shall be gathered against them when they are punished for their double iniquity."*
Psalm 37:35-36a
"35 *I have seen the wicked oppressing, and towering like a cedar of Lebanon. 36a Again I passed by, and they were no more;"*
Job 5:3
"3 *I have seen fools taking root, but suddenly I cursed their dwelling"*
Zechariah 11:2
"2 *Wail, O cypress, for the cedar has fallen, for the glorious trees are ruined!"*
Proverbs 12:12
"12 *The wicked covet the proceeds of wickedness, but the root of the righteous bears fruit."*
Ezekiel 19:11-14
"11 *Its strongest stem became a ruler's scepter; it towered aloft among the thick boughs; it stood out in its height with its mass of branches.12 But it was plucked up in fury, cast down to the ground; the east wind dried it up; its fruit was stripped off, its strong stem was withered; the fire consumed it. 13 Now it is transplanted into the wilderness, into a dry and thirsty land. 14 And fire has gone out from its stem, has consumed its branches and fruit, so that there remains in it no strong stem, no scepter for ruling."*
Sirach 6:2-3
"2 *Do not fall into the grip of passion, or you may be torn apart as by a bull. 3 Your leaves will be devoured and your fruit destroyed, and you will be left like a withered tree."*
Zechariah 14:21c
"21c *...And there shall no longer be traders in the house of the LORD of hosts on that day."*
Isaiah 56:6-8
"6 *And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, all who keep the sabbath, and do not profane it, and hold fast my covenant - 7 these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples. 8 Thus says the Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, I will gather others to them besides those already gathered."*
Jeremiah 7:11, 8:13, 26:4-6, :8-9
"11 Has this house, which is called by my name, *become a den of robbers in your sight?* You know, I too am watching, says the LORD."
"13 *When I wanted to gather them, says the LORD, there are no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree; even the leaves are withered, and what I gave them has passed away from them."*
"4 *You shall say to them: Thus says the LORD: If you will not listen to me, to walk in my law that I have set before you, 5 and to heed the words of my servants the prophets whom I send to you urgently - though you have not heeded - 6 then I will make this house like Shiloh, and I will make this city a curse for all the nations of the earth."*
"8 And when Jeremiah had finished speaking all that the LORD had commanded him to speak to all the people, *then the priests and the prophets and all the people laid hold of him, saying, "You shall die!* 9 Why have you prophesied in the name of the LORD, saying, 'This house shall be like Shiloh, and this city shall be desolate, without inhabitant'?" And all the people gathered around Jeremiah in the house of the LORD."
Romans 11:7-12
"7 *What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, 8 as it is written, "God gave them a sluggish spirit, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day. (Deut. 29:4)" 9 And David says, "Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them; 10 let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and keep their backs forever bent. (Psa. 69:22-23)" 11 So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means! But through their stumbling salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. 12 Now if their stumbling means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!"*
"In other words, the beginning and end of the fig tree story is wrapped around (and contains within its center) the clearing of the temple. We saw Mark do this before, when he took the tale of the raising of Jairus's twelve-year-old daughter and wrapped that around a symbolically related story of the woman who had bled for twelve years. The purpose of this structure (called intercalation) is to communicate that the one story illuminates the meaning of the other. Mark uses this device repeatedly. In this case, 'the tree is a symbol of the sacrificial system whose time is now passed, hence 'it was not the season for figs' any more; therefore 'may no one eat fruit of you again'. Which finally, and perfectly, explains this strange story."
Richard Carrier, OHJ, pp. 434
This blind spot is very big on atheists. Thinking and believing that they are somehow superior to Christians.
The one of the first things required for someone to believe in God is faith, and must possess a humble heart.
Depends how you use "faith". Belief in something "just because" is incredibly bad and biased almost by definition - basically claiming you're right because you're right.
Faith such as that found in 1st Peter 3:15? More sensible, it is reason-based faith.
Be careful about how people use that word, no matter what you do or do not believe.
I mean its not hard to think you're superior to Christians, the god they worship is quite frankly disgusting.
@@cbonnici
“Disgusting”
Where do you even get your benchmark from in the first place for accusing anyone of being “disgusting” when under your world view there is no such thing as “absolute truth” as truth is a philosophical claim and values such as morals and ethics are metaphysical presuppositions that can not be grounded in the materialistic/atheistic paradigm as materialism/atheism excludes metaphysical realities. It’s all just opinion and arbitrary and ad hoc under the materialistic/atheistic world view even logic and empiricism. It’s all just the random motion of atoms and brain chemicals creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities so why “ought” we take your claims to the rational and moral high ground seriously when they are also just part of the same illusion of stable patterns and regularities. I’m not straw manning materialists/atheists because the fact is that prominent materialists/atheists actually believe that consciousness is illusory such as Daniel Dennette and Richard Dawkins believes that everything is “arbitrary” even values such as morals and ethics.
Because when the militant atheist and scientific populariser Richard Dawkins was asked a simple question about the value and well being of a child and whether the rape and murder of a child is evil and immoral he responded that he believed that the belief that the rape and murder of a child is immoral and evil is as arbitrary as the fact that we evolved five fingers instead of six. Most people naturally recoil in disgust from Dawkins callous and cold logic. However, Dawkins is just being a consistent materialist/atheist because if you take this doctrine that we are nothing more than “matter” seriously it leaves you completely blind to the elephant in the room because the bereaved parents of children who have been raped and murdered would beg to differ that their belief that this was totally depraved and evil is as “arbitrary” as the fact that we evolved five fingers instead of six.
Similarly, the prominent public intellectual, atheist and utilitarian Peter Singers attempts to ground values such as morals and ethics in materialism are equally as disturbing and disgusting as Dawkins cold and callous response to the horrific rape and murder of a child because Peter Singer promotes the idea that if you had to choose between the life of a human baby and a full
grown chimp you “ought” to let the baby die. This is horrific and any normal person can clearly see that Singers and Dawkins attempts to ground morals and ethics demonstrates that you can’t ground values in the materialistic paradigm. Because you clearly “can not get an (ought) out of an (is)” - (David Hume). Peter Singer also believes that it’s not as bad to rape a person who has learning disability or is severely mentally incapacitated in some way as they wouldn’t experience the same suffering as a “normal” person. How the Hell can he make such a disgusting value judgement about a disabled child or someone with dementia. We don’t have a clue what’s going on in the consciousness of a disabled child or adult when an horrific crime is committed against them. How could we when we can’t even prove that there are other minds and consciousness’s beyond our own. This is why the argument for objective morality is so compelling and its hardly surprising that it was a big part of the reason why many atheists have eventually rejected their atheism for the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/theism.
Equally, it’s hardly surprising that Peter Singers statements were condemned by disability rights representatives and parents of disabled children and that Dawkins was eventually stripped of his Humanist of the year award by the secular atheist organisation (The Association of Humanists). The only thing “disgusting” and “inferior” here is the belief that we are nothing more than mindless “matter” and that our families and our children and loved ones are nothing more than biological and chemical robots.
I rest my case!!
@@cbonnici
“It’s not hard to think your superior to Christians”
What an unbelievably arrogant and condescending statement to make. Equally, your cherry picking of ancient philosophical texts, religious imagery, symbols, genres and narratives out of historical, cultural and social context without referring to hermeneutics is just a straw man argument.
This quote from Christopher Hitchens after being asked about his friendship with the Christian Larry Taunton speaks volumes regarding your ignorance.....
“If everyone in the United States had the same qualities of loyalty and care and concern for others that Larry Taunton has, we’d be living in a much better society than we do.” (Christopher Hitchens)
You didn’t actually believe Hitchens meant everything he said did you. ? A lot of it was just an act and was part of his stage persona but behind the scenes he had good relationships with Christians. He just didn’t quite make that final leap of faith.
This quote from Hitchens regarding the Doctor who tried to save his life Dr Francis Collins also speaks volumes...
“Thanks to the wonderful American, Dr. Francis Collins, who's the head of the National Institute of Health, which includes the National Cancer Institute who did the human genome project, this, you know, ahead of time and under budget, a marvelous scientific achievement. He and I have met because we're opposite sides of the religion debate, we became friends that way. He's a very convinced Christian and we've become friendly debaters and he's taken a very kindly interest in my case and has helped me have my genomes sequenced because I'm trying to look for a more perfect identifiable match for an imitation they can find that's peculiar to me.” (Christopher Hitchens).
The irony is that the evidence clearly demonstrates that you’re attempts to demonise moderate religious expression and your arrogant claim that you think that you are “superior” to Christians is unbelievably unscientific, ignorant and is just rhetoric and a straw man argument.
I rest my case!!
@@georgedoyle7971 society ;)
Atheist: I'm not biased. I'm a good person.
Jesus: Hold my wine.
Correction; Jesus: “Hold my water that I’ve turned into wine.”
K hello 👋🏼, question what does that have to do with being a good person?
Daniel because atheists aren’t acting good because they think they’ll get some reward, Christian are made to believe if they do and act a certain way they will go to heaven, aka reward, and if they don’t than they’ll be punished aka hell.
Daniel So-called atheists are blind to their sins and their bias. Very curious that people who don't believe in good or evil get so triggered when someone points out that they not good people 🤣🤣
K there’s no such thing as sin and no atheists don’t like it when a Christian claims we can’t be good unless god exist, because that completely false. It’s obvious just by reading the Bible we don’t get our morals from the Biblical god , the Old Testament god that the Bible says created everything and not the fake made up New Testament god , their both made up but the New Testament one just a cover up to make the Old Testament seem worth worshipping. One thing the new testaments writers failed is God NEVER CHANGES. And the old and new testaments god are obviously two different gods.
So the next time you hear an atheist say "I just need evidence", what are you ganna say?
What do you meme?! 🎶 🎶
Haha this is exactly what I was thinking at that part.
How about you show some evidence? Please show some evidence to me. I am genuinely asking you or anyone else, for some evidence.
Nino Omic Watch Frank Turek’s “I don’t have enough Faith to be an athiest” or read the book 👍🏻
Unironically parroting the red flags of bias shown in this video. Do you even watch the videos before commenting?
@@Scott-mm8xn
I just watched the video and in short he provided no evidence for his claims. He made a ton of logical fallacies, misinterpreted science on many occasions, made arguments that are debunked and talks about morality that god gave him, the same god that according to the Bible drowned all humans(including babies and small kids) but 8 I think, then commanded his people to commit genocide and so on.
So no evidence has been given. Long answer is below if you want to read it but you don't have to. I gave up after the second question "Does God Exist?" where he didn't show evidence, he showed debunked claims. So I will repeat my question, do you have any evidence, that has not been debunked already, for the existence of god?
Does "truth" exist? Short answer, yes, atheists don't claim that it doesn't, some maybe but definitely not all.
No one claims that atheists are "beacons" of reason, we are flawed humans and the only thing all atheists have in common is that we lack a belief in a god, not in supernatural, but just god or gods. Frank is generalizing people based on one common attribute and then saying that all of them are same. "They wanna be a god...". And none of you see the strawman he is committing here? Christopher Hitchens is mad at god? He didn't believe in a god, how can he be angry at something that he doesn't believe exists? He hated a CONCEPT of a christian god. Frank misinterpreting a dead person on purpose to get a laugh from the audience is really disgusting.
Cosmological argument has been debunked. And even if it wasn't it does not prove a christian god. And same with teleological argument.
Moral argument, well morals are subjective, my morals and yours are not the same, and things that are considered moral in China are maybe not considered to be moral in India. So there it is, a proof that morals are subjective and not objective. And btw. is slavery moral? According to the old testament it is, along with genocide and rape and many other things not considered to be moral today. And if you are going to say, slavery was moral back then because civilization was primitive back then or something like that, does that mean that morals change with time? That would prove that morals evolved and may not be same in a 1000 years from now. Which would also be true if you go backwards, 10000 years ago or 100000 years ago which proves that morals evolved with humans and humans evolved differently in different parts of the world, so that would mean that morals evolved differently as well.
I can't anymore, don-t have time to explain everything. Same arguments that have been debunked are being used over and over again, just type in google "argument for god debunked" for example, teleological argument for god debunked and see how those arguments fall apart.
Frank is just throwing logical fallacies, he presented no evidence for his claims. He is generalizing all atheists based on one common attribute.
I will not go into every fallacy, study them up and then you will see just how much Frank is wrong about a lot of what he says.
I'm a Christian convert from a secular background and most of my friends are atheists. I proved the resurrection with a mountain of academic evidences, and debunked each of their arguments as infirm historical explanations and logical fallacies. It didn't make them accept Jesus. There are unbiased atheists and I really admire their approach, but most of the atheists are as biased as Christians, maybe even more.
keep doing that, but in the last days people will be lovers of themselves it says in 2nd Timothy 3: 1 boastful, proud .... They don't want to go for the truth that doesn't mean you don't stop witnessing to them, there's the onseys (ones) out there. We must do the Great Commission till Jesus calls us home that means go out and commit evangelism, not sin.
Unbiased people are the most educated and wise ones.
Considering you can't actually prove the resurrection and your friends aren't here to defend themselves, it seems quite plausible that you may have FELT like you won some sort of argument with them but they were unconvinced by whatever "academic evidences" you provided. When atheists say they're unbiased its because from their perspective they have no religion, no faith to defend and look at the arguments between different forms of theism and can say they're neutral in relation to that.
@@cbonnici
Hi!
''... you can't actually prove the resurrection''
Umm, perhaps I used the wrong word (be gracious to me, I wrote that comment 8 months ago and I've matured since then).
The resurrection is an explanation offered for the historical facts surrounding Jesus' death and its consequences. Obviously, I can't prove it like we prove things in mathematics or philosophy. However, historians do use certain criteria to evaluate different explanations for historical facts and decide which explanation is the most likely to be correct. The resurrection has been proven to be the best, strongest, and widest explanation for the known historical facts about Jesus' death. I would recommend you InspiringPhilosophy's playlist about the resurrection if you would :)
Since we're already talking, and you say you're open to see and examine any argument about God's existence and are neutral concerning that, would you like to have a discussion about it? :)
Thanks for reading!
@@user-zs3vd5np2s Hi. Let me just say, you may be the most polite person I’ve ever encountered in the TH-cam comments section and as a result I would be willing to watch another video, however I did a quick search and it seems like he has quite a few videos, and they’re quite long, I would be willing to watch one of the shorter ones if you recommended it 🤷🏻♂️
Also I assume you’re referring to biblical historians? I don’t think there’s really any evidence for historical Jesus, even Josephus’ writings whom a lot of Christian Apologists cling to doesn’t really fit the bill.
I’m neutral in the sense, that as far as the God of Christianity vs the God of Islam, or Zoroaster or the Hindu God Vishnu or Zeus, I reject them all, I am without gods, with that said if you want state some reasons for the existence of your God by all means go ahead.
I am the most biased individual on the face of the Earth and no person is even close to me.
Are you sure that's not your bias talking?
Ya, but you're biased....
I believe you believe that
K
You're not biased, you're wholesome
Everyone has a bias. So basically, they are lying to everyone and themselves.
"-They seek to deceive God and the believers, yet they only deceive themselves, but they fail to perceive it."
"-When it is said to them, ‘Do not cause corruption in the land,’ they say, ‘We are only putting things right,'
-Indeed, they are causing corruption, though they do not realize it.
-And when it is said unto them: believe as the people believe, they say: shall we believe as the foolish believe? but they are the fools, though they do not know it."
Not saying these verses apply to all atheist, nor that theists are infallible. But I liked to shafe these verses because they somehow relate with some of the ideas in the video.
Amen. God agrees. God says let every man be a liar.
@@heathers4961 "be found a liar", but yeah.
Being biased doesn't make you a liar. If you're statement was true that would include you as a liar. Bias is a part of the human condition and is a part of having strong convictions. Being biased also does not prove nor disprove anything in contrast. Strawman much?
@@Jwet1100 They meant that they are lying if they say they're not biased.
*It is not "proof" that atheists seek...it is justification for a self serving lifestyle.*
“The more I study science, the more I believe in God.”
-Albert Einstein
(The Wall Street Journal, Dec 24, 1997, article by Jim Holt, “Science Resurrects God.”)
coming from Einstein, I would have to ask what he meant by "God". Einstein conceded to the "god of Spinoza". Pantheism basically - the universe is "God", but probably almost certainly not personal. Just rigidly ordered.
It would seem odd for him to make that statement in light of such a belief, but I can see it plausible he merely meant he only believed more in the notion that the Universe is deterministically ordered, not necessarily 'divinely' ordered.
I would look up the citation, but seeing it is some 40 years after Einstein's death I'm not sure it will be any more illuminating on what ol' Al meant.
BeRitCrunk wasn’t he a diest?
The ironic part about this is that Einstein believed a personal God was a childish belief. He was more panthestic; the universe was God for him. Perhaps you have biases that allowed confirmation bias to creep and thus went quote mining?
@@krampus3901 Christians shouldn't believe in a 'personal God' either, that's basically a modern Protestant invention
@@BeRitCrunk Well, he has definitely said that he is not an atheist. He did believe in God, just not in a personal God that answers prayers. Many people believe in a God or Creator without ascribing to any particular religion.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is an extraordinary claim yet no evidence is ever forthcoming.
What is extraordinary about that claim?
Please define extraordinary.😉
What is extraordinary about it is that it is a case of special pleading.
You don't see the stupidity of this statement? Is it true because a famous person says so? How can you even think, let alone discuss a metaphysical subject when the only evidence allowed "must be purely physical"? Idiots don't even know their arguments have no standing... -- edit -- (BTW, - Meta - from the Greek, means beyond or above, yet materialists demand material evidence... within, beyond or above is not allowed)
@@rationalthinker1570 is it special pleading? I don’t think it is if something is out of the ordinary surely the evidence to support it will be too?
I’m being sincere here, can you give an example of an extraordinary claim that didn’t need extraordinary evidence to prove it?
@@JLBorges2803 Here's a small one: recently, an IDF soldier in Israel found a coin, by happenstance, so rare that only 11 others have ever been found. Experts in antiquities might be incredulous at the find because the odds are massively against it but the evidence supporting it does not need to be out of the ordinary: just show the coin and subject it to normal tests. The 'need' for extraordinary evidence is emotional not logical.
Only atheist I have respect for on TH-cam is CosmicSkeptic
I respect them as a person, regardless of their beliefs even though i dont agree with them at all.
??? Have you heard about PineCreek? Because The CosmicSkeptics some of the points were debunked. We need to answer Pinecreek.
Same.
Cosmic Skeptic is Ok but he constantly appeals to emotion when it comes to the problem of evil and suffering in the world. We are all flawed though.
@@georgedoyle7971
Well ; appealing to feelings might seem as a flaw to you but whether you like it or not ; good and evil influence people on an emotional level more than another; even a child in his early age when faced to evil or injustice; he will naturally Express a bad feeling towards it because it hurts him and people no matter how much they will grow ; they will always keep this childish trait if we ever consider it as childish yet this is only a rejection of humans condition ; one definition of evil goes like this ; thus next time he will avoid what harms him emotionally by creating or adopting some sort of tools whether they are concrete or imaginary all the while calling what harms him "evil " or " bad " .
Trying to make evil or good as absolute abstract concepts completely out of reach asserting they do exist independently of human's existence isn't an accurate way to approach the subject since it will only trigger a vicious cycle of fallacies such as believing blindly in a generated concept as an omnipotent concept. Evil is something that touches the realm of humans as a group on a deep emotional level ; even preachers and who ever you want will play your feelings in order to get you to do something and one of them is to make you believe the dissociation between the generated according to some circumstances and the absolute existing; the fact is ; humans aren't robots; feelings are a human trait; impossible to omit they go along with your thinking just as much as they might be the centre of your thoughts; which is the case for some definitions of evil.
Atheist: "I'm not biased, just give me evidence"
Me: "Ok, what kind of evidence?"
A: "That's for you, not me"
Me: presents various evidence
A: "That's not really evidence"
Me: "Well, what parameters are you looking for?"
A: "That's for you! G*d! Y'all are such idiots!! I told you that you don't have any evidence!!!!"
Most will subtly affirm verificationism without even knowing they are doing so. Verificationism is a dead philosophy.
Aaron accurate, seen it on many comments when there insulting IP’s research.
It's because the evidence for christian god is so hollow. There are no solid proof for anything bible claims and there is lot of proof directly disproving bible. I was a christian fundamentalist and spend 2 years studying bible, religious claim, morality and ethics of christianity, science, evolution, naturalism, evidence for and against god and i found overwhelming solid evidence for atheism and some slim hollow perhaps maybe type of evidence for theism.
@@MiskaVlogi Feel free to support your claim there are a lot of proofs directly disproving the bible by citing some.
@@MiskaVlogi The Christian Bible openly states that belief requires faith. Which is a open admission that no direct proof is given. Yet, you seem to think yourself an amazing scholar for figuring this out.
Many of us Christians first started out on a journey that started off with secular based philosophy that gives rise to a transcendent mind that is the creator of the Universe. Basically what you would call simply "Intelligent Design". When comparing and contrasting ID to the concepts found in Christianity, we find striking overlap in ideas.
Because of this, we can claim that the Christian Bible while not perfect, lines up pretty nicely with academia and philosophy.
I am very curious as to what "solid evidence" you found that supports the position, "there is no God".
The bias blind spot among high IQ individuals is definitely true. Go to college, observe your professors. Most of my classes were in STEM, so I can’t speak for business or liberal arts, but there tended to be a level of embedded arrogance to which most were completely blind. I found it remarkable just how they could condescend their forebearers’s false conclusions without even considering that a paradigm shift could come along that would similarly destroy their pet theories. Heck, you could practically see the smoke coming out of their ears when you pointed out a flaw in their research or that their beliefs about another field were laughably false. But hey, it’s easy to point out other people’s biases.
They worked hard to get where they are today, how dare their pupils or, spaghetti monster forbid, a layperson tell them they have something wrong! The nerve!
Arrogance is the idea that you're in special commune with the creator of the universe and if you kneel and pray hard enough he will help you find your keys while doing nothing for the 3 year old kid with leukemia or the thousands of tsunami victims.
@@joeb218 both can be arrogance
@@joeb218 I find your claim ironic, considering that arrogant people don't beg, nor do they hope they're right.
@@alphahuner1116 meh. That's a fairly narrow definition you've got for yourself then. Arrogance against others when you think you've got a special friend is definitely a thing. Like the little 5 year old kid begging his older bother to kick the other school children's ass on his behalf.
“We do not dogmatically follow anything?” Do you dogmatically follow that proposition?
There's no absolutes. do you absolutely believe that? yes
I don't know why people think that this logic has to be circular. I don't dogmatically follow anything, nor do I follow that proposition dogmatically. I just think it's a useful and effective way to find the truth. If one can demonstrate to me that dogma is somehow good at delivering truth, then I may be more sympathetic to believing dogma.
Dogmatically un-dogmatic.
@Lockes Logos Dogma according to Google is "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
" Believing something to be incontrovertibly true based on authority means that you aren't evaluating truth claims before you believe them.
It's demonstrable that evaluating truth claims is a better method for believing things that are true, and not believing things that are false. At no point do I have to believe something without evidence in order to demonstrate this fact.
Well said
As an atheist, I tried to step away from the norm of unfair biases.
Now I'm a christian.
I really appreciate how you post the names of the articles so we can read them ourselves!
Aron Ra : "I'm not biased and you can test that"
IP did test it on a broad scale, and he was found to be biased.
At the beginning it has a picture of Einstein, and he was not an atheist. He actually said he didn’t like when people quoted him to support those beliefs. Ironic, isn’t it?
It is as ironic as when believers attempts to believe he was on their side. Einstein thought a personal God belief was childish.
@@krampus3901 Agreed. He seemed to be pretty agnostic on the issue of God /generally believed in the god of Spinoza, so people trying to use him to their own particular advantage is fruitless. However, my own anecdotal experience (like the meme at the beginning of the video) leads me to believe that a lot of atheists seem to think he was atheist (or "on their side"). Perhaps my experience is not representitive of most cases.
For Einstein it seemed to depend on the day. He swung from agnostic to theist and back again. He may have been reluctant to go all the way to belief in God, because he knew he'd have to be faithful in his marriage. :0)
@@krampus3901
“Einstein thought a personal God belief was childish”
Atheists can’t claim Einstein or Spinoza for their own as they both clearly believed in some kind of God and explicitly denied being atheists. Also this quote from Einstein is clearly taken out of context as Einstein’s closest friend Michael Besso who Einstein stated he got a lot of his ideas from was actually a Christian so it’s unlikely that Einstein would have such a low opinion of his Christian friend. Einstein was devastated when Besso died.
Nevertheless, I like the God of Einstein, Spinoza, Michael Besso including Descartes, Aquinas, Augustine, Kant and Anselmo d’Aosta including Spinoza’s belief that Jesus was the embodiment of truth. Pantheism, theism, deism and agnosticism etc are all valid to a degree as they enrich reality by bringing us closer to the truth. According to Spinoza. “The mind of God is all the mentality that is scattered over space and time, the diffused consciousness that animates the world” (Baruch Spinoza)
Einstein is on record as stating he also believed in the God of Spinoza.
“I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds.” (Albert Einstein)
The problem is that the word “God” has been straw manned and anthropomorphised so much that the definition has lost meaning. Which is why Einstein denied he was an atheist but hated the word “God”
“The word God is for me,” Einstein wrote, “nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness.” (Albert Einstein)
Like Spinoza Einstein believes that “God” is impersonal, intangible and inexplicable. However, when Albert Einstein was asked about the historicity of Jesus he responded...“As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene." Einstein was then asked if he accepted the historical existence of Jesus, to which he replied, "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.” (Albert Einstein)
According to Einstein.... “every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.” (Albert Einstein)
Einstein believed in the God of Spinoza and clearly stated he was not an atheist so what does Spinoza have to say about Jesus....
Spinoza believed that Jesus was the embodiment of (truth)
“The eternal wisdom of God … has shown itself forth in all things, but chiefly in the mind of man, and most of all in Jesus Christ. (Baruch Spinoza)
“This impels me, before going into your reasons, to set forth briefly my opinion on the question, whether the world was made by chance. But I answer, that as it is clear that chance and necessity are two contraries, so is it also clear, that he, who asserts the world to be a necessary effect of the divine nature, must utterly deny that the world has been made by chance; whereas, he who affirms that God need not have made the world, confirms, though in different language, the doctrine that it has been made by chance; inasmuch as he maintains that it proceeds from a wish, which might never have been formed. However, as this opinion and theory is on the face of it absurd, it is commonly very unanimously admitted, that God's will is eternal, and has never been indifferent; hence... the world is a necessary effect of the divine nature.” (Spinoza)
According to C.S. Lewis if....
“there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God. (C.S.Lewis).
“I do not think it necessary for salvation to know Christ according to the flesh : but with regard to the Eternal Son of God, that is the Eternal Wisdom of God, which has manifested itself in all things and especially in the human mind, and above all in Christ Jesus, the case is far otherwise.” (Baruch Spinoza). Einstein was clearly taken out of context and clearly believed in the God of Spinoza!
I rest my case!!
❤️
@@krampus3901
After the death of his close friend Michael Besso, who was a brilliant physicist and a Christian, Albert Einstein wrote this poignant letter to his friends family suggesting that time and death is just a stubbornly persistent illusion
Einstein who was to die 34 days later wrote to Besso's son and sister: “What I admired most in him as a man, is the fact of having been capable of living so many years with one wife, not only in peace, but also in constant accord.… Now he's gone slightly ahead of me again, leaving this strange world. That doesn't mean anything. For us believing physicists this separation between past present and future has the value of mere illusion, however tenacious.”
Interestingly, Einstein’s claim wasn’t just an emotional reaction but is actually based on the block theory of the universe. According to Einstein.... every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. The human spirit/consciousness is irreducible to “matter”.
“Consciousness is the most conspicuous obstacle to a comprehensive naturalism that relies only on the resources of physical science. The existence of consciousness seems to imply that the physical description of the universe, in spite of its richness and explanatory power, is only part of the truth, and that the natural order is far less austere than it would be if physics and chemistry accounted for everything. If we take this problem seriously, and follow out its implications, it threatens to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture.” (Thomas Nagel)
Similarly, according to the Director of the Institute for Mind and Consciousness David Chalmers...
“Materialism is a beautiful and compelling view of the world, but to account for consciousness, we have to go beyond the resources it provides.” (David Chalmers).
Our families and our children including the doctors and nurses who sacrificed their lives caring for the victims of the Corona virus are clearly more than just biological and chemical robots and childish. Their love, free will, real altruism, real bravery and real heroism is beyond any materialistic/scientific description.
No offence intended all the best to you and your family and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis ❤️
I'm a devout Muslim and I *loved* this video. Excellent job on this one.
You mean you are a devout follower of what a child rapist uttered.
As an atheist myself, I can be brief: Yes!
It is quite simple, every human is biased by default, without exception. It is the way our brain works and is wired, we can't function without bias. In my opinion the best thing to do is be aware of your own bias so you can try to keep it to a minimum...
Whenever I debate them I tell them that I have evidence from many different fields including biology, physics, neuroscience, modal logic and philosophy. And weirdly, their standards shift depending on which field I give evidence from. Funny how that works.
There is no evidence in any of those fields. There’s no scientific way to test for god being involved in biology or physics. These are all god of the gaps arguments. Neuroscience shows that the brain is responsible for all these things, how do you even test for an immaterial soul or even link it with a god and not a natural process? Modal logic, I can only guess you’re talking about the ontological argument which doesn’t tell you anything about empirical reality. You don’t simply get to define god into existence and there’s many philosophical arguments, all of which are fallacious in some way of which I’m happy to demonstrate.
@@Stuffingsalad
The brain is subservient to the soul!
th-cam.com/video/EXOX3RCpEbU/w-d-xo.html
IPNEIP W It’s really not. There hasn’t been any demonstration of a soul existing or having any affect on anything. Why is it when people suddenly have brain abnormalities they become completely different people if the brain is subservient to the soul? Why is it when a tumour was growing in a man’s head did he develop paedophilic tendencies and then when removed, he go back to normal? Or other people with brain damage suffer from memory loss, or alter egos and other disorders? All linked with the brain. Why? Because it’s the brain that is in control of these things... If the soul is really in charge of all of this, why is it when the brain undergoes these things does it drastically change someone’s behaviour, beliefs and everything else about them? Because the brain is the ‘soul’. You are your brain. By this magic immaterial thing that somehow manages to store and process information even though that’s not been demonstrated to be even possible and has no mechanisms but runs on magic.
This is something we all knew. Glad and unsurprised to know the science backs it up!!
Good work IP!
That thumbnail! It’s like a ‘smarmy gits’ shooting gallery 😂😂😂
Too bad I cannot support your ministry as I'm currently unemployed but God bless you for your beautiful work.
Fantastic video, IP!
Thanks!
@@InspiringPhilosophy thanks a lot man keep doing what you do
David you know what we must do, we must clone IP
Has anyone else wondered why atheists sound so passionate while defending their lack of belief? I can't imagine getting all worked up over my lack of belief in the Matrix … I'm just saying.
The wrath of Satan either keeps us sinning or indifferent about anything related to God. Either way, it *is* [undue] enmity towards God. Gen 3:15 Also, I shouldn't need to say, but I'm not calling Atheists "possessed" by the devil, but he does have sway over this world, and slumbering minds, or spiritually dead souls (in my Scriptural, but biased opinion). Sometimes I feel i could've went that direction too if I had a slight different path, but same passion for God now, just misdirected.
You might get worked up about your lack of belief in the Matrix if most of the people running the country believed in the Matrix.
What a pointless false equivalence. Of course you don't get worked up about your lack of belief in the Matrix. Because there's nobody who does believe in it and there certainly aren't MAJOR socio-political issues stemming from people believing in the Matrix...
@@whateverreally1347 I would?
@@bosspaw4028 Wouldn't you ?
@@whateverreally1347 Nah
Well I'm going to be sharing this all the time.... Lol
My only regret is that I only have 1 like to give. Lol
"The next time you hear an atheist, secularists, or skeptic say that they are not biased, and they will juat believe God exists if given enough evidence," ... what are you gonna say?
Whaddo you meme?
Everyone has biases, and as soon as we start thinking otherwise, we become blind to our biases, and thus unable to think objectively at all.
Aron Ra is the perfect example of not recognising his own biases when he became angry at you for challenging him on the definition of faith/belief.
I wonder how far some atheists will go to rebut this; is there such a thing as meta-bias? Are you biased in outlining the literature on bias? Were the authors biased in measuring bias across different beliefs?
Religious people and Atheists are more likely can't change anyone of them their beliefs, therefore it's all about *Social NOT distancing* opposite to Social Distancing, bruh this is why Corona always affecting both these people.
you know I wonder what the Atheist's will think when,
1 he dies and fines the lights did not go out,
2 finds himself before the great white throne,
3 on his knee's crying out "Jesus Christ is Lord."
4 seeing and feeling the presence of God before him.
And being unable to denie God is real.
@@Delgen1951 though not theologically true, I believe it was Thomas Payne who said, "Hell is truth seen too late".
@@WarPoet-In-Training Yeah,it's scary how many people aren't ready. Sadly that goes for lukewarm christians too and we need to warn them before it's too late,many people don't understand this verse
Luke 14:33 New King James Version (NKJV)
33 So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.
th-cam.com/video/tAyF0TD-Xec/w-d-xo.html
@@davidgumazon just because people don't want to seek after the truth cuz they already have their truth doesn't mean your not going to be wrong and judged by God on Judgement Day.
Even the laws of Thermodynamics have a God shaped vacuum, MATTER & ENERGY CAN'T BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED, Gen 1: 1 God made the matter.
This will help me to be cognizant of the fact that I have biases that I'm not aware of or won't admit to myself.
I've thought there was a sort of "confirmation bias, bias" where skeptics know about confirmation bias but think that means they alway(or mostly) catch it in themselves. Which makes them think they are less susceptible.
"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened."
C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce
If you are correct I'll happily embrace my fate..
@@51elephantchang actually it's not that soft. you need to seek after God or you'll be thrown in hell, weeping and gnashing your teeth forever. You're not tortured beyond what you deserve but it will feel like torture because we're so soft, that's one reason..
Seek after God with all your heart look at the evidence, He's everywhere in everything. His fingerprints in everything. name a topic and God is in it.
DNA, the code didn't write itself an outside writer had to write it.
First law of thermodynamics matter cannot be created nor destroyed so God made the matter. That's the best explanation that's anybody's ever come up with its in the Bible the first verse and evolutionist monkey people don't have a better answer. In fact they're so biased they possibly say aliens a higher life-form planted our DNA but they can't say another higher life-form named God did it.
Your fate is what you make it you with your free will because God is not the author of evil He's the author free will. He gives you a choice between good and evil and what you're going to serve in your lifetime.
No excuses to be lazy and cowardly Revelation 21 8 outside of heaven in hell are the cowards.
In hindsight, my own period of atheism is hard to call pure atheism because I did put my faith in Truth and Love - both of which are unified as God.
I shudder at the realisation that I could have been wandering lost forever had God not granted me mercy and led me to see the evidence I needed to experience to restore my faith in God.
I thank God for this grace and I pray fervently that my skeptical neighbours do hold fast to Truth and Love and benefit from the same grace by allowing themselves to see that they are two facets of God their Creator.
Special pleading to ignorance fallacy, atheist don’t choose hell
Chosen Skeptic hello 👋🏼, are you referring to what C.S. Lewis wrote?
Because he didn’t mean that.
“The next time an atheist, secularist, or skeptic says they are not biased and they will just believe God exist if given enough evidence, what are you gonna say”
WHADDO YOU MEME
Bias blindspot appears to have a lot in common with pride as well. I found this topic very fascinating, keep up the great work!
That Hitchens quote is proof of his bias and his immature nature!
please demonstrate the maturity of grown adults believing in boogey men ?
People are supposed to be biased.
@@davem9176 You don't actually exist outside of my perceptions.
@Omoile Charles Snr grown adults believe in boogey men. Thats not ad hominem its a fact and shows no maturity
@@GeoffBosco the issue isnt me, no boogey men here, all hail Bigfoot. its grown adults and their boogeymen
Great Video IP. Another thing to think about. When a person has a belief in something. What will it cost them if their belief changes. They could loose their lively hood, friends or even family. To me this plays a crucial role in them continually believing the same thing even if evidence shows it to be false or highly unlikely.
I've found myself growing aware of the tendencies that the loudest are often at risk of their own virtues.
People are *SUPPOSED* to be biased! One cannot live successfully not being biased.
" A true realist, if he is not a believer, will always find in himself the strength and ability not to believe in miracles as well, and if a miracle stands before him as an irrefutable fact, he will sooner doubt his own senses than admit the fact. " -- The Brothers Karamazov.
This was worth the wait!!
Thank you for this video. I appreciate all the work you do in researching your topics
Atheist is like writers debunker who doesn't even put the credential link of the Author.
The only simple explanation that I can say about this video is science was never a finish product. And saying theism ended is just because you think it is what is. It could be recognize again in his point in this video.
That science is trying to understand the fact not making the fact. The People behind the science who are just tend to be acknowledge and later proven and not the creators of the law but the idea of introduce the law by his/her explanation. Its like an interpreter not the writer.
The interpreter shouldn't said that there is NO writer in his based writing. Unless his/her is evil.
Theist or atheist, whoever they call is not important because it is given identification to be call but not automatically identified it by everybody but unless they are responsible to do so. Still they exist. Because if we did not write and set it in our own language. we have no finding but doesn't it does meant not exist like. It I just like I if does not find penguin it does not mean it's not exist but others can. Before and later on. Not just now.
That is why God never entertain people to know him because they will just mock Him and think they can oppose Him. People tend to be greedy in proving expectation instead finding truth.
That is what The Lord said by sending His Sent Jesus.
Mark 8
11 Then the Pharisees came out and began to dispute with Him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven, testing Him. 12 But He sighed deeply in His spirit, and said, “Why does this generation seek a sign? Assuredly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation.”
Atheist like the Pharisees they want to be proven right instead of finding the truth. And the very wrong way direction of philosophy is most of people just making debunk instead of better explanation and finding thought the proven and become fact with witnessed who understand it.
Also people tend use their stolen or achieved knowledge to make their own things like in capitalism to cut ties their position and think they have bigger power. And not just help the others to find what is true. They just want knowledge but not wisdom. We want full control but the sad fact that we are just living creatures above the mud, water, and dust.
Dismantling the dogma of atheism, one video at a time. Keep up the good work.
Disliking this video would literally prove his point
The butthurt syndrome
I gave a like. And I am an atheist. It seemed well researched, and overall well done.
Not really. You can't win every argument by saying "Anyone who disagrees with me is an asshole"
Agreed it’s a good evaluation of the studies. Ironically the comment section provides further evidence of the findings :)
Good stuff brother. It takes a lot for people to realize they have biases, theist and non-theist alike. What we have to do is recognize this fact and see how they plays into our belief system and how it affects our perception and acceptance of any evidence provided too us
Very interesting. Thanks for doing this video. A good reminder for me as well to consider my own bias.
Oh no IP,
*The FFRF wants to know your location*
Bring it! You ain't got it!
Truth is they would not believe in a God if He slapped them in the face. They do not want to believe, period. There is ample evidences for a God or the similarity thereof. You have to have the courage to look. Or wait long enough and God will find you. Hope your in good standing when He does. It's an exclusive party in Heaven.
These guys often state that even if God came down on a cloud or ship, they would explain it away as a dream or hallucination before they believe in God
This was extremely informative. Definitely going to read up on the studies provided. Do you think that a presuppositional approach is effective in exposing/identifying such biases? Both in Theists and Atheists?
Your research always blows my mind
When people tell me they are less biased, I always remember that I was once told that 80% of drivers think they are better than the average.
A quick google search shows that in the ball park is about right if anyone is interested in the actual stats rather than the analogy.
They suffer from the emotional fallacy as do a lot us.
Michael, have sure of one thing: This video will guarantee to you a lot of headaches... Amazing work!
I would also add as well that while they claim they are not religious, they in some sense are since their rejection is rooted in something beyond (but yet apart of) something that only can conclude to be a result of something they won't see.
In the end, people believe what they want to believe because ultimately nothing can be 100% proven, what is evidence for some is trickery or error for others.
Which claims are "extraordinary" greatly depends on one's own metaphysical biases. Seems to me that consciousness and free-will being mere illusions and such things are far more extraordinary than there being an all powerful being as the foundation of reality.
Dawkins said that even if the stars wrote out "I Am God, worship Me", he'd attribute it to aliens.
Somehow after all these years ive been obsessed with apologetics i'd never heard of InspiringPhilosophy. And im very glad i have.
Wonderful! One point: admitting dogmatism consciously can make the need to look at ideas more addressable.
This is why it says in
John 11: 40
Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?”
I thought IP was gonna pull a Jon McCray at the end there.
Thank you for this one. I'd also like to point out that it seems there is a great training in special pleading. Many athiests I have encountered (both before my conversion from hard Agnosticism to Christianity and after) have a certain cognitive blindness, or behavioral tic... Mainly that they are willing to accept all kinds and qualities of evidence up to and including intuition (often masking as incredulity) but then fall back into strict empiricism when "debunking" theism or religion in general. It can't be complete unawareness either, because pointing out their epistemological hypocrisy seems to trigger an extreme emotional avalanche in many cases.
ikr. its something that you cry and laugh about at the same time. that empiricism they fall back on when they're cornered (as seen in many debates) is in itself prerequisitive of intuition, mainly intuition that the empirical tools (our senses) are reliable. they just cant win so long as they have that dorkins attitude. check my comment out.
I think it's more because their beliefs are challenged to that point.
People say _«tell me what you brag about, and I’ll tell you what you lack»_ for a reason.
To sum them all up with a quote
-“We don’t care about the evidence u give me, we just care about what we want to be, Hypocritical”
Who said this?
@@grandvianna8551 He did. XD
Atheists by their approach displayed online. Actions speaks a thousand words.
Plz Enjoy Game osu do you agree that there is such thing as good and bad evidence?
Robert McGranahan Jr Me!
Michael, I haven’t watched it yet but I can already tell you are telling the truth. Though I may not agree with just a few things you say, you have a profound impact on me and I am highly blessed to have found your channel. I can’t even explain to you how much you helped me when I was loosing my faith. So, God bless you. One day we will meet, glorifying God, but in the meantime, keep kicking some atheist butt and keep on doing the good work.
Another fantastic video!
Ain’t gonna lie, I thought it said “are atheist based?“
This whole video gets to a basic point I've noticed about life.
Someone can beg you to use their standard of evidence because it's "higher," or "better," or "more stringent," but you only ever truly use your own. Each one of us has some standard of evidence to distinguish between things, and I believe that standard can be chosen. What constitutes that choice matters more than the standard. The question then becomes what would bring me the most happiness, fulfillment, satisfaction from life (and death), rather than what someone else claims is better *for* me.
Any psychologist would tell you the human mind is designed to be bias because we need to be bias to weigh decisions and we constantly make decisions on the infomation we have.
I appreciate this video greatly and respect the fact that you brought it to a level playing field in showing that bias is a natural human instinct for theists and atheists alike.
Its always a great day when IP uploads
Fanatical Weeaboo 🤔 me too, I get a big laugh at propagated ignorance
This feels like a straw man. Few if any of the atheists you showed would claim that they have no bias. Rather, they are adopting a methodology that privileges evidence over dogma. Far from boasting how right they are, most atheists I've encountered tend to boast about times they've changed their opinion about things they once believed because they were presented with new evidence. I don't see this attitude displayed in theists to nearly the same extent.
The specific bias he is talking about is whether or not atheists would favor evidence that they feel disproves God over approval, in which case I have found most atheists would never admit that, even if it's true. They like to think of themselves as unbiased in that area, and would readily "believe if given the evidence."
The problem becomes when you ask what evidence they're looking for, the goal post changes. You can present any evidence you like, history, science, mathematics, philosophy, and they get to be sceptic and say "that's not strong enough" to everything. In the same way, I could sit here and say you don't exist. You could be an automated robot, a hallucination, an author role playing as you online, a tech glitch that posted someone's old comment. When humans are determined to believe or not believe something, evidence is irrelevant.
@@Psychesrose i agree fully with your last sentence.
Psyche's Rose
Well, maybe your evidence simply isn’t good enough to convince educated people?🤔
Muslims will accuse you of the same biases that you accuse Atheists to have... the evidence is clear, Islam is true but you are just too biased to accept all of this historical, scientific, mathematical and philosophical evidence for the truth of Islam.
To me the evidence for Islam sounds just as convincing as the evidence for Christianity.
But we have...
Historical evidence that is rejected by most historians.
Philosophical arguments that are rejected by most philosophers.
Scientific evidence that is rejected by most scientists.
Sorry, but your evidence is hilariously unconvincing to people who aren’t already a part of your cult and aren’t desperate to hear arguments to reinforce their unfounded beliefs.
@@Psychesrose I wish Rami's reply had been phrased a bit nicer. I don't think atheists are necessarily more educated, or that Christianity is a cult, or that anything about arguments made in good faith are 'hilarious.' But I do agree with the substance of their response. In reference to other religions, you presumably adopt the same skeptical perspective that atheists do. There's nothing wrong with that. We ought to have a healthy amount of skepticism towards religious claims that cannot easily be demonstrated. Are you really open to another religion being true? And if not, how is your attitude different from how skeptics approach Christianity?
@@ryanthomasjones I think Psyche's Rose opinion on that matter is contained in the last sentence of her comment.
Few years ago I had an opportunity to participate in a lecture followed by a debate, which were held by a flat earth conspiracist group. It was ironically held in the local astronomy center. It was on that day that I realised why evidence is not so effective as a tool for conviction when critical thinking and basic knowledge of geometry and physics is lacking in person to whom you are trying to show the errors of their argumentation.
People who claim to be unbiased are the most biased of all.
just like religious people...only their God/Book/Teachings can be truth, why can't every religion is right?
@@elisdeliofa5570 Christianity is the Only religion in the world that teaches that you cannot earn your salvation and simply must accept Jesus Christ into your heart to receive salvation. Every other Religion teaches that you must perform Good Works to earn your way into salvation but Jesus taught that this is impossible because of how sinful we all are.
Romans 10:9-10 "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."
@@jme1mm Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have all claimed to have divine revelation
Two of these Gods could not coexist with each other
Aside from testimony there is no other indicator one of these is true over the other
revelation claims are non reliable until further evidence is brought forward.
@@yournightmare9562 That simply isn't true, there is plenty of historical evidence for the reresection of Jesus Christ.
th-cam.com/video/TyZ1l7faKSw/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=ReasonableFaithOrgReasonableFaithOrg
@@jme1mm In principle, even if it were true that there are no known good secular explanations of the resurrection, it would still not make the resurrection true. UFOs, for instance, are unexplained by definition; yet we do not assume that every unexplained light in the sky must be of alien origin. It could be that there is more evidence to uncover that would cast doubt on the veracity of the resurrection or point towards a secular explanation that has not yet been considered.
Furthermore, even if the resurrection is true, Christianity would not necessarily be proven. The Old Testament Bible warns against false prophets who will perform signs and wonders to trick people into believing in "other gods, which thou hast not known".(Deuteronomy 13:2) As a result, Jewish apologists have argued that because Jesus both did not fulfill the Jewish messianic prophecies and has told people to worship a strange God (the Trinity), Christianity remains false regardless of how many miracles are associated with Jesus.
I have been a Christian for 16 years, and I used to think I was unbiased and just followed the evidential arguments wherever they led. About 5 years ago I realized through reading literature in cognitive science about confirmation bias that I was probably not as unbiased as I thought I was. I think all of us approach theological debates with existential, psychological, and intellectual questions. The idea that only the intellectual questions matter to us is unlikely to be true about any person.
Being willing to go wherever the evidence leads is a noble pursuit, but we should recognize that other concerns also lead us to believe what we do. At first learning about confirmation bias filled me with lots of doubts about my faith. Then I landed on the idea that confirmation bias toward Christianity wasn't bad, because of what I would lose existentially and psychologically if I stop believing. For me to stop believing is going to take more than a strong evidential argument from atheists. Since all the debates seem to be irresolvable. What the atheist would need to do is supply me with an alternative worldview that provides me with a deep sense of meaning, purpose, and a way to ground objective morality. As well as provide resources that would help me be resilient through suffering.
Until they can show Christianity to be false, and provide a worldview with better resources for living. Christianity will be my default position. I'm not ashamed of having confirmation bias. I'm always modifying my beliefs this is just how I think about the problem of bias at this time.
Everyone has biases. Everyone has a hard time recognizing that a long-held belief is wrong when provided with evidence to the contrary. The best we can do is be as honest with ourselves as we can and be humble enough to admit when we're wrong.
"Their will be no signs to such an adulterous generation but only the sign of Jonah"
The got that and most still didn't believe.
Great, like always!
tiefer forschen 🤔 great in apologetic trash
Great video once again !!! Well done IP!
Great day for another IP video💪🏽
If you call fake news great
@@chosenskeptic5319 How is it fake news?
One thing I like about Thomas Nagel, he is an atheist because he admits he doesn't want there to be a God and hopes there is not one. I don't want to answer to anyone for my behavior either, but it doesn't make me free, just free to be selfish with no consequences.
Why would you not want to answer for your behaviour? That's something a completely morally corrupt person would say.
@@wulfheort8021 No it doesn't mean that, well maybe to you it does. I am not totally morally corrupt, but I don't want to answer for some of the wrong things I've done, said or thought, but I'm going to one day.
"It is appointed onto man once to die, then comes judgement."
Something that is recounted in many NDEs.
@@MountainFisher Why do you not want to do that? Not wanting to means you are not willing to do so, but merely forced. When you allign your will to God's will you will automatically feelna desire to answer for your wrong doings. You may not look forward to it because of the shame, but claiming you do not want to answer for it can be very misleading if you mean that you are not looking forward to the shame that comes with it.
@@wulfheort8021 I guess I have a higher view of what sin is than you do. No one in their right mind is going to want to feel the hurt something they said or unsaid caused, so no I don't want to, but I'm going to answer for every thought word or deed not in line with God's will.
@@MountainFisher What? You don't even get what I am saying. I was not even talking about sin, but about the will. You are phrasing it in a way that can be misleading, because wanting something means you put your will to it. Not wanting something means not putting your will to it. Answering for your sins is unpleasant and you'd definitely not look forward to it, but not wanting to do it means something different. It's not hard to understand this. I know what you mean, but phrasing something like this in a more unprecise or not completely accurate way can mislead people and you don't want that.
I always knew Matt Dillahunty was a closet gnostic atheist posing as an agnostic atheist to give the illusion that he's supposedly "unbiased." Thank you for exposing him so articulately in a way I've been attempting to explain for years!
Another interesting finding, I think it was made by Jonathan Haidt. He asked people to come up with reasons why a certain proposition might be true or false. Average IQ participants came up with about the same amount of pro and contra arguments, but higher IQ participants came up with more pro arguments if they agreed with the proposition and vice-versa, but were not more likely to come up with more arguments against the position they agreed with.
Thanks IP much appreciated.
I'm an exatheist who has said all of these atheist lines at one point or another. That I wasn't biased, didn't believe in fairy tales, that I'd believe whatever the evidence shows, etc. And.... it turns out I was being 100% honest. I've changed both my political views and religious views many times, in whichever way the evidence takes me. That meant I had to stop being an atheist, because the evidence was overwhelmingly in favor of theism. However, if it's shown that I've made a mistake, or that there's some evidence against theism and for atheism, then at that point I will return to being an atheist like I was in the past. I think those of us who actually *have* changed our views and beliefs are a bit more honest in that regard about following the evidence. But the line of "I just follow the evidence" *is* ironically a dogmatic line of belief from atheists. Someone saying it doesn't mean that it's it's necessarily untrue, but it's also not necessarily the case that they *will* change their mind when shown the evidence. Everyone has different epistemologies and different levels of skepticism.
I would love to hear what changed your mind. Perhaps provide the strongest piece of evidence that convinced you. I’m curious
Satan's motto: I would rather reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.
winston barquez hello 👋🏼 interesting 🤔 motto, however as I’ve come to learn even he knows, he’s not going to reign in Hell as he did not make hell in the first place.
@@Daniel-cz7kd
A prisoner doesn't made the prison that he's jailed, but he can reign ALL over the other immates
I don't think the devil wants to be in Hell
I think that's correct in terms of people swayed by Satan, but not Satan himself. If I were to take a gander, I would think Satan would very much like to be with his Creator, and he likely isn't too pleased with his inability to accept God's exaltation of man (who serve as the Lord's image in this shrine of His, an honour he cannot claim for himself nor surpass). He doesn't seem to be capable of changing his mind on this, as sin in the presence of God must surely be unavoidable, as God would relieve one of all sin one was truely willing to be rid of. I believe therefore that his banishment is very much unwanted to him. However, these are merely my speculations, and you theology may vary depending on what conclusions you come to in your research. I do believe Satan is still more a servant subjected to the will of the Lord, albeit one who sinned unforgivably, rather than His (woefully inadequate) adversary. Both views have some support and detraction, and there is likely to be some nuance as to which, if either, is correct. Feel free to have your own opinion drawn from the evidence.
@@mahlatsimoroka1500 why
Very good presentation IP!
IP you're great as always, but I couldn't help but laugh at 8:06 with all those atheists lined up with these big arrows pointing at them saying "HUMANS" lol XD