Prager said it himself “The human being aches for meaning.” So we INVENTED some. There, and so simple!! What I’ve been searching for, a simple explanation for the existence of gods. 👍👍👍 Thanks Prager.
Not only that we invented one that we can never achieve! That is what made me incredibly depressed in the end when I was a Christian. How many people are saved? Only about 1/3! What a massive failure, we are letting most people go straight to Hell. This is also the reason that when I hear Prager say you can be a good atheist I hear "Well just because he tosses the puppies into an oven and slowly incinerates then does not make them a bad pet owner." yes it does Denis, we as atheists are convincing people to go to Hell.
@@Merlinever Once upon a time someone didn’t know about metaphysics...so they made up that quote. Most atheistic responses here just sound like people who were too lazy to do thorough metaphysics, making up excuses.
@@geomicpri: I never cease to be both amazed and amused at how angry and desperate believers get when I or some other unbeliever points out the obvious.
@@skepticalstrom6247 "I’ll do you one better, provide any argument you want that you think isn’t intellectually dishonest and I’ll show you how it is" - when you claim you have evidence for god I don't believe you because it is only rumours or fallacious reasoning. When you claim there is a god I don't believe you due to lack of evidence. There, 2 honest answers.
“Asking, "If there is no God, what is the purpose of life?" is like asking, "If there is no master, whose slave will I be?" If your purpose of life is to submit as a slave, then your meaning comes from flattering the ego of a person whom who should detest.” Dan Barker debunked this argument with one short paragraph.
A master and slave cannot exist without each other, whereas meaning could not exist with a God, so the analogy is false. Meaning from Christianity, say, comes not from the fact that the universe doesn’t have a natural cause, but from life after death, moral culpability on Earth, and Heaven (et al). If the meaning of life is to believe in a sense of higher importance which will be realised after death, then God hardly even comes into the meaning. Your quote is a nice rhetorical quip, but otherwise completely useless.
@@bellumthirio139 *"whereas meaning could not exist with a God, so the analogy is false."* You might want to correct that to "whereas meaning, as Christians define it, could not exist..." Of course, at that point the argument becomes circular. But meaning _does_ exist without the belief that God exists, that's just a fact. Ask anyone who isn't a Christian, Muslim or Jew. The overwhelming majority of people, including atheists, will tell you what they thing is the meaning to their lives.
@@cy-one well that’s just a semantic argument. There is obviously some standard by which something constitutes existential meaning, otherwise the entire argument is a nonsense because we can’t even agree to what we’re debating
@@skepticalstrom6247 Empiricism matters for all statements over physics. The Schroedinger equation maps out exactly all quantum states of the hydrogen atom. Therefore it is an empiric verifier. If you invent an abstract concept, you need to verify it if you claim it effects physics, i.e. you need to regress/map it into a 1st order logic, where objects are grouped by an attribute (native true/false classification). If not, it only exists as mental concept, devoid of real effective, measurable meaning. You could object with mathematics, but any applied mathematics has been derived through a natural axiomatic correspondence, mapping a real object onto the formulas and vice versa.
@@skepticalstrom6247 Without empiricism, you can never appoint any given object any semantics which isn't its trivial semantics, i.e. empty word or tautology. If you can't map A to B, then you trivially map your whole discourse universe U to Ø, the empty set. Contradiction: in order to oppose empiricism you need a semantics which carries more than a tautology or empty semantics. Conclusion: Correct. You can't verify empiricism with itself. But axioms are locally, at least in the scope of the theory, irreducible and self-verifying, since omitting their existence leads to contradictions. Since omitting empiricism renders any construction empty, i.e. meaningless, the contradiction arises that we never could have formalized any nontrivial logic.
The only thing Prager learned from his conversation with Hitchens was to stop listening to the opposing arguments, because learning what we actually believe and say poses a threat to Prager and his audiences' precious myths.
As a control Engineer, I really like how some creationists just ignore the effects of feedback loops while talking about morality. These creationists just imply the society (a system) cannot just learn from theirs mistakes and correct themselves. Therefore the only reference input in the system is the postulated God that knows all the answers by definition and give the only possible correct divine command, again, by definition. Gentlemen, these videos with you both are amazing. I'm really enjoying this format. Please, keep it.
I would argue that most of the moral improvement in society has come from non-theists who have managed to persuade religious people to ignore the more egregiously stupid parts of their holy books and step into the modern era.
And what about before the christian scripture supposedly gave humanity divine meaning? Either in other cultures who practiced different religious dogma, or pre religion entirely? Seems like they had no problems creating meaning out of supposed meaninglessness. I think to cavemen. I'm hungry, I must eat. I'm cold, I must have shelter. I feel the biological urge to procreate, so I must mate and create progeny.
I have an odd take. Life is pretty darn meaningless whether a god does or does not exist. But we can all strive to experience a sense of purpose and hope to expand a reasonably enjoyable experience for all while not violating individual rights.
@@skepticalstrom6247 what? No ? Even atheist know thats wrong well if you ask the people of swedia where the 70% of the citizen are atheist, they will tell you that its wrong morally without the acknowledgement of religion they can know themself that its wrong
@@skepticalstrom6247 No. You are Strawmanning the morals of Atheists. I fully agree that lying, cheating, stealing, raping, lusting, murdering are wrong. We don't need an ancient book of tribal warfare to tell us that. Those actions clearly hurt others. The God of the Bible told his people to go and pillage cities and slaughter everyone including the infants. Is he a psychopath?
@@skepticalstrom6247 TH-cam commenters read a sentence like "I like apples" and respond with "OH SO YOU HATE ORANGES" like no bruh that's a whole nother sentence.
@@skepticalstrom6247 according to the bible rp and murder are ordered by God. So must be your cup of tea. You have shown to lie, and someone seemed to have lusted somewhere, as you seem to exist. Although I do not exclude the possibility that you are a troll bot. We know you have no idea what the definition of "fact" is, we know you don't know what the definition of "objective" is, so it isn't farfetched you don't understand morality.
@@jok317 Claiming meaning as an atheist, is just stupid. There is no right or wrong in science or nature. If you find meaning in cultural norms and your feelings, you are religious. Society is not real in a scientific sense. If you think there is a direction in your life or humanity, you are religious!
Yea that’s cute and all but it’s missing the point. There is no point to life, no goal at all, no grand purpose, no real order, no real structure, no real guidelines, if there is no deity or deity-like force. That’s the argument. We don’t mean purpose like a career, or a perceived calling, or a sense of duty, we mean actual grand transcendental purpose, we’re just here completely by random chance and for no real purpose. When this fully clicks in peoples heads, everything becomes arbitrary at best. The nihilists understand this, why don’t you?
@@JA-jx1hk We mean *actual, grand, transcendental purpose* You did the thing again👀. To you, if purpose isn't what you listed above, it's not *actual* purpose (smuggled in there). To me - and many others - it is🤷🏾♂️😂. Also, which nihilists? There's more than pessimistic nihilism👀. Existentialism is a branch of nihilism and recognizes subjective meaning and purpose as valid😌. If that's not good enough for you then *shrug* .
@@simphiwe4930 your argument is pure cope. You can tell yourself these platitudes but at the end of the day if you accept atheistic materialism there is no REAL purpose. You saying you have your purpose is ENTIRELY subjective and arbitrary. This isn’t me trying to be mean or snarky beyond saying your argument is cope this is literally the reality of the situation. You literally cannot argue this lol. If you’re gonna be an atheistic materialist, you have to go all the way, there is no purpose to anything, everything is just random and inherently meaningless. This is why saying that if God doesn’t exist than nothing matters is logically true. It would do atheists good to be logically sound and accept this and instead say we don’t need to have inherent meaning. This is what is known as existentialism. I honestly don’t know why atheists get so hung up on this, you’re supposed to be a big bad, cold, objective, non delusional truth seer and not care about emotional delusions like “meaning”. I don’t have to believe this but you do. I would tell you that this is not true, and that we do have inherent meaning and that everything around us has inherent meaning, but you must accept this if you want to be a logically sound and coherent atheist. You must admit that ideas such as meaning and purpose are purely emotional, biological impulses that are entirely subjective and arbitrary, and therefore have no REAL meaning and don’t matter.
"If an all knowing, all powerful dictator doesn't tell me how to live my life and eternally punishes me if I don't obey every single order, my life is meaningless" It's such a pathetic outlook on life and plain sad, like a domestic abused victim going back to their abuser. Why wouldn't the conclusion just be that you make the most out of your life and you give meaning to it by just existing and try to have some fun and spread love and be kind to other people just because? It's like this people's mind operated like a trained rat that can only operate based on rewards/punishments, it's just sad.
@@skepticalstrom6247 good for you. I was addicted to porn, swearing, drugs, etc I listened to Christians, read the Bible, and this changed my life. Now, I still do them, but I pray for forgiveness.
@@skepticalstrom6247 Just because you could not live a relatively normal life without addiction does not mean Christianity is rational or reasonable. You just stumbled upon an intelllectually easy way out of your predicament instead of actually finding the answer to your problems.
Most important question in life: What am I going to eat tonight! It's hard to find any lower hanging fruit than Dennis Prager, and it's so sad he needs to be debunked, because for a lot of us (obviously not enough of us) he is self debunking.
@@Mantuamaker Well, in a way that is how it is meant. I have had times where I literally didn't know what, if anything I was going to eat, and that in the western world. Now imagine having to go through that most of the time! Dennis comes from the type that would go to a place where people are starving, to feed them god, and god only, and then blame their suffering on"Sin"! He's a nasty insidious creep!
I appreciate your closing remark on modifying Weinberg's quote. The harms of religion are not of religion itself, but the dogma and tribalism. Religion often facilitates this, but is not in of itself the issue. "With or without *dogma & tribalism, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes *dogma & tribalism.* " So very true.
As a German, thinking that one of the most important thing the Nazi Regime managed to do (on their way to power) being successfully having the German populace otherize everyone that wasn't them, I wholeheartedly agree.
@@GoCoyote I'd suggest killing their intolerance with kindness. Seek to understand them, why they feel the way that do. Try utilizing the Socratic method, helping you and themself come to understand even better. Through this, people will often question their own beliefs, and identify the flaws over time. If that fails... Well maybe just kill them instead.
@@Unsensitive I will have to look up the Socratic method. The difficulty is performing the emotional work for someone who is unwilling to or unable to do the same. A work friend who I was discussing the realities of racism with told me that he is not responsible for explaining why and how various actions are racist, he only needed to tell people to stop the offensive behavior. He used the analogy of a pedophiles behavior, and while we may be able to understand and even empathize with a pedophiles behavior, we are not required to get emotionally close to explain or educate them, we only need to set firm laws and consequences for their behavior.
Well, you can have it back. I have no use for it anyway :p I'm just kidding! :D I really hope you'll discover that, though poisoned with religion, you still own your own mind and it's an amazing thing to have and discover and play with and love with and think with and so forth and so on. You're still a person with desires and passions and at least enough honesty to leave religion, even if religion won't leave your mind that easily and your neurons will have deeply ingrained patterns that will give you a lot of trouble. It takes time to choose your path and retrain your brain with patterns _you_ want it to practice in your everyday life, but your character has always been there and will always be there, but now you can choose how you want to let it grow the ways you want it to, with the people you choose to be with and your experiences might have been toxic for a large part, but they're your experiences now, to take with you and learn with. No one can take them from you. They're a part of you and of who you are now, both the good and the bad experiences and you're free to let them be or use them any way you see fit at any time. Have an amazing day and feel free! You're one of us now #teamhumanity #knowledgeisfreedom
I mean, its pretty damn relevant if the God of Islam or the god of Christianity exists, cause if thats the case we're all going to hell and suffer for eternity lol
This obsession with a concept for which the is no evidence is a source of amusement. It is enjoyable, though bewildering, to observe. Without it, some other human folly would have to fill the void. None of that effects the level of care I have for the concept.
I should have also added that life doesn't necessarily need a meaning. Maybe life is just simply us being lucky enough to be born and it's up to us to make lots of it or simply go through it doing almost nothing.
What is “lucky” about being “born”, I pray to God to remove me from this horrible existence everyday, pain and suffering is all there is here until the day you die and if God doesn’t exist this existence is even more pitiful
@@skepticalstrom6247 Prove it. Prove he suffered. Prove he was "without sin" (whatever sin is) Prove we "deserve eternal damnation". Prove every single thing you said.
@@skepticalstrom6247 coz you aren't only making claims, but saying that we should be thankful to smn (I personally am, to my mother, by my own will, love instinct, whatever, but I know, that I enjoy life, I know my mother exist, I know what she did for me, nothing close to religious claims)
Meaning is only something that can exist to others - your success means something *to* you, and your spouse and your mother. Theists try to say without a god, humans don't having meaning (to the god). But if meaning is something other people feel, then anyone can experience it between fellow beings
I just watched that clip where Evil Lyn and Skeletor basically have this conversation. She looks upon the vast universe and sees it all as pointless and meaningless, while Skeletor looks at it and goes: "Yeah, isn't it great?" He saw the stars, while she only saw the emptiness between them.
Well, Prager is clearly is referring to meaning in the grand schemes of things. You're referring to personal meaning. Prager is right. If God does not exist, there is no meaning. It doesn't matter whether you kill a 1000 people or feed a thousand. In the end, it's all just random processes and events.
@@Schopenhauer69 there's no point watching the video because that's so incontrivertible. And there's no point watching any other video. Or anything. The universe is fucking bleak.
@@Schopenhauer69 while I don't disagree, if an eternal earthworm popped into existence just now, that will reconstruct my mind from eating my body after I die, then I become part of it's collective self.. but only if I don't feed the birds on Saturdays Would my life suddenly have meaning?
@@Schopenhauer69 god existing would give you subjective personal meaning. In the end, even if god existed, it still doesn't matter if you kill 1000 people or not.
"Persuade people that they are in possession of the truth dogmatically and you can convince them to do bad things in the name of that truth, even if they are otherwise a good person." - did I get that right? I like that quote.
Hey fellas, I just wanted to say thank you.. I've always fallen under the Banner that is Atheism. I've never had the Intellectual ability to justify as to why, so it was always " I just haven't been given enough evidence to believe in a God." Or " Yeah but the bible says it's ok to have slaves, and even teaches you how to treat them etc. "I've always just said the same things without having the Knowledge to fully explain. As a Truck driver here in the USA I have nothing but time to listen and eventually understand it all. Now one of the things I love most is the theism VS Atheism debates as it allows me to listen to some very intelligent people argue on both sides. I believe that along with Alex O'Connors channel as well as Rationality Rules, Dr Richard Carrier as well as others have given me plenty of knowledge to be able to fully understand why I dont believe in a god. So thank you all for your hard work. Much appreciated.
@@skepticalstrom6247 Objective morality doesn't exist. However, slavery can still be considered wrong in an atheist worldview, as it evidently causes suffering and the vast majority of humans would agree that unnecessary suffering is bad. Thus, slavery can be largely agreed upon to be subjectively wrong. As long as you're not utterly stupid.
@@skepticalstrom6247 The best part is that even if your god existed, objective morality still wouldnt exist because it wouldnt be nothing more than 'your subjective opinion about something else's subjective opinion'.
Congratulations for giving though to these topics, not many people think about it (on both sides). Just be careful of the trolls, for some reason they don't like when someone says they don't share their fairy tales, so they start making meaningless questions or raise problems they can't answer anyway.
@@skepticalstrom6247 Either you don't know, what subjective morality is or you don't (yet) understand that objective morality doesn't. Given that you're a presuppositionalist, you probably don't even try to understand.
@@tasfa10 The question is only that important if God actually exists. If God doesn’t exist, the question is still important but not nearly that important.
@@tasfa10 It's not the most important question. I can live without god or any higher purpose. My life is a series of situational events that I do not ascribe to some omnipotent, omniscient being and it would turn out a thousand ways whether I were devout or not.
Recognizing the lack of a grand cosmological purpose has been so good for my mental and physical health. It wasn't easy to get here, but I'm so glad I did.
Proof that time travel is impossible, right here. Dennis Prager exists. This means that no-one has ever traveled back in time to erase Dennis Prager from Existence itself, which would only improve humanity with absolutely no drawbacks. Counterpoint: "what if Dennis Prager is the best option that time travel has left us with?" Counter-counterpoint: _DENNIS FUCKING PRAGER._
I liked Hawking's 'proof' that time travel doesn't exist. First, he held a massive party. The next day, he posted an ad that said party was held yesterday. Time travellers welcome. But he had to enjoy that party all by himself. Thus proving that time travellers don't want to get drunk with physics professors.
@@RickReasonnz ... In the iteration of the party that Hawkings wrote about. It can be argued that the act of posting about the party afterwards created a destination retroactively, where many time travelers will have been gotten outrageously drunk. It would will have been glorious. :P
@@RickReasonnz It could also be that there are multiple universes and some of those universes don't have time travel like ours while maybe others had time travel. So, in another universe someone came to the party but that's just a theory.
@@skepticalstrom6247 Eternal suffering for opposing a tyrant. Total ego death for serving a tyrant. I think most people with any sense of self would sooner pick the former option, given the choice. And that's all that needs to be added to this hypothetical.
@@skepticalstrom6247 you're talking to a nihilist (which has nothing to do with me being an atheist, it seems to be pretty rare amongst atheists) and i don't think anyone deserves anything for i've seen no evidence of it. you say everyone deserves hell? prove it (i advice against pointing towards a piece of paper that says so, because i'll point at a different piece of paper that says the opposite). there's not such thing as an atheist worldview. is torture, rape or murder wrong in MY worldview? not objectively, but society doesn't like it because most people in society have empathy and thus puts countermeasures in place to prevent it. are they objectively wrong in your worldview? do you have any evidence that supports the idea that they are objective? also if you claim there's only 1 hell please provide some evidence for that too. same with any claims that jesus did a damn thing.
And to think I use to be such a huge fan of Dennis Prager (prior to a few years ago) Every night I still sit around think deeply about what else I have been wrong about.
What Dennis doesn't seem to realise: if there is a God, your sole purpose will be to feast on that God's boot polish for eternity. Whist that me be viewed as a purpose, I don't see how it will offer my life any significant meaning.
@@skepticalstrom6247 Nonsense! Nobody worships or prays to celebrities/actors/musicians..etc. You don't seem to grasp the true meaning of worship. The rest of what you state, you have no proof or evidence of. Who taught you that you deserve HELL, I certainly don't. Only your God told you that you are a piece of crap. Your right in your last statement that Nothing deserves everlasting worship and that includes imaginary Gods. I don't worship myself. I simply enjoy living and navigating this amazing natural world.
@@skepticalstrom6247 Nope. I don't worship anything, the concept if worship sounds silly to me. No God, deserving of worship would ever request or require it. As for the god of Christianity, he contradicts science, he contradicts demonstrable reality and he contradicts himself, therefore he cannot exist.
@@skepticalstrom6247 A sacrifice is usually defined as a very big, permanent loss. Jesus, supposedly, lost three'ish days and got rewarded with eternal happiness afterwards. I doubt you'll find many people that wouldn't be happy to take that offer. Most people, if described that story without the Biblical bias, would understand how little of an actual sacrifice that was.
I’ve read Bertrand Russell’s essay “What I believe” several times now. I find it’s an amazing reflection on what it means to live a good life, outside of any connection to a higher power. He doesn’t need to point to some external authority to establish morals or purpose. They can be reached as a logical conclusion with the acceptance of one primary principle, the good life is one which is inspired by love and guided by knowledge.
Dennis Prager may think that a pebble on Jupiter would be meaningless, the scientific community would not. To find a pebble on a gas planet would be an incredible discovery.
Richard Dawkins shut it down with the Selfish Gene. Of course it will always be hotly debated, because those that need to believe will not listen to rationality.
@@trustjah Not true. I find debating irrational ideas quite entertaining. It was the birth of Science Fiction and Fantasy narratives. The ever-present "what if"...
10:35 I love that little look as he talks, when he realized he had just explained to himself that this feeling of his, that "God has given human beings supreme meaning", is an invention that humans have invented because they want to feel important
This video appeared on my recommended feed right after I watched that animated scene where Evil Lyn looks upon the vast canvas of the universe and sees it all as blank and meaningless, while Skeletor looks at the same universe and basically goes "Yeah, that's how canvases work. You have to PAINT your own meaning onto it. And I want to paint a portrait of myself killing He-Man." 😂
In my opinion the most important question is "what do I want to do with my life" Wether god exists is irrelevant and the "why is there something rather than nothing" I see that as a scientific question and the best answer we have so far is we're working on it.
"Random chance." Do you hate this as much as I do? That some theists think that there is no random aspect, that their god had planned out everything... and then they go on bleating about fucking free will! You can't have both, choose one! Not to say that the non-theist understanding is random chance; it's not random that certain creatures evolved. There was no coin flip, no dice roll. It was a survival of traits, which is explicitly not random. /rant.
Sorry about being off topic, and i mostly agree with you, but... i just can't buy that thing about us not having a free will. We have behavior patterns we stick to most of the time, that is true. But lets say I just took a knife and stabbed whoever was the closest to me at the time, ignoring all the consequences and morality, just to prove I can do whatever I'm willing to. If I do that, doesn't it prove I have free will?
@@petermirtitsch1235 they usually are, because we constantly judge which choices ahead of us are more beneficial. But does that mean we can't just do irrational things if we want to? We are predictable, I maybe can destroy my pc on a whim but it would be extremely unbeneficial to me so i'd rather not. But does existence of a behavior that is most beneficial that I follow proves that behavior is all there is in me and there is no consciousness behind?
@@Soundwave1900 then you are stabbing someone *because* you want to prove your will is free. In turn, your choice is tied to reason and therefore not free
@@Soundwave1900 It's such a hard topic to tackle, but I have been at least brought around to the possibility that we have Will, but it isn't free. Your limitation is on the the external influence of yourself and other material that have lead to this point in time. To whit, you are standing behind Adam. You decide to stab a stranger. But you have no knife or other stabbing implement. Thus, your ability to act upon your will has been thwarted by the external stimuli of not having a knife. A petty, pedantic point, I know. But okay, then, you are standing behind a stranger, and you decide to punch him. You have fists, you have the opportunity, but the question now is why. Why do you make this decision? Whence came the notion to punch? Was it freely obtained from the choice of all possible action to take on that particular moment? Or was it conceived as a way to "prove" to yourself that you do indeed have free will? If the latter, then sadly you must concede that your will is limited to the stimuli of "wanting to prove free will exists". This is my understanding of the topic, and I will readily admit I am woefully underread on it.
This is one of the most frustrating arguments from theists in my opinion. I don't like other people assuming I can't enjoy my friends family, hobbies and interests just because I don't believe in their particular god(s). I also have no purpose or meaning and and neither do those I love. Nothing about my life could be made better or my enjoyable by a belief in a god. In fact, if Pragers version of god exists, my life would be a lot worse. I would need to hide my sexuality and give up many of the things that give me enjoyment and fulfilment. I wouldn't be able to find a partner who I can truly connect with and would be forced to marry simply to have children and teach them about god. In my eyes, the meaning of life is to simply seize the day and make the most of every opportunity. To make deep connections with others and do everything humanly possible to further myself and everyone else.
Enjoyment doesn't equal meaning though. I mean, I agree with what you're saying but it doesn't address the argument. If he had said "life isn't enjoyable without God," then sure. Also, the "meaning of life" you mention, though a perfectly good one, is a different use of the term. The mistake DP and theists like him make is insisting that ultimate or objective meaning is the only meaningful meaning. I don't mean to criticize, just my thoughts on what you said.
“In my eyes” the meaning of “existence” is what I’ve given it, because it has no meaning unless I give it, the universe doesn’t care wether you believe it has a purpose for you or not, the fallacious assertion that it will magically obtain a purpose just because you deem it so has nothing to do with the universe and it’s purposeless existence, it does not care wether you exist 1,000 years or die tonight
Perhaps they should REPHRASE IT and ask What would you be WILLING TO DIE FOR? A hobby, a career,your car, a steak and lobster dinner? Most atheists would prioritize above the mundane. These would Include mental abstractions such as " freedom,democracy , national security". The highest qualia for atheists, would be willing to die for their fellow man. Die to SAVE another,especially loved ones. This overlaps even christian altruism. The atheist explains these instincts through evolution. The theist does not deny man has a foundation in hard materialism. As usual the atheist explains psychology naturally. We're programmed by nature for the survival of the group not necessarily just the individual. This maybe a partial resolution to the question. But materialism itself is no arbiter for shades of morality. Natural selection by itself cannot justifiably rule which ethnic group must be exterminated to save resources for which master race? These are questions that start out with neural wiring in the brain but don't end with just axons. It involves human CHOICE whether to lie to the authorities about the presence of Jews in your house or not. Your discriminating choice reveals alot about you. You could tell the truth and save yourself for further evolutionary survival. Or you could lie and risk personal extinction. Your eternal fate rests on a moment. But you make your choice risking evolutionary survival. You certainly Don't justify it on just a hard conviction of materialism, atomic elements. YOU REALIZE YOU ARE MORE THAN THE SUM OF YOUR CHEMISTRY.
@@joehinojosa8030 interesting you bring up atheists dying for their fellow man but reject the one who died for them, “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.” Romans 5:6-11 KJV
Why does life have to have meaning? The argument that God has to exist to give life meaning is only plausible if it can be demonstrated that life must have meaning, and only God can give it meaning.
Well, I'd say that we must have meaning, since being meaningless is undesirable. We must eschew meaninglessness. In fact, it would be correct to say that it is desirable to be meaninglessnessless. To do that, we must seek meaninglessnesslessness. You could even say that it would be preferable to be meaninglessnesslessnessless...
@@ceceroxy2227 i have people that depend on me, people that I care about. Sure in 150 years we'll all be dust. But if I don't stand up and take care of them, they will suffer, and that suffering has meaning to me. I want happiness for them. The people I impact are my reason, I don't need more.
"I'm no more worth than a pebble" In some ways, yes, in some ways, no. A pebble doesn't have the capacity for kindness, and neither does it have the capacity to pick up a larger pebble and beat someone to death with it.
Whether there is a god would be an important question, if we had any reason to believe there might be one. But as it is it is about as important as whether or not there is an invisible pink dragon in my garage.
PBS SpaceTime answers the question: "Why is there something rather than nothing" with the scientifically correct "We don't know but we have found this oddity with the weak force, the weak force is not CP symmetric". And Dennis Prager is perhaps the most dishonest apologetic out there.
Uh, I watch SpaceTime but usually only somewhat understand half of what he says. Can you please explain the weak force part in simple terms, how exactly it explains why there's something rather than nothing?
Meaning is both the simplest and most complex thing. In my opinion, I get meaning in life for just trying to be happy and make others happy and do what I think is right and live my life the best that I can really. That is good enough for me. I don’t care that after I die, I stay dead. That’s just how things work. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
Dennis prager: let’s be intellectually honest Also DP: life has no purpose without my sky daddy How are these people not embarrassed to live to THIS OLD while still arguing like literal children
About the segment on murder/killing, the first code of laws that we have any records of are those of a Sumerian king of Ur known as Ur-namma who ruled from 2112 BCE to 2095 BCE. It clearly states: "1. If a man commits a homicide, they shall kill that man." There you have it. A text saying killing is wrong. Fully three centuries before judaism and two thousand years before Christianity. So there. The self-centered narcissism of Christians can be mindblowing at times.
I've always thought this was a silly concept, especially when you think about it this way. Let's say we live in a godless world. All those theists who lived with purpose did so without a god. They were able to invent purpose and attribute it to something even though it isn't there and they were able to go on living just fine.
I've lived in Holland my whole life. It's about as atheistic as can be (at least, in the places I grew up in). Religion was just a thing some old people did. Nobody really cared about God, other than poking fun of how nonsensical it was. What Dennis Prager casually tells here would make him the town's fool. And when he said "without god, murder isn't wrong", he would outright be labeled a disturbing individual the authorities need to keep an eye on. It's genuinely shocking to me to see a man like him being where he is and that these opinions aren't uncommon either. What a culture shock
A Norwegian friend of mine is adamant that he met Odin in the forest of his home country when he was a teenager. It would be much cooler if pagan religions were true !
You are correct that non-believers have _naturalist,_ rather than _theologic,_ views about human existence. I will add that I, personally, can get "spiritual" looking at the Cosmos on a dark and clear night, without invoking a diety. Belittling the only KNOWN life that humanity has here and now, and not acting to prevent suffering and injustice in the world is NOT a good thing. As for "Christian morality", look no further than the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Catholic/Protestant atrocities committed against each other in the Middle Ages. If today's Christians are only reframing from murder, rape, and other crimes owing to their afterlife beliefs, I think that the rest of us need to start worrying about THEM!
When people talk about morality being absolute, I always think that it's best for my society to cooperate with another society who says they think that morality it absolute. When we discovered how to communicate with other people, the first thing we would've done, is to check how they feel about randomly killing people on a whim. If they would've said: sure! killing is totally fine whenever you want to, we'd find other societies who'd agree with our position on random killing to team up with, and to defend ourselves against them. That's a mechanism for societies to adopt the position that random killing is wrong: you need cooperation to thrive, and you only want to cooperate with societies who think rape and killing is wrong. It is allowed to question if morality is absolute or not, but you'll be shunned if you say that randomly killing people should be allowed. Therefore, nobody in our society would openly hold that position, and most people will be persuaded to say that it is absolutely morally wrong.
If morality is absolute, how would you know and would you be justified in being absolutely certain what said morality is and how to apply it in all situations?
Good morality comes from tolerance, empathy, compation. Not many societies in history put these at the top of the list when it came to rules and law. History tell's us killing and looting was much more common, lucky human morality is evolving for the better in most modern societies, but some societies, country's, religion's are still repressive.
While I love the work you do Steve. For me the content with reese is the real highlight. For most content i really have to be in the mood as it's often quite complicated material. And while the same is true for this you guys bounce of each other quite well, both making the material easier to understand and adding a bit of comedy value. I really love it!
Thank you very much. Steve is way ahead of me in the literature and the thinking but I greatly enjoy engaging with it, and see where the audience spot things we didn't, or an error that we made. I learn so much from being here with all of you too.
For me the question is 'What is it I want to do with my life, what do I want to accomplish?. Whether there is a god or not is not relevant to me, as to what is moral, I follow these two sayings: 1. To Live my Life as I see fit, harming no one and wishing harm to no one. 2. The Treatise on Morality by Scott Clifton - you can find this on TH-cam.
If God doesn't have his own God to pray to and serve, his existence must be meaningless. And if God's God doesn't have his own God, his existence must be meaningless. And so on...
thats not entirely logical- god is god, not a human. (im not religious myself) i personally disagree with the claim life is meaningless without the existence of god.
@@EpicGamerWinXD69 well its gonna take some long winded / long paragraph to do that, and i cant be bothered, but to put it simply- god is above humans in a different higher realm so the rules that apply to us dont apply to him.
Why does our existence require meaning? It's just something we have come up with because we like to have meaning and structure around our lives so we impose that on the universe. Would love there to be a God who fulfils all our wishes after death and grants us an eternity of bliss but I'm not counting on it.
Considering every other form of life as far we know doesn't seem to be bothered by it, and just does its own thing driven by circumstance...might be a clue?????
Rationality Rules, Steve and Reece, I love you guys together! And I got my DEBUNKED, just no one to play. I can't stand dennis and his misinformation laden fake university. But, I remember him with that same repetition, 'it's all made up!' And Hitch answering, in his charming, (like you guys!) way, "well dennis, I'm glad you finally get it! It's all made up!" And prager was so mad , red-faced! I believe it also had dinesh souza, lol. Old liverlips dennis is just terrified of death. That, I believe is the basis for all 'afterlife' claims. And I get it, I wanted all my pets back. Even some of my family and friends, lol. But knowing, as I feel I do, that there is no consciousness, is also comforting. Especially once we're old and have lost all our 'hotness' lol! These are GREAT! I'm so bummed I couldn't go to Faithless Forum! Only 2 states away, in AZ, too. 👍💝🥰✌
As an atheist, i have sympathy with Prager. Deciding whether there is a God or not is immensely important. At the moment science's best theory is that the Universe will end in chaotic, cold dust. So, ultimately, there is no meaning. This is explored in the Gospel according to Woody Allen: Mrs. Singer: He's been depressed. All of a sudden, he can't do anything. Dr. Flicker: Why are you depressed, Alvy? Mrs. Singer: Tell Dr. Flicker. It's something he read. Dr. Flicker: Something you read, huh? Alvy Singer: The universe is expanding. Dr. Flicker: The universe is expanding? Alvy Singer: Well, the universe is everything, and if it's expanding, someday it will break apart, and that will be the end of everything. Mrs. Singer: What is that your business? He's stopped doing his homework. Alvy Singer: What's the point? Mrs. Singer: What has the universe got to do with it. You're here, in Brooklyn. Brooklyn is not expanding. Dr. Flicker: It won't be expanding for billions of years yet, Alvy. And we've gotta try and enjoy ourselves while we're here. Huh? Huh? Huh? [laughs]
@@heavenbound7-7-7-7 really? Prager disagrees with you. Okay. If I help an old lady across the road, is that not a good thing? If I save someone from drowning, is that not good?
This video is one I'm saving for future reference. The Euthrypo dilemma is one of the most fascinating ideas I've encountered. I'll need to go back & view that portion again. It's just now beginning to make sense. Thanks, mates!
If God were to wipe out all evil then there would be nothing left, it's in our own interest that God allows evil to exist until he finally destroys it.
@@heavenbound7-7-7-7 The god of the Bible doesn't exist. Look into his origins. *Yahweh was introduced to Israel in a five-stage process:* *Traditional Polytheism:* The earliest Israelites worshipped creator god El, his wife Asherah, and his sons e.g., Baal. *Incorporation:* Yahweh was incorporated as a 2nd tier god in El’s pantheon. *Elevation:* Yahweh and El are identified as the same deity. *Monolatrism:* A new Yahweh-only movement emerges, and the gods of the second tier are denied. *Monotheism:* Gods of other nations are denied, Yahweh’s power is deemed universal in scope. *At some point in its history, El was identified with Yahweh as the same god.* This equation is expressed clearly in Exodus 6:2-3. “And God said to Moses, “I am Yahweh. I appeared to the patriarchs as El, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them.” Other Biblical material asserts this equation. Joshua 22:22 states “the god of gods is Yahweh”. Judges 9:46 refers to “El of the covenant”. *The Yahweh-alone movement vigorously condemn prominent Canaanite gods… except El.* ***There are zero condemnations of El in the Hebrew Bible. This makes sense if Yahweh was ultimately identified with this Canaanite creator-god.*** What’s more, archaeological evidence suggests that the Yahweh religious centers in Shiloh and Bethel were originally a place of El worship. *El and Yahweh are attributed same characteristics.* El is depicted as a wise old man with a beard eg “You are great, O El, and your hoary beard instructs you”. Yahweh is described in the same terms (Daniel 7:9, Job 36:26, Habakkuk 3:6). Like “Kind El, the Compassionate”, Yahweh is a “merciful and gracious god”. The description of Yahweh’s dwelling place as a tent (Psalms 15:1, 27:6, 91:10) recalls the tent of El in the Canaanite narrative of Elkunirsa. Finally, both Yahweh and El are said to dwell amidst cosmic waters (Isaiah 33:20-22, Ezekiel 47:1-12, Zechariah 14:8). *El’s wife was named Asherah. When Yahweh was identified with El, did he also inherit his wife?* In the blessings of Joseph, Genesis 49:25 contains language specific to the Asherah cult “blessings from Breast-and-Womb”. *The Bible further admits that the Israelites frequently worshipped a “Queen of Heaven”* (Jeremiah 7:18, 44:17-25). Indeed, 2 Kings 21:7 tells us that worship of Asherah happened within the Temple itself. *Finally, archaeology has uncovered several icons with the inscription “Yahweh and his Asherah”. This evidence cumulatively suggests that, in early forms of Israelite religion Yahweh was believed to have a wife.* *The push towards monolatrism led to the eviction of the Asherah cult, whose memory may be preserved in Zechariah 5:5-11.* But this eviction created a deficit of femininity to Israelite religious expression. *To compensate, the Biblical writers began attributing feminine attributes to Yahweh (Isaiah 49:15, 46:3, 44:2,24, 42:14).* *To induce the Israelites to stop worshipping Baal, the imagery of Baal was adopted by the Yahweh cult.* The Baal Cycle, ancient mythology on the scale of the Epic of Gilgameth, has four literary themes for the storm god. *Here are those themes, along with the Biblical text which mirrors them.* The march of the divine warrior (Psalm 104:3 “He makes the clouds his chariot, and travels along on the wings of the wind”) The convulsions of nature as the divine warrior manifests his power (Judges 5:5, Hab 3:10) The return of the divine warrior to his holy mountain to assume divine kingship (Isaiah 31:4) The utterance of the divine warrior’s voice from his palace provides rains that fertilize the earth (Jeremiah 10:13) *Yahweh is also depicted as defeating Baal’s classic enemies:* Baal/Yahweh defeats a seven headed dragon, Leviathan, and River (CAT 5.1, Psalm 74:13-15). Baal/Yahweh defeats Sea (KTU 1.14, Psalm 89:10). Baal/Yahweh defeats Death/Mot (KTU 1.4 VIII-1.6, Isaiah 25:8). Google *"Polytheistic Roots of Israelite Religion - Fewer Lacunae."* Watch Dr Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards and lecture 8 from 12:00 to 19:00 minutes. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica. Read the article linked in the description of the video.
@@heavenbound7-7-7-7 So, because there is no evil in heaven, "there would be nothing left"? How can you believe that it's _"in our own interest that God allows evil/suffering to exist"?_ (twisted) Why would God wait thousands of years & allow the lives of billions of people to come & go, _before he finally destroys evil?_ (pointless)
@@heavenbound7-7-7-7 *God opened the door & and allowed Satan in to prey upon his children.* I guess God did not think that _life was neither evil or brutal enough._ *Our odds were too good for his liking.*
If there is a perfect god, then humans are meaningless because nothing can add to god's perfection. God can't even have a motivation to create anything outside of himself because motivation comes from things you don't have and god is complete and perfect according to theists. Basically the fact that humans exist proves that god does not.
We crave meaning but I fail to see how a god enters into that. He's presupposing god and just making a arbitrary connection between finding meaning and that god. It kinda blows my mind that we are still discussing something that should be relegated to fiction at this point. There are no compelling arguments that would suggest that we were created by god(s), and i'm just tired of hearing trite mental gymnastics that theists engage in to cope with cognitive dissonance.
@@skepticalstrom6247 IMHO, one should hold as few presuppositions as possible, due to their nature of being _presupposed_ rather than concluded. There are a few things we can't help but presuppose (like existence continuing to behave tomorrow the same way it did yesterday), but again... One should try to avoid presuppositions.
The christian paradox is such that, if there IS a god and we can talk to him, christianity would collapse. if you could talk to god, what would you need churches and priests for?
The meaning of life is entirely subjective, there is no "one size fits all" answer. As a nihilist and emotionless prosocial psychopath I accept and embrace the fact that there is no inherent meaning, value, or purpose to my life, unless I choose to assign life those attributes. I exist only because I exist, and I am completely at peace with my existence.
Ultimately then it doesn't matter if you exist. Your existence is just atoms in motion and nothing more. This is what the implications of atheism leads to.
@@Justas399 No, absolutely wrong. Having no ultimate meaning is not the same as having no meaning at all. My life has meaning NOW! It has meaning to me, it has meaning to my freinds and family, it has meaning to every person I meet and interact with. I do not and will never understand theists' obsession with ultimate this and eternal that and absolute the other thing. Just seems like arrogance to me. Theists just can't deal with the fact that they are insignificant in the big picture. Theists want desperately to be more important then we are.
@@walterbrooks2329 I understand you have to tell yourself your life has meaning when the reality is that if atheism is true, it doesn't. How do you deal with the death of a loved one believing you will never see them again?
@@_nebulousthoughts If I thought my life had no ultimate meaning i would not be a Christian. I would live for pleasure as much as I could. I would follow Ayn Rand's advice: “Live totally for self; no one holds you accountable! Indeed, it would be foolish to do anything else, for life is too short to jeopardize it by acting out of anything but pure self-interest. Sacrifice for another person would be stupid.”
@@ceceroxy2227 What point, that people kill people. As old as humanity itself, I would guess. Groups will fight each other for resources, space, power and domination, thus, religion. I am an atheist and have no desire to kill anyone. As long as no one wants to kill me or my loved ones. Even then, I'll let the court system do its job. BTW, Htler had the support of Rome. He has visited Pope Puis XII. And the German's belt was printed on it. "Gott mit uns". No need to translate this I guess.
I would love to hear christians definition of _meaning._ I'm pretty sure they won't define it the same way we do, if they do define it in the first place.
I LOVE this video, the 2 of you work or "play" so well together and off of each others ideas, it was great to see. It's refreshing to see you debunk all these arguments in a considerate manner with actual FACTUAL arguments, and don't just take the theistic approach and say "First you have to believe there is a God, before you can understand my arguments," when it's their arguments that are supposed to be what makes you believe. I would have to disagree though, I do think a meaningless God or any person COULD create something meaningful, BUT they themselves would NOT be the ones applying that meaning, those that see/use that creation in some way are the ones that have applied meaning to it. If a person created a wheel and had no need, reason, or purpose for it then it is meaningless to them, but a traveling merchant comes along sees it and uses it to move their heavy cart full of goods easier and faster, that creation now has meaning to that merchant. ONLY EACH person can assign meaning to something and ONLY for themselves. As Prager himself says, people can make up meaning and purpose, what makes him believe that HUMANS didn't make up God and religion to fulfill their desire for meaning and purpose? The way he states things with absolution, I don't know if he's trying to get me to believe or trying to make himself believe, maybe both, if he believed with absolution, why would he argue/debate with others if he wasn't still questioning his belief too? When 2 people argue both believe they are right and each of them argues/debates to prove to the other person and to themselves that they are right, so I would say Prager arguing/debating God and religion is him trying to prove to himself he is right, which means he doesn't have absolution in his own belief. Good and bad are just like meaning and purpose, only each person can decide for themselves what is good or bad, I think killing is bad, but to a psychopath it's good.
I don't need a deity to find meaning in life. Dennis is just butthurt that everyone doesn't think like he does & believe him when he says a invisible man lives in the sky😂
You assumed Prager was a christian many times in your video. He is actually jewish. But one couldn't tell from his videos as he always speaks about an unspecified - but clearly abrahamic - god.
@@castlesandcuriosities Actually that' s an interesting lens to analyze Prager's discourse on religion: the way he cultivates very specific imprecisions and vaguenesses to make his videos compatible with the conservative evangelical right-wing crowd. Furthermore i always said that the greatest quality of judaism was that jews never try to convince or convert people to their religion. They never rang my door on a sunday morning. So it's weird to see a jewish man go out of his way to proselytize for classical theism in broad terms without ever addressing the specificities of his own beliefs. Does he really think that a god, any god - as long as it's not a "foreign" god - is always better than no god? Or is there a more cynical purpose at play here, like promoting religion in the hope that it will foster more conservative and reactionary values?
You forgot the link to that history channel of your co-host. Where is it, it’s not in the description? (I failed to find it) This was a great discussion, loved the concluding thoughts!
Maybe I'm projecting, but I just don't believe most religious people even truly believe.. Some of them may think they acutally believe and some know they don't believe, but I think if you put a gun to a head of those who think they truly belive in an afterlife and think they believe they're going to heaven, most of them would reveal to you and to themselves, their will to live is stronger than their believe in their place in an afterlife
Prager said it himself “The human being aches for meaning.”
So we INVENTED some.
There, and so simple!!
What I’ve been searching for, a simple explanation for the existence of gods. 👍👍👍 Thanks Prager.
budd2nd: Or, as someone once defined religion, "Once upon a time, no one knew what happenen...so they made up some sh*t."
@@Merlinever
🤣🤣 yes absolutely
Not only that we invented one that we can never achieve! That is what made me incredibly depressed in the end when I was a Christian. How many people are saved? Only about 1/3! What a massive failure, we are letting most people go straight to Hell.
This is also the reason that when I hear Prager say you can be a good atheist I hear "Well just because he tosses the puppies into an oven and slowly incinerates then does not make them a bad pet owner." yes it does Denis, we as atheists are convincing people to go to Hell.
@@Merlinever Once upon a time someone didn’t know about metaphysics...so they made up that quote.
Most atheistic responses here just sound like people who were too lazy to do thorough metaphysics, making up excuses.
@@geomicpri: I never cease to be both amazed and amused at how angry and desperate believers get when I or some other unbeliever points out the obvious.
Prager using the words 'Intellectually honest' and _not_ bursting into flames on the spot? Now _that's_ a miracle.
@@skepticalstrom6247 cope
@@skepticalstrom6247 2/10, try again
@@skepticalstrom6247 really? Please provide a few intellectually dishonest atheist arguments. I'm waiting.
@@skepticalstrom6247 you made the claim, thus you have the burden of proof. so cope.
@@skepticalstrom6247 "I’ll do you one better, provide any argument you want that you think isn’t intellectually dishonest and I’ll show you how it is" - when you claim you have evidence for god I don't believe you because it is only rumours or fallacious reasoning. When you claim there is a god I don't believe you due to lack of evidence.
There, 2 honest answers.
“Asking, "If there is no God, what is the purpose of life?" is like asking, "If there is no master, whose slave will I be?" If your purpose of life is to submit as a slave, then your meaning comes from flattering the ego of a person whom who should detest.”
Dan Barker debunked this argument with one short paragraph.
A master and slave cannot exist without each other, whereas meaning could not exist with a God, so the analogy is false. Meaning from Christianity, say, comes not from the fact that the universe doesn’t have a natural cause, but from life after death, moral culpability on Earth, and Heaven (et al). If the meaning of life is to believe in a sense of higher importance which will be realised after death, then God hardly even comes into the meaning. Your quote is a nice rhetorical quip, but otherwise completely useless.
And gods are still not evident to exist.
So there's that
@@bellumthirio139 *"whereas meaning could not exist with a God, so the analogy is false."*
You might want to correct that to "whereas meaning, as Christians define it, could not exist..."
Of course, at that point the argument becomes circular.
But meaning _does_ exist without the belief that God exists, that's just a fact. Ask anyone who isn't a Christian, Muslim or Jew. The overwhelming majority of people, including atheists, will tell you what they thing is the meaning to their lives.
Dan Barker is a beast.
@@cy-one well that’s just a semantic argument. There is obviously some standard by which something constitutes existential meaning, otherwise the entire argument is a nonsense because we can’t even agree to what we’re debating
"Your meaning doesn't empirically exist", says the guy who can't empirically prove his god.
😆
This is his point Everything can't be proved empirically
*Laughs in higher order predicate logic*
@@skepticalstrom6247 Empiricism matters for all statements over physics.
The Schroedinger equation maps out exactly all quantum states of the hydrogen atom.
Therefore it is an empiric verifier.
If you invent an abstract concept, you need to verify it if you claim it effects physics, i.e. you need to regress/map it into a 1st order logic, where objects are grouped by an attribute (native true/false classification).
If not, it only exists as mental concept, devoid of real effective, measurable meaning.
You could object with mathematics, but any applied mathematics has been derived through a natural axiomatic correspondence, mapping a real object onto the formulas and vice versa.
@@skepticalstrom6247 Without empiricism, you can never appoint any given object any semantics which isn't its trivial semantics, i.e. empty word or tautology.
If you can't map A to B, then you trivially map your whole discourse universe U to Ø, the empty set.
Contradiction: in order to oppose empiricism you need a semantics which carries more than a tautology or empty semantics.
Conclusion: Correct. You can't verify empiricism with itself.
But axioms are locally, at least in the scope of the theory, irreducible and self-verifying, since omitting their existence leads to contradictions.
Since omitting empiricism renders any construction empty, i.e. meaningless, the contradiction arises that we never could have formalized any nontrivial logic.
The only thing Prager learned from his conversation with Hitchens was to stop listening to the opposing arguments, because learning what we actually believe and say poses a threat to Prager and his audiences' precious myths.
As a control Engineer, I really like how some creationists just ignore the effects of feedback loops while talking about morality. These creationists just imply the society (a system) cannot just learn from theirs mistakes and correct themselves. Therefore the only reference input in the system is the postulated God that knows all the answers by definition and give the only possible correct divine command, again, by definition.
Gentlemen, these videos with you both are amazing. I'm really enjoying this format. Please, keep it.
I would argue that most of the moral improvement in society has come from non-theists who have managed to persuade religious people to ignore the more egregiously stupid parts of their holy books and step into the modern era.
It's funny that a Engineer can debunk Prager's claim.
And what about before the christian scripture supposedly gave humanity divine meaning? Either in other cultures who practiced different religious dogma, or pre religion entirely? Seems like they had no problems creating meaning out of supposed meaninglessness. I think to cavemen. I'm hungry, I must eat. I'm cold, I must have shelter. I feel the biological urge to procreate, so I must mate and create progeny.
I feel sad for people who think their whole identity and meaning is so tied to an absent entity that without it they would have none.
Like feminists and the patriarchy.
Dennis makes me so sad. Your long lost pal, you say it well...
He has to think that. It’s what made him a multimillionaire
@@FourthRoot cope
@@xoranginho what is “cope”? New internet term?
I like how he talks about meaning/purpose, and the penchant for humans to "make something up"... he's so close to realizing where his god originated!
I have an odd take. Life is pretty darn meaningless whether a god does or does not exist.
But we can all strive to experience a sense of purpose and hope to expand a reasonably enjoyable experience for all while not violating individual rights.
"Nothing has meaning without God"
Actually, everything has meaning and potential when not constrained by oppressive dogma.
@@skepticalstrom6247 what? No ? Even atheist know thats wrong well if you ask the people of swedia where the 70% of the citizen are atheist, they will tell you that its wrong morally without the acknowledgement of religion they can know themself that its wrong
@@skepticalstrom6247 No. You are Strawmanning the morals of Atheists. I fully agree that lying, cheating, stealing, raping, lusting, murdering are wrong. We don't need an ancient book of tribal warfare to tell us that. Those actions clearly hurt others. The God of the Bible told his people to go and pillage cities and slaughter everyone including the infants. Is he a psychopath?
@@skepticalstrom6247 TH-cam commenters read a sentence like "I like apples" and respond with "OH SO YOU HATE ORANGES" like no bruh that's a whole nother sentence.
@@skepticalstrom6247 according to the bible rp and murder are ordered by God. So must be your cup of tea.
You have shown to lie, and someone seemed to have lusted somewhere, as you seem to exist. Although I do not exclude the possibility that you are a troll bot. We know you have no idea what the definition of "fact" is, we know you don't know what the definition of "objective" is, so it isn't farfetched you don't understand morality.
@@jok317 Claiming meaning as an atheist, is just stupid. There is no right or wrong in science or nature. If you find meaning in cultural norms and your feelings, you are religious. Society is not real in a scientific sense. If you think there is a direction in your life or humanity, you are religious!
If god doesn't believe in a super-god, how can' god's existence have any meaning or purpose?
And if God created us, what was his purpose for doing so?
gods purpose to super god is to be his bitch lol
Well now, just imagine what Super-god has to go through being Super-duper-god's bitch!!
It's "turtles all the way down."
No, it's super gods all the way down.
I once thought this when I was a Christian ✝️
WE...
ARE...
MYTHVISION 😎
@@ceceroxy2227 Is it hurting much to be you? Ouch you poor thing...
Asking, 'If there is no God, what is the purpose of life?' is like asking, 'If there is no master, whose slave will I be?
@@skepticalstrom6247 Atheist is a word without content; it’s like being a Non-Astrologer.
@@GodEqualstheSquaRootof-1 go see the channel Non Stamp Collector
Yea that’s cute and all but it’s missing the point. There is no point to life, no goal at all, no grand purpose, no real order, no real structure, no real guidelines, if there is no deity or deity-like force. That’s the argument. We don’t mean purpose like a career, or a perceived calling, or a sense of duty, we mean actual grand transcendental purpose, we’re just here completely by random chance and for no real purpose. When this fully clicks in peoples heads, everything becomes arbitrary at best. The nihilists understand this, why don’t you?
@@JA-jx1hk We mean *actual, grand, transcendental purpose*
You did the thing again👀. To you, if purpose isn't what you listed above, it's not *actual* purpose (smuggled in there). To me - and many others - it is🤷🏾♂️😂.
Also, which nihilists? There's more than pessimistic nihilism👀. Existentialism is a branch of nihilism and recognizes subjective meaning and purpose as valid😌. If that's not good enough for you then *shrug* .
@@simphiwe4930 your argument is pure cope. You can tell yourself these platitudes but at the end of the day if you accept atheistic materialism there is no REAL purpose. You saying you have your purpose is ENTIRELY subjective and arbitrary. This isn’t me trying to be mean or snarky beyond saying your argument is cope this is literally the reality of the situation. You literally cannot argue this lol. If you’re gonna be an atheistic materialist, you have to go all the way, there is no purpose to anything, everything is just random and inherently meaningless. This is why saying that if God doesn’t exist than nothing matters is logically true. It would do atheists good to be logically sound and accept this and instead say we don’t need to have inherent meaning. This is what is known as existentialism. I honestly don’t know why atheists get so hung up on this, you’re supposed to be a big bad, cold, objective, non delusional truth seer and not care about emotional delusions like “meaning”. I don’t have to believe this but you do. I would tell you that this is not true, and that we do have inherent meaning and that everything around us has inherent meaning, but you must accept this if you want to be a logically sound and coherent atheist. You must admit that ideas such as meaning and purpose are purely emotional, biological impulses that are entirely subjective and arbitrary, and therefore have no REAL meaning and don’t matter.
"If an all knowing, all powerful dictator doesn't tell me how to live my life and eternally punishes me if I don't obey every single order, my life is meaningless"
It's such a pathetic outlook on life and plain sad, like a domestic abused victim going back to their abuser.
Why wouldn't the conclusion just be that you make the most out of your life and you give meaning to it by just existing and try to have some fun and spread love and be kind to other people just because?
It's like this people's mind operated like a trained rat that can only operate based on rewards/punishments, it's just sad.
And then they have the gall to call us arrogant for being humble of our existence.
@@skepticalstrom6247 good for you. I was addicted to porn, swearing, drugs, etc I listened to Christians, read the Bible, and this changed my life.
Now, I still do them, but I pray for forgiveness.
@@skepticalstrom6247
I feel sorry for you.
But maybe I don't understand.
Can you elaborate on this?
@@skepticalstrom6247 Just because you could not live a relatively normal life without addiction does not mean Christianity is rational or reasonable. You just stumbled upon an intelllectually easy way out of your predicament instead of actually finding the answer to your problems.
@@skepticalstrom6247 I personally don't do any of those things, and I'm a non-believer.
Many of those things I *did* do when I was a believer.
Most important question in life: What am I going to eat tonight!
It's hard to find any lower hanging fruit than Dennis Prager, and it's so sad he needs to be debunked, because for a lot of us (obviously not enough of us) he is self debunking.
ordering Sushi with doordash
Well, to hit you in the feels, I first read this as “am I going to eat tonight?” I think that question has so much meaning for too many people.
@@desperado4367 I too like to live dangerously.
@@Mantuamaker Well, in a way that is how it is meant. I have had times where I literally didn't know what, if anything I was going to eat, and that in the western world. Now imagine having to go through that most of the time! Dennis comes from the type that would go to a place where people are starving, to feed them god, and god only, and then blame their suffering on"Sin"! He's a nasty insidious creep!
Ewww. The thought of “eating” Dennis. It’s put me right off my tea….
I appreciate your closing remark on modifying Weinberg's quote.
The harms of religion are not of religion itself, but the dogma and tribalism. Religion often facilitates this, but is not in of itself the issue.
"With or without *dogma & tribalism, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes *dogma & tribalism.* "
So very true.
Well said. My biggest challenge in life is how to not tolerate intolerance without becoming intolerant myself.
As a German, thinking that one of the most important thing the Nazi Regime managed to do (on their way to power) being successfully having the German populace otherize everyone that wasn't them, I wholeheartedly agree.
I would say that religion is the culmination of dogma & tribalism and is often used as a means to power and influence.
@@GoCoyote I'd suggest killing their intolerance with kindness.
Seek to understand them, why they feel the way that do. Try utilizing the Socratic method, helping you and themself come to understand even better. Through this, people will often question their own beliefs, and identify the flaws over time.
If that fails... Well maybe just kill them instead.
@@Unsensitive
I will have to look up the Socratic method. The difficulty is performing the emotional work for someone who is unwilling to or unable to do the same. A work friend who I was discussing the realities of racism with told me that he is not responsible for explaining why and how various actions are racist, he only needed to tell people to stop the offensive behavior. He used the analogy of a pedophiles behavior, and while we may be able to understand and even empathize with a pedophiles behavior, we are not required to get emotionally close to explain or educate them, we only need to set firm laws and consequences for their behavior.
I appreciate your video as an ex-Muslim Iraqi guy, religion ruined my life and took away my mind.
Well, you can have it back. I have no use for it anyway :p I'm just kidding! :D I really hope you'll discover that, though poisoned with religion, you still own your own mind and it's an amazing thing to have and discover and play with and love with and think with and so forth and so on. You're still a person with desires and passions and at least enough honesty to leave religion, even if religion won't leave your mind that easily and your neurons will have deeply ingrained patterns that will give you a lot of trouble. It takes time to choose your path and retrain your brain with patterns _you_ want it to practice in your everyday life, but your character has always been there and will always be there, but now you can choose how you want to let it grow the ways you want it to, with the people you choose to be with and your experiences might have been toxic for a large part, but they're your experiences now, to take with you and learn with. No one can take them from you. They're a part of you and of who you are now, both the good and the bad experiences and you're free to let them be or use them any way you see fit at any time. Have an amazing day and feel free! You're one of us now #teamhumanity #knowledgeisfreedom
As an apatheist, I couldn't care less if a God did or didn't exist, it's rather irrelevant to what I enjoy in life.
Peace Love Empathy
This is how all humans should feel
It is relevant
I mean, its pretty damn relevant if the God of Islam or the god of Christianity exists, cause if thats the case we're all going to hell and suffer for eternity lol
It's pretty irrelevant, but sadly too many are so obsessed with their beliefs, that their stupid ideas affect my life..
This obsession with a concept for which the is no evidence is a source of amusement. It is enjoyable, though bewildering, to observe. Without it, some other human folly would have to fill the void. None of that effects the level of care I have for the concept.
I should have also added that life doesn't necessarily need a meaning. Maybe life is just simply us being lucky enough to be born and it's up to us to make lots of it or simply go through it doing almost nothing.
Now that, I think, nails it.
What is “lucky” about being “born”, I pray to God to remove me from this horrible existence everyday, pain and suffering is all there is here until the day you die and if God doesn’t exist this existence is even more pitiful
@@skepticalstrom6247 Prove it. Prove he suffered. Prove he was "without sin" (whatever sin is) Prove we "deserve eternal damnation". Prove every single thing you said.
@@skepticalstrom6247 coz you aren't only making claims, but saying that we should be thankful to smn (I personally am, to my mother, by my own will, love instinct, whatever, but I know, that I enjoy life, I know my mother exist, I know what she did for me, nothing close to religious claims)
*unlucky enough
Meaning is only something that can exist to others - your success means something *to* you, and your spouse and your mother. Theists try to say without a god, humans don't having meaning (to the god). But if meaning is something other people feel, then anyone can experience it between fellow beings
I just watched that clip where Evil Lyn and Skeletor basically have this conversation. She looks upon the vast universe and sees it all as pointless and meaningless, while Skeletor looks at it and goes: "Yeah, isn't it great?"
He saw the stars, while she only saw the emptiness between them.
Well, Prager is clearly is referring to meaning in the grand schemes of things. You're referring to personal meaning. Prager is right. If God does not exist, there is no meaning. It doesn't matter whether you kill a 1000 people or feed a thousand. In the end, it's all just random processes and events.
@@Schopenhauer69 there's no point watching the video because that's so incontrivertible. And there's no point watching any other video. Or anything. The universe is fucking bleak.
@@Schopenhauer69 while I don't disagree, if an eternal earthworm popped into existence just now, that will reconstruct my mind from eating my body after I die, then I become part of it's collective self.. but only if I don't feed the birds on Saturdays
Would my life suddenly have meaning?
@@Schopenhauer69 god existing would give you subjective personal meaning. In the end, even if god existed, it still doesn't matter if you kill 1000 people or not.
"Persuade people that they are in possession of the truth dogmatically and you can convince them to do bad things in the name of that truth, even if they are otherwise a good person." - did I get that right? I like that quote.
Hey fellas, I just wanted to say thank you.. I've always fallen under the Banner that is Atheism. I've never had the Intellectual ability to justify as to why, so it was always " I just haven't been given enough evidence to believe in a God." Or " Yeah but the bible says it's ok to have slaves, and even teaches you how to treat them etc. "I've always just said the same things without having the Knowledge to fully explain. As a Truck driver here in the USA I have nothing but time to listen and eventually understand it all. Now one of the things I love most is the theism VS Atheism debates as it allows me to listen to some very intelligent people argue on both sides. I believe that along with Alex O'Connors channel as well as Rationality Rules, Dr Richard Carrier as well as others have given me plenty of knowledge to be able to fully understand why I dont believe in a god. So thank you all for your hard work. Much appreciated.
@@skepticalstrom6247 Objective morality doesn't exist. However, slavery can still be considered wrong in an atheist worldview, as it evidently causes suffering and the vast majority of humans would agree that unnecessary suffering is bad. Thus, slavery can be largely agreed upon to be subjectively wrong. As long as you're not utterly stupid.
@@skepticalstrom6247 The best part is that even if your god existed, objective morality still wouldnt exist because it wouldnt be nothing more than 'your subjective opinion about something else's subjective opinion'.
Congratulations for giving though to these topics, not many people think about it (on both sides).
Just be careful of the trolls, for some reason they don't like when someone says they don't share their fairy tales, so they start making meaningless questions or raise problems they can't answer anyway.
@@skepticalstrom6247 , just ask a slave why slavery is wrong. Or put yourself in the shoes of a slave.
@@skepticalstrom6247 Either you don't know, what subjective morality is or you don't (yet) understand that objective morality doesn't. Given that you're a presuppositionalist, you probably don't even try to understand.
Theist: If god isn’t real, life is meaningless.
Me: That doesn’t prove god. It proves life is meaningless.
Life is life. "I didn't ask to be born" doesn't apply - you're stuck with it. What you make of it will be your legacy.
He wasn't trying to prove God exists with that statement. He was trying to prove that whether He exists is the most important question.
@@davey1602 Well, no, you’re not stuck with it, but that’s another conversation.
@@tasfa10 The question is only that important if God actually exists. If God doesn’t exist, the question is still important but not nearly that important.
@@tasfa10 It's not the most important question. I can live without god or any higher purpose. My life is a series of situational events that I do not ascribe to some omnipotent, omniscient being and it would turn out a thousand ways whether I were devout or not.
Recognizing the lack of a grand cosmological purpose has been so good for my mental and physical health. It wasn't easy to get here, but I'm so glad I did.
Proof that time travel is impossible, right here. Dennis Prager exists. This means that no-one has ever traveled back in time to erase Dennis Prager from Existence itself, which would only improve humanity with absolutely no drawbacks.
Counterpoint: "what if Dennis Prager is the best option that time travel has left us with?"
Counter-counterpoint: _DENNIS FUCKING PRAGER._
Ahahahah ! Good one !
I liked Hawking's 'proof' that time travel doesn't exist. First, he held a massive party. The next day, he posted an ad that said party was held yesterday. Time travellers welcome. But he had to enjoy that party all by himself. Thus proving that time travellers don't want to get drunk with physics professors.
@@RickReasonnz ... In the iteration of the party that Hawkings wrote about. It can be argued that the act of posting about the party afterwards created a destination retroactively, where many time travelers will have been gotten outrageously drunk. It would will have been glorious. :P
@@RickReasonnz It could also be that there are multiple universes and some of those universes don't have time travel like ours while maybe others had time travel. So, in another universe someone came to the party but that's just a theory.
Indeed, someone should travel back in time and milkshake baby Dennis and baby Hitler at the same, err, time.
"Without god there is no ultimate purpose"
And thank god for that.
@@skepticalstrom6247 which one?the Muslim one or the Christian one?
@@skepticalstrom6247
no one should ever thank anyone who perpetuates eternal torture. do you?
@@michaelenquist3728 Don't forget the norse Hel, or wherever Sithrak takes you ;)
@@skepticalstrom6247 Eternal suffering for opposing a tyrant.
Total ego death for serving a tyrant.
I think most people with any sense of self would sooner pick the former option, given the choice.
And that's all that needs to be added to this hypothetical.
@@skepticalstrom6247
you're talking to a nihilist (which has nothing to do with me being an atheist, it seems to be pretty rare amongst atheists) and i don't think anyone deserves anything for i've seen no evidence of it. you say everyone deserves hell? prove it (i advice against pointing towards a piece of paper that says so, because i'll point at a different piece of paper that says the opposite).
there's not such thing as an atheist worldview. is torture, rape or murder wrong in MY worldview? not objectively, but society doesn't like it because most people in society have empathy and thus puts countermeasures in place to prevent it. are they objectively wrong in your worldview? do you have any evidence that supports the idea that they are objective?
also if you claim there's only 1 hell please provide some evidence for that too. same with any claims that jesus did a damn thing.
And to think I use to be such a huge fan of Dennis Prager (prior to a few years ago)
Every night I still sit around think deeply about what else I have been wrong about.
What Dennis doesn't seem to realise: if there is a God, your sole purpose will be to feast on that God's boot polish for eternity.
Whist that me be viewed as a purpose, I don't see how it will offer my life any significant meaning.
@@skepticalstrom6247 Nonsense! Nobody worships or prays to celebrities/actors/musicians..etc. You don't seem to grasp the true meaning of worship. The rest of what you state, you have no proof or evidence of. Who taught you that you deserve HELL, I certainly don't. Only your God told you that you are a piece of crap. Your right in your last statement that Nothing deserves everlasting worship and that includes imaginary Gods. I don't worship myself. I simply enjoy living and navigating this amazing natural world.
@@skepticalstrom6247 Nope. I don't worship anything, the concept if worship sounds silly to me. No God, deserving of worship would ever request or require it. As for the god of Christianity, he contradicts science, he contradicts demonstrable reality and he contradicts himself, therefore he cannot exist.
@@skepticalstrom6247 He didn't die, he came back to life. It's nonsense.
@@skepticalstrom6247 So he didn't die then? Why did he do it if he didn't stick to it? Should have stayed dead.
@@skepticalstrom6247 A sacrifice is usually defined as a very big, permanent loss.
Jesus, supposedly, lost three'ish days and got rewarded with eternal happiness afterwards.
I doubt you'll find many people that wouldn't be happy to take that offer. Most people, if described that story without the Biblical bias, would understand how little of an actual sacrifice that was.
I’ve read Bertrand Russell’s essay “What I believe” several times now. I find it’s an amazing reflection on what it means to live a good life, outside of any connection to a higher power. He doesn’t need to point to some external authority to establish morals or purpose. They can be reached as a logical conclusion with the acceptance of one primary principle, the good life is one which is inspired by love and guided by knowledge.
*Humanity has **_never been able to agree on, or confirm a single fact,_** about God.*
Great point!!! And now I am stealing it and claiming it as my own!😉
Keep posting!
Humans have been fighting over God for thousands of years.
Most believers never consider things like evidence.
It simply does not cross their mind.
@@terryyakcm3705 You know it.
What is fact anyway lol
Loved the dialog between the two of you. Very thought-provoking stuff.
@@skepticalstrom6247 Define this "atheist worldview" and why you think it's dumber than believing in an invisible sky fairy.
Oh tell me! I fell asleep during the eh... first minute.
Dennis Prager may think that a pebble on Jupiter would be meaningless, the scientific community would not. To find a pebble on a gas planet would be an incredible discovery.
Yep. I was like "... huh?" when he said that :D
Life is meaningless to those who are just waiting to die. The rest of us try to enjoy life to the fullest, because we know we only have one of them.
I live in the U.S. got my debunked game this week. Amazing!! I play it with my kids and we all learn from it while having so much fun. Thank you!
This is such a great series with the two of you - please keep going!
@@skepticalstrom6247 😂
9:03 I'm aesthetically pleased like mad by the simplicity of this argument. Great video overall. I like that format.
Ooh I love this line of argument that theists use! Always a fun one to debate.
Richard Dawkins shut it down with the Selfish Gene. Of course it will always be hotly debated, because those that need to believe will not listen to rationality.
@@davey1602 no such thing as rationality if God does not exist and you don't have an immaterial mind.
@@davey1602 when someone finds arguing the irrational "fun" it's not worth the time waisted explaining the rational.
@@trustjah Not true. I find debating irrational ideas quite entertaining. It was the birth of Science Fiction and Fantasy narratives. The ever-present "what if"...
@@Justas399 lol wut
I'm more concerned that Prager thinks there are pebbles "on" Jupiter. A gas giant on which you cannot land a probe.
maybe there are some pebbles at around the border of the solid core and the liquid outer core
He has a very active imagination so there can be pebbles on Jupiter or a God in the sky or angles on the head of a pin.
Really, the moment someone refers to "a pebble on Jupiter" you know they are talking out of their backside
10:35
I love that little look as he talks, when he realized he had just explained to himself that this feeling of his, that "God has given human beings supreme meaning", is an invention that humans have invented because they want to feel important
This video appeared on my recommended feed right after I watched that animated scene where Evil Lyn looks upon the vast canvas of the universe and sees it all as blank and meaningless, while Skeletor looks at the same universe and basically goes "Yeah, that's how canvases work. You have to PAINT your own meaning onto it. And I want to paint a portrait of myself killing He-Man." 😂
Just got my copy of "Debunked" today. Thanks, love it. Can't wait to give it a go with some friends.
In my opinion the most important question is "what do I want to do with my life"
Wether god exists is irrelevant and the "why is there something rather than nothing"
I see that as a scientific question and the best answer we have so far is we're working on it.
The number of empty or false assertions per minute that people like Prager can achieve is always impressive.
@@skepticalstrom6247 Nope, its an observation
"Random chance." Do you hate this as much as I do? That some theists think that there is no random aspect, that their god had planned out everything... and then they go on bleating about fucking free will! You can't have both, choose one!
Not to say that the non-theist understanding is random chance; it's not random that certain creatures evolved. There was no coin flip, no dice roll. It was a survival of traits, which is explicitly not random. /rant.
Sorry about being off topic, and i mostly agree with you, but... i just can't buy that thing about us not having a free will. We have behavior patterns we stick to most of the time, that is true. But lets say I just took a knife and stabbed whoever was the closest to me at the time, ignoring all the consequences and morality, just to prove I can do whatever I'm willing to. If I do that, doesn't it prove I have free will?
@@Soundwave1900 aren't your actions and thoughts in response to assorted environmental stimuli?
@@petermirtitsch1235 they usually are, because we constantly judge which choices ahead of us are more beneficial. But does that mean we can't just do irrational things if we want to? We are predictable, I maybe can destroy my pc on a whim but it would be extremely unbeneficial to me so i'd rather not. But does existence of a behavior that is most beneficial that I follow proves that behavior is all there is in me and there is no consciousness behind?
@@Soundwave1900 then you are stabbing someone *because* you want to prove your will is free. In turn, your choice is tied to reason and therefore not free
@@Soundwave1900 It's such a hard topic to tackle, but I have been at least brought around to the possibility that we have Will, but it isn't free. Your limitation is on the the external influence of yourself and other material that have lead to this point in time. To whit, you are standing behind Adam. You decide to stab a stranger. But you have no knife or other stabbing implement. Thus, your ability to act upon your will has been thwarted by the external stimuli of not having a knife. A petty, pedantic point, I know.
But okay, then, you are standing behind a stranger, and you decide to punch him. You have fists, you have the opportunity, but the question now is why. Why do you make this decision? Whence came the notion to punch? Was it freely obtained from the choice of all possible action to take on that particular moment? Or was it conceived as a way to "prove" to yourself that you do indeed have free will? If the latter, then sadly you must concede that your will is limited to the stimuli of "wanting to prove free will exists".
This is my understanding of the topic, and I will readily admit I am woefully underread on it.
I counter their argument with this: my life has meaning because I give it meaning
My life became meaningless after I found out Santa Claus didn't exist.
Is that when you killed your family?
@@chrisgraham2904 That's when I killed the kid next door who still got Christmas presents.
This is one of the most frustrating arguments from theists in my opinion. I don't like other people assuming I can't enjoy my friends family, hobbies and interests just because I don't believe in their particular god(s). I also have no purpose or meaning and and neither do those I love.
Nothing about my life could be made better or my enjoyable by a belief in a god. In fact, if Pragers version of god exists, my life would be a lot worse. I would need to hide my sexuality and give up many of the things that give me enjoyment and fulfilment. I wouldn't be able to find a partner who I can truly connect with and would be forced to marry simply to have children and teach them about god.
In my eyes, the meaning of life is to simply seize the day and make the most of every opportunity. To make deep connections with others and do everything humanly possible to further myself and everyone else.
Enjoyment doesn't equal meaning though. I mean, I agree with what you're saying but it doesn't address the argument. If he had said "life isn't enjoyable without God," then sure. Also, the "meaning of life" you mention, though a perfectly good one, is a different use of the term. The mistake DP and theists like him make is insisting that ultimate or objective meaning is the only meaningful meaning.
I don't mean to criticize, just my thoughts on what you said.
That’s a beautiful comment. It’s well written and inspiring. Well done.
“In my eyes” the meaning of “existence” is what I’ve given it, because it has no meaning unless I give it, the universe doesn’t care wether you believe it has a purpose for you or not, the fallacious assertion that it will magically obtain a purpose just because you deem it so has nothing to do with the universe and it’s purposeless existence, it does not care wether you exist 1,000 years or die tonight
Perhaps they should REPHRASE IT and ask What would you be WILLING TO DIE FOR? A hobby, a career,your car, a steak and lobster dinner? Most atheists would prioritize above the mundane. These would Include mental abstractions such as " freedom,democracy , national security". The highest qualia for atheists, would be willing to die for their fellow man. Die to SAVE another,especially loved ones. This overlaps even christian altruism. The atheist explains these instincts through evolution. The theist does not deny man has a foundation in hard materialism. As usual the atheist explains psychology naturally. We're programmed by nature for the survival of the group not necessarily just the individual. This maybe a partial resolution to the question. But materialism itself is no arbiter for shades of morality. Natural selection by itself cannot justifiably rule which ethnic group must be exterminated to save resources for which master race? These are questions that start out with neural wiring in the brain but don't end with just axons. It involves human CHOICE whether to lie to the authorities about the presence of Jews in your house or not. Your discriminating choice reveals alot about you. You could tell the truth and save yourself for further evolutionary survival. Or you could lie and risk personal extinction. Your eternal fate rests on a moment. But you make your choice risking evolutionary survival. You certainly Don't justify it on just a hard conviction of materialism, atomic elements. YOU REALIZE YOU ARE MORE THAN THE SUM OF YOUR CHEMISTRY.
@@joehinojosa8030 interesting you bring up atheists dying for their fellow man but reject the one who died for them, “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.”
Romans 5:6-11 KJV
Bravo, another brilliant discussion, always with intelligence, integrity, and humility.
Why does life have to have meaning? The argument that God has to exist to give life meaning is only plausible if it can be demonstrated that life must have meaning, and only God can give it meaning.
Another part of that is, why do you want meaning given to you?
Its an easy life, but you also do not have freedom to choose the life you want to live.
Apologist dont have a good relationship with the word demonstrate
Well, I'd say that we must have meaning, since being meaningless is undesirable. We must eschew meaninglessness. In fact, it would be correct to say that it is desirable to be meaninglessnessless. To do that, we must seek meaninglessnesslessness. You could even say that it would be preferable to be meaninglessnesslessnessless...
They can't demonstrate their hypothesis, so instead choose to gaslight you.
@@ceceroxy2227 i have people that depend on me, people that I care about. Sure in 150 years we'll all be dust. But if I don't stand up and take care of them, they will suffer, and that suffering has meaning to me. I want happiness for them.
The people I impact are my reason, I don't need more.
Life is meaningless if I'm not a slave to a malignant narcissist!
"I'm no more worth than a pebble"
In some ways, yes, in some ways, no.
A pebble doesn't have the capacity for kindness, and neither does it have the capacity to pick up a larger pebble and beat someone to death with it.
"I make my money from donations, bribes and gifts from my believers..sooo if god does not exist..I can't buy bread"
-cult leader somewhere.
Think Cameron “The Hairdo” Bertuzzi
Whether there is a god would be an important question, if we had any reason to believe there might be one. But as it is it is about as important as whether or not there is an invisible pink dragon in my garage.
You should give credit to Carl Sagan, who did have an invisible dragon living in his garage.
The most important question we can ask or answer is: 'How can we make things better for everybody?'
PBS SpaceTime answers the question: "Why is there something rather than nothing" with the scientifically correct "We don't know but we have found this oddity with the weak force, the weak force is not CP symmetric".
And Dennis Prager is perhaps the most dishonest apologetic out there.
Nope - not even close. There are apologists WAY more dishonest than Dennis.
@@1970Phoenix So what? The average theist is way more dishonest than an Atheist anyway.
That channel is very recommendworthy. Space-Time is epic. People in general need more sci-channel in their life, i say.
@@slevinchannel7589 The "so what" is that I hold the view that truth matters and should be valued.
Uh, I watch SpaceTime but usually only somewhat understand half of what he says. Can you please explain the weak force part in simple terms, how exactly it explains why there's something rather than nothing?
Meaning is both the simplest and most complex thing. In my opinion, I get meaning in life for just trying to be happy and make others happy and do what I think is right and live my life the best that I can really. That is good enough for me. I don’t care that after I die, I stay dead. That’s just how things work. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
"I have no more meaning than a pebble" is the first honest thing I've ever heard him say.
Dennis prager: let’s be intellectually honest
Also DP: life has no purpose without my sky daddy
How are these people not embarrassed to live to THIS OLD while still arguing like literal children
No, he said life is meaningless without God*.
@@geomicpri
What is the exact meaning of life?
Well what is the purpose of life then?
@@geomicpri what’s the difference
@@Frankthegb Study some theology. The distinction isn’t even subtle.
You guys are killing it! Great job 👌
About the segment on murder/killing, the first code of laws that we have any records of are those of a Sumerian king of Ur known as Ur-namma who ruled from 2112 BCE to 2095 BCE. It clearly states: "1. If a man commits a homicide, they shall kill that man." There you have it. A text saying killing is wrong. Fully three centuries before judaism and two thousand years before Christianity. So there. The self-centered narcissism of Christians can be mindblowing at times.
Brilliant, both of you! Well done.
I've always thought this was a silly concept, especially when you think about it this way. Let's say we live in a godless world. All those theists who lived with purpose did so without a god. They were able to invent purpose and attribute it to something even though it isn't there and they were able to go on living just fine.
I've lived in Holland my whole life. It's about as atheistic as can be (at least, in the places I grew up in). Religion was just a thing some old people did. Nobody really cared about God, other than poking fun of how nonsensical it was. What Dennis Prager casually tells here would make him the town's fool. And when he said "without god, murder isn't wrong", he would outright be labeled a disturbing individual the authorities need to keep an eye on. It's genuinely shocking to me to see a man like him being where he is and that these opinions aren't uncommon either. What a culture shock
A Norwegian friend of mine is adamant that he met Odin in the forest of his home country when he was a teenager. It would be much cooler if pagan religions were true !
Life is meaningless at the start of life!!
That's why YOU MUST make your own life meaningful.
YOU MAKE LIFE MEANINGFUL, otherwise it is meaningless.
You are correct that non-believers have _naturalist,_ rather than _theologic,_ views about human existence.
I will add that I, personally, can get "spiritual" looking at the Cosmos on a dark and clear night, without invoking a diety.
Belittling the only KNOWN life that humanity has here and now, and not acting to prevent suffering and injustice in the world is NOT a good thing.
As for "Christian morality", look no further than the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Catholic/Protestant atrocities committed against each other in the Middle Ages.
If today's Christians are only reframing from murder, rape, and other crimes owing to their afterlife beliefs, I think that the rest of us need to start worrying about THEM!
Other Atheist-Channels did it better so why not check them out?
When people talk about morality being absolute, I always think that it's best for my society to cooperate with another society who says they think that morality it absolute. When we discovered how to communicate with other people, the first thing we would've done, is to check how they feel about randomly killing people on a whim. If they would've said: sure! killing is totally fine whenever you want to, we'd find other societies who'd agree with our position on random killing to team up with, and to defend ourselves against them. That's a mechanism for societies to adopt the position that random killing is wrong: you need cooperation to thrive, and you only want to cooperate with societies who think rape and killing is wrong. It is allowed to question if morality is absolute or not, but you'll be shunned if you say that randomly killing people should be allowed. Therefore, nobody in our society would openly hold that position, and most people will be persuaded to say that it is absolutely morally wrong.
If morality is absolute, how would you know and would you be justified in being absolutely certain what said morality is and how to apply it in all situations?
Good morality comes from tolerance, empathy, compation.
Not many societies in history put these at the top of the list when it came to rules and law.
History tell's us killing and looting was much more common, lucky human morality is evolving for the better in most modern societies, but some societies, country's, religion's are still repressive.
His life would certainly be more useless than it is now. He’d have no one to con
Ffs everytime I blink the background change patterns, the triangles get visible, and then the other geometric figure becomes visible.
While I love the work you do Steve. For me the content with reese is the real highlight. For most content i really have to be in the mood as it's often quite complicated material. And while the same is true for this you guys bounce of each other quite well, both making the material easier to understand and adding a bit of comedy value. I really love it!
Thank you very much. Steve is way ahead of me in the literature and the thinking but I greatly enjoy engaging with it, and see where the audience spot things we didn't, or an error that we made. I learn so much from being here with all of you too.
Life does not have an ultimate purpose... Big freaking deal.
For me the question is 'What is it I want to do with my life, what do I want to accomplish?. Whether there is a god or not is not relevant to me, as to what is moral, I follow these two sayings:
1. To Live my Life as I see fit, harming no one and wishing harm to no one.
2. The Treatise on Morality by Scott Clifton - you can find this on TH-cam.
Actually life is meaningless without potato crisps and onion dip, but carry on, Denny Pragey…
If God doesn't have his own God to pray to and serve, his existence must be meaningless. And if God's God doesn't have his own God, his existence must be meaningless. And so on...
thats not entirely logical- god is god, not a human. (im not religious myself) i personally disagree with the claim life is meaningless without the existence of god.
@@johnwatts8346 define what exactly a God even is please. Because honestly, I couldn't give you a definitive answer.
life is not supposed to have a meaning thats just some old fools ideology
@@mikehunntt5338 I know, that opening statement was a bit sarcastic in case that wasn't obvious.
@@EpicGamerWinXD69 well its gonna take some long winded / long paragraph to do that, and i cant be bothered, but to put it simply- god is above humans in a different higher realm so the rules that apply to us dont apply to him.
People like to say "if you were honest" or "we have to be honest" and then spouts pseudo-intellectualism
Dennis Prager makes CS Lewis look like an absolute genius.
Why does our existence require meaning? It's just something we have come up with because we like to have meaning and structure around our lives so we impose that on the universe. Would love there to be a God who fulfils all our wishes after death and grants us an eternity of bliss but I'm not counting on it.
Considering every other form of life as far we know doesn't seem to be bothered
by it, and just does its own thing driven by circumstance...might be a clue?????
Very nice watch - I like this format, you two complement each other nicely.
This would work well as a podcast too..
Rationality Rules, Steve and Reece, I love you guys together! And I got my DEBUNKED, just no one to play. I can't stand dennis and his misinformation laden fake university. But, I remember him with that same repetition, 'it's all made up!' And Hitch answering, in his charming, (like you guys!) way, "well dennis, I'm glad you finally get it! It's all made up!" And prager was so mad , red-faced! I believe it also had dinesh souza, lol. Old liverlips dennis is just terrified of death. That, I believe is the basis for all 'afterlife' claims. And I get it, I wanted all my pets back. Even some of my family and friends, lol. But knowing, as I feel I do, that there is no consciousness, is also comforting. Especially once we're old and have lost all our 'hotness' lol! These are GREAT! I'm so bummed I couldn't go to Faithless Forum! Only 2 states away, in AZ, too. 👍💝🥰✌
You know what else we invent so as we don't go crazy figuring out if we have purpose? We invent gods.
As an atheist, i have sympathy with Prager. Deciding whether there is a God or not is immensely important. At the moment science's best theory is that the Universe will end in chaotic, cold dust. So, ultimately, there is no meaning.
This is explored in the Gospel according to Woody Allen:
Mrs. Singer: He's been depressed. All of a sudden, he can't do anything.
Dr. Flicker: Why are you depressed, Alvy?
Mrs. Singer: Tell Dr. Flicker. It's something he read.
Dr. Flicker: Something you read, huh?
Alvy Singer: The universe is expanding.
Dr. Flicker: The universe is expanding?
Alvy Singer: Well, the universe is everything, and if it's expanding, someday it will break apart, and that will be the end of everything.
Mrs. Singer: What is that your business? He's stopped doing his homework.
Alvy Singer: What's the point?
Mrs. Singer: What has the universe got to do with it. You're here, in Brooklyn. Brooklyn is not expanding.
Dr. Flicker: It won't be expanding for billions of years yet, Alvy. And we've gotta try and enjoy ourselves while we're here. Huh? Huh? Huh? [laughs]
These guys are so smart and so silly at the same time.. iam actually impressed
If, as Prager says, one can be good without God, why do we need God for morality?
We cannot be good without God.
@@heavenbound7-7-7-7 really? Prager disagrees with you.
Okay. If I help an old lady across the road, is that not a good thing? If I save someone from drowning, is that not good?
@@petermirtitsch1235
If there is no God then who determines what is good?
@@heavenbound7-7-7-7 evolutionary imperative, and ourselves.
Why does it matter what defines "good"?
@@petermirtitsch1235
"Why does it matter what defines "good"?"
So stealing is good if I say so?
This video is one I'm saving for future reference. The Euthrypo dilemma is one of the most fascinating ideas I've encountered. I'll need to go back & view that portion again. It's just now beginning to make sense. Thanks, mates!
_"Evil thrives when good men do nothing"._
_"Satan thrives when God does nothing"._
If God were to wipe out all evil then there would be nothing left, it's in our own interest that God allows evil to exist until he finally destroys it.
@@heavenbound7-7-7-7 The god of the Bible doesn't exist. Look into his origins.
*Yahweh was introduced to Israel in a five-stage process:*
*Traditional Polytheism:* The earliest Israelites worshipped creator god El, his wife Asherah, and his sons e.g., Baal.
*Incorporation:* Yahweh was incorporated as a 2nd tier god in El’s pantheon.
*Elevation:* Yahweh and El are identified as the same deity.
*Monolatrism:* A new Yahweh-only movement emerges, and the gods of the second tier are denied.
*Monotheism:* Gods of other nations are denied, Yahweh’s power is deemed universal in scope.
*At some point in its history, El was identified with Yahweh as the same god.*
This equation is expressed clearly in Exodus 6:2-3. “And God said to Moses, “I am Yahweh. I appeared to the patriarchs as El, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them.” Other Biblical material asserts this equation. Joshua 22:22 states “the god of gods is Yahweh”. Judges 9:46 refers to “El of the covenant”.
*The Yahweh-alone movement vigorously condemn prominent Canaanite gods… except El.* ***There are zero condemnations of El in the Hebrew Bible. This makes sense if Yahweh was ultimately identified with this Canaanite creator-god.*** What’s more, archaeological evidence suggests that the Yahweh religious centers in Shiloh and Bethel were originally a place of El worship.
*El and Yahweh are attributed same characteristics.* El is depicted as a wise old man with a beard eg “You are great, O El, and your hoary beard instructs you”. Yahweh is described in the same terms (Daniel 7:9, Job 36:26, Habakkuk 3:6). Like “Kind El, the Compassionate”, Yahweh is a “merciful and gracious god”. The description of Yahweh’s dwelling place as a tent (Psalms 15:1, 27:6, 91:10) recalls the tent of El in the Canaanite narrative of Elkunirsa. Finally, both Yahweh and El are said to dwell amidst cosmic waters (Isaiah 33:20-22, Ezekiel 47:1-12, Zechariah 14:8).
*El’s wife was named Asherah. When Yahweh was identified with El, did he also inherit his wife?* In the blessings of Joseph, Genesis 49:25 contains language specific to the Asherah cult “blessings from Breast-and-Womb”. *The Bible further admits that the Israelites frequently worshipped a “Queen of Heaven”* (Jeremiah 7:18, 44:17-25). Indeed, 2 Kings 21:7 tells us that worship of Asherah happened within the Temple itself. *Finally, archaeology has uncovered several icons with the inscription “Yahweh and his Asherah”. This evidence cumulatively suggests that, in early forms of Israelite religion Yahweh was believed to have a wife.*
*The push towards monolatrism led to the eviction of the Asherah cult, whose memory may be preserved in Zechariah 5:5-11.* But this eviction created a deficit of femininity to Israelite religious expression. *To compensate, the Biblical writers began attributing feminine attributes to Yahweh (Isaiah 49:15, 46:3, 44:2,24, 42:14).*
*To induce the Israelites to stop worshipping Baal, the imagery of Baal was adopted by the Yahweh cult.* The Baal Cycle, ancient mythology on the scale of the Epic of Gilgameth, has four literary themes for the storm god. *Here are those themes, along with the Biblical text which mirrors them.*
The march of the divine warrior (Psalm 104:3 “He makes the clouds his chariot, and travels along on the wings of the wind”)
The convulsions of nature as the divine warrior manifests his power (Judges 5:5, Hab 3:10)
The return of the divine warrior to his holy mountain to assume divine kingship (Isaiah 31:4)
The utterance of the divine warrior’s voice from his palace provides rains that fertilize the earth (Jeremiah 10:13)
*Yahweh is also depicted as defeating Baal’s classic enemies:*
Baal/Yahweh defeats a seven headed dragon, Leviathan, and River (CAT 5.1, Psalm 74:13-15).
Baal/Yahweh defeats Sea (KTU 1.14, Psalm 89:10).
Baal/Yahweh defeats Death/Mot (KTU 1.4 VIII-1.6, Isaiah 25:8).
Google *"Polytheistic Roots of Israelite Religion - Fewer Lacunae."*
Watch Dr Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards and lecture 8 from 12:00 to 19:00 minutes.
Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on.
Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica. Read the article linked in the description of the video.
@@heavenbound7-7-7-7 So, because there is no evil in heaven, "there would be nothing left"?
How can you believe that it's _"in our own interest that God allows evil/suffering to exist"?_ (twisted)
Why would God wait thousands of years & allow the lives of billions of people to come & go,
_before he finally destroys evil?_ (pointless)
Excellent saying.
Smart add on.
@@heavenbound7-7-7-7 *God opened the door & and allowed Satan in to prey upon his children.*
I guess God did not think that _life was neither evil or brutal enough._ *Our odds were too good for his liking.*
If there is a perfect god, then humans are meaningless because nothing can add to god's perfection.
God can't even have a motivation to create anything outside of himself because motivation comes from things you don't have and god is complete and perfect according to theists.
Basically the fact that humans exist proves that god does not.
Somehow that video made me remember a song I heared once: 🎶 Allways look at the bright side of life... 🎶
We crave meaning but I fail to see how a god enters into that. He's presupposing god and just making a arbitrary connection between finding meaning and that god. It kinda blows my mind that we are still discussing something that should be relegated to fiction at this point. There are no compelling arguments that would suggest that we were created by god(s), and i'm just tired of hearing trite mental gymnastics that theists engage in to cope with cognitive dissonance.
@@skepticalstrom6247 IMHO, one should hold as few presuppositions as possible, due to their nature of being _presupposed_ rather than concluded.
There are a few things we can't help but presuppose (like existence continuing to behave tomorrow the same way it did yesterday), but again... One should try to avoid presuppositions.
The christian paradox is such that, if there IS a god and we can talk to him, christianity would collapse. if you could talk to god, what would you need churches and priests for?
Well, the purpose of my life is making "life" a good "place" to live in (for me and the people I care).
And what's good and what's not is discussable.
The meaning of life is entirely subjective, there is no "one size fits all" answer. As a nihilist and emotionless prosocial psychopath I accept and embrace the fact that there is no inherent meaning, value, or purpose to my life, unless I choose to assign life those attributes. I exist only because I exist, and I am completely at peace with my existence.
Ultimately then it doesn't matter if you exist. Your existence is just atoms in motion and nothing more. This is what the implications of atheism leads to.
@@Justas399 No, absolutely wrong.
Having no ultimate meaning is not the same as having no meaning at all.
My life has meaning NOW! It has meaning to me, it has meaning to my freinds and family, it has meaning to every person I meet and interact with.
I do not and will never understand theists' obsession with ultimate this and eternal that and absolute the other thing. Just seems like arrogance to me. Theists just can't deal with the fact that they are insignificant in the big picture. Theists want desperately to be more important then we are.
@@Justas399 does that scare you? Because as an adult it shouldn't.
@@walterbrooks2329 I understand you have to tell yourself your life has meaning when the reality is that if atheism is true, it doesn't.
How do you deal with the death of a loved one believing you will never see them again?
@@_nebulousthoughts If I thought my life had no ultimate meaning i would not be a Christian. I would live for pleasure as much as I could. I would follow Ayn Rand's advice:
“Live totally for self; no one holds you accountable! Indeed, it would be foolish to do anything else, for life is too short to jeopardize it by acting out of anything but pure self-interest. Sacrifice for another person would be stupid.”
if god doesnt exist, you become free to CHOOSE the meaning of your OWN life.
Just like meeeee lol
@@Jspore-ip5rk Me to . .
@@ceceroxy2227 What point, that people kill people. As old as humanity itself, I would guess. Groups will fight each other for resources, space, power and domination, thus, religion. I am an atheist and have no desire to kill anyone. As long as no one wants to kill me or my loved ones. Even then, I'll let the court system do its job.
BTW, Htler had the support of Rome. He has visited Pope Puis XII. And the German's belt was printed on it. "Gott mit uns". No need to translate this I guess.
He said "Humans crave for a meaning or purpose, therefore God exists." Doesn't that imply that _we_ created and invented God?
I would love to hear christians definition of _meaning._ I'm pretty sure they won't define it the same way we do, if they do define it in the first place.
Nice t-Shirts :)
Saw them in London a few days ago. One of the best live shows I've been to.
Brilliant fun!
I LOVE this video, the 2 of you work or "play" so well together and off of each others ideas, it was great to see. It's refreshing to see you debunk all these arguments in a considerate manner with actual FACTUAL arguments, and don't just take the theistic approach and say "First you have to believe there is a God, before you can understand my arguments," when it's their arguments that are supposed to be what makes you believe. I would have to disagree though, I do think a meaningless God or any person COULD create something meaningful, BUT they themselves would NOT be the ones applying that meaning, those that see/use that creation in some way are the ones that have applied meaning to it. If a person created a wheel and had no need, reason, or purpose for it then it is meaningless to them, but a traveling merchant comes along sees it and uses it to move their heavy cart full of goods easier and faster, that creation now has meaning to that merchant. ONLY EACH person can assign meaning to something and ONLY for themselves. As Prager himself says, people can make up meaning and purpose, what makes him believe that HUMANS didn't make up God and religion to fulfill their desire for meaning and purpose? The way he states things with absolution, I don't know if he's trying to get me to believe or trying to make himself believe, maybe both, if he believed with absolution, why would he argue/debate with others if he wasn't still questioning his belief too? When 2 people argue both believe they are right and each of them argues/debates to prove to the other person and to themselves that they are right, so I would say Prager arguing/debating God and religion is him trying to prove to himself he is right, which means he doesn't have absolution in his own belief. Good and bad are just like meaning and purpose, only each person can decide for themselves what is good or bad, I think killing is bad, but to a psychopath it's good.
I don't need a deity to find meaning in life. Dennis is just butthurt that everyone doesn't think like he does & believe him when he says a invisible man lives in the sky😂
You assumed Prager was a christian many times in your video. He is actually jewish. But one couldn't tell from his videos as he always speaks about an unspecified - but clearly abrahamic - god.
Yeah I had no idea he was Jewish. He seems to cater to a Christian audience so I made the assumption. My bad.
@@castlesandcuriosities Actually that' s an interesting lens to analyze Prager's discourse on religion: the way he cultivates very specific imprecisions and vaguenesses to make his videos compatible with the conservative evangelical right-wing crowd.
Furthermore i always said that the greatest quality of judaism was that jews never try to convince or convert people to their religion. They never rang my door on a sunday morning. So it's weird to see a jewish man go out of his way to proselytize for classical theism in broad terms without ever addressing the specificities of his own beliefs. Does he really think that a god, any god - as long as it's not a "foreign" god - is always better than no god? Or is there a more cynical purpose at play here, like promoting religion in the hope that it will foster more conservative and reactionary values?
You forgot the link to that history channel of your co-host. Where is it, it’s not in the description? (I failed to find it) This was a great discussion, loved the concluding thoughts!
A minor point: Dennis Prager isn't a Christian; he's Jewish.
And that's interesting because Jews don't generally believe in an afterlife.
@@darlenegriffith6186 they don't have hell, they do have an afterlife
Maybe I'm projecting, but I just don't believe most religious people even truly believe.. Some of them may think they acutally believe and some know they don't believe, but I think if you put a gun to a head of those who think they truly belive in an afterlife and think they believe they're going to heaven, most of them would reveal to you and to themselves, their will to live is stronger than their believe in their place in an afterlife