stop confusing religion with spirituality!

It really depends who you ask. If you are a left wing or a liberal person you would often say no but if you are a right wing or a conservative/libertarian you would say yes. It really depends because people will have different interpretations on how they define America as an identity

Of course atheism is most likely just as old as humans have existed, perhaps even older than religious beliefs….

I spent many years being very religious, and when I left the church, at first I thought I would need another church to be happy and fulfilled. Years have passed and I don't attend nor miss going to the church, and I believe having a more secular society would be helpful for everyone. But since I have religious roots, I still can't figure out how to raise a kid without ever talking about religion. How would you explain God to a child, being secular? I still haven't reached the point where religion is 100% not an issue

Also someone else also carved into the stone "Alexmenos is fauthful"

So... why are you as someone religious are so touched by this till the point of sharing it via vid? You create 'us vs them' mentality, where 'we are the hurted ones' and 'they are the bad ones'. So precisely what you report them doing. Bravo then, no lesson learned :/

What bullshit is this? Nobody says that Turkey is the exception rather than the rule when it comes to secular countries that are Muslim. There are many countries that are dominated by Muslims and are still secular. However, many of those so-called "secular" Muslim countries have eradicated Islam from the government and all forms daily life and activity. Kosovan, for instance, has implemented laws against Islamic activities. Furthermore, a Muslim country is not necessarily am Islamic country. Muslim countries do not have to follow Islamic laws. There are many such as Indonesia but Indonesia has recognised many religions in the country, not just Islam and many countries are not strictly. Also, why are all these countries on your list on the fringes of the Muslim world. Why isn't Pakistan or Iran or Egypt or Morocco on the list. Please do a bit more research before you delve into it.

Tremendously under-appreciated channel. Let’s get these views up! I predict this channel will be a hallmark of scholarly KZbin channel

Slavic mythology could have had a million mythical creatures, gods, and heroes

Very nice!!! Good!!!❤❤❤❤

"Always I have and will Scatter god and gold..." I am having trouble looking up this quote 1:45

My full review - Who Wrote the Bible: kzbin.info/www/bejne/p2GqnYJ3qr6Drrs. Thank you for your likes and comments!

This video should have much more likes

I left Islam after watching this video 😢

This anti enlightenment position, that blames Marxism and Diderot or whatever type of rationalization, is the decay of french philosophy. I liked your videos using Victoria Volkins and all, but you sound like all other french post-Marxist or post-modern thinkers that think Engels was wrong, blaming positivism and rationalization.

That is not on page 19

In the most recent testament it says serpent

Religion has become so prominent because it is the easiest way to find the existential truth’s that man so eagerly craves. They hear of the god and his afterlife and they feel comfort, comfort in knowing that God and existence loves him, and he sighs in relief, almost like a drug. It is for this reason that he defends god with his all. Religion is an opium that man so willingly indulges. Now who would let A fellow man fall into such an unhealthy addiction.

there is a clear bias here trying to relate the scientific progress of a nation with how atheistic that nation is while brushing over so many crucial nuances that explain why the Islamic world is in this horrible state ..starting of but not limited to colonialism

It's almost, almost like this religion was totally manmade

Al Maa'arri actually wrote a book of peotry.. it was supposed to be a critical and competing work of poetry that rivaled the Quran, and when the critics said that it did not go viral, he said it's not his fault his book was not editted and perfected in mosques for more than 300 years. unfortunately most of his work was destroyed at the end of his life.

404 historical Jesus not found

Catholicism is not Christianity Christianity isn't a religion. Jesus wasn't catholic.?

You mix law with grace

Rom.8:2

They all have law in common. Paul taught the gospel of grace that Jesus died on the cross to give us?

Freud based his narrative not on science, but on his own brain farts . Yet, he was "wise" enough to invoke scientific evidence where it was none . Safe and efficient like the vaxx .

I am happy to be french and to be able to criticize Islam, have fun about Christianism and criticize Judaism. I would be in prison in USA.

Although you would never want to live in a communist society, they certainly did a good job of protecting children from religion. No community deserves to have a "pyramid schemer" priest preying in hard working people.

"What is the documentary hypothesis? This is the liberal/critical view which denies that Moses wrote Genesis to Deuteronomy. It teaches that various anonymous authors compiled these five books (plus other portions of the Old Testament) from centuries of oral tradition, up to 900 years after Moses lived (if, in this view, he even existed). These hypothetical narrators are designated as follows: J (standing for what the documentary hypothesists would term Jahwist) supposedly lived about 900-850 BC. He/she/they allegedly gathered the myths and legends of Babylon and other nations, and added them to the ‘camp-fire stories’ of the Hebrews, producing those biblical passages where the Hebrew letters YHWH (‘Jehovah’) are used as the name of God. E (standing for Elohist) supposedly lived about 750-700 BC in the northern kingdom (Israel), and wrote those passages where ’Elohim is used as the word for God. D supposedly wrote most of Deuteronomy, probably the book found in the temple in Jerusalem in 621 BC. (2 Kings 22:8). P supposedly represents a Priest (or priests) who lived during the exile in Babylon and allegedly composed a code of holiness for the people. Various editors R (from German Redakteur) supposedly put it all together. The idea of multiple authorship of these books was first proposed by Jean Astruc in Paris in 1753. However, the foremost exponent was Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918), who ‘restated the Documentary Hypothesis … in terms of the evolutionary view of history which was prevalent in philosophical circles at the time’. He claimed that those parts of the Old Testament that dealt with sophisticated doctrine (one God, the Ten Commandments, the tabernacle, etc.) were not truth revealed by the living God, but were ideas that evolved from lower stages of thinking, including polytheism, animism, ancestor worship, etc. Hence the ‘need’ to find or fabricate later authors. One of the main arguments was that writing had supposedly not been invented yet at the time of Moses. Thus the documentary hypothesis undermines the authenticity of the Genesis Creation/Fall/Flood accounts, as well as the whole patriarchal history of Israel. It presupposes that the whole of the Old Testament is one gigantic literary fraud, and calls into question not only the integrity of Moses, but also the trustworthiness/divinity of Jesus. No wonder the critics have embraced it so warmly! Was Moses J, E, D, P, or R? Answer: He was none of the above. Rather, Moses himself was both writer and editor of the Pentateuch, and these five books were composed by him in about 1400 BC , not by unknowns at the time of the Exile. This does not mean that Moses did not use other written sources available to him (see later), or that he wrote the last few verses of Deuteronomy 34 that record his death. Talmudic (Rabbinic Jewish) tradition has always been that these were added, under divine inspiration, by Joshua. There is no external evidence at all in support of J, E, D, P, or R. What were their names? What else did these alleged literary savants write? History, both Hebrew and secular, knows nothing of them. They exist only in the fertile imaginations of the inventors of the documentary hypothesis.What about the different words used for God? Let us consider this in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. The word ’Elohim is used for God 25 times in Genesis 1:1-2:4a.11 It has the idea of an awesome and faithful Being, having creative and governing power, majesty and omnipotence, who is above the material world He created. It is a lofty title (= ‘God’) and is the appropriate word for Moses to have used for the first factual report of God’s creative activities. In Genesis chapter 2 from verse 4, the Hebrew uses the letters YHWH to refer to God. Sometimes translated ‘Jehovah’, it is more often translated ‘LORD’ (in small capitals), and is the most commonly used term for God in the Old Testament (6,823 times). It means ‘the One who always was, now is, and ever shall be’ and is the deeply personal name of God. It is therefore used in His personal and covenant relationships with people. Genesis 2:4b ff is the detailed account of how God made Adam and Eve, and of the setting He prepared for them. Here they were meant to live and work in loving covenantal fellowship with Him and with each other. It was entirely appropriate therefore that Moses should have used YHWH in writing this section of Genesis. In Genesis 2, YHWH is joined to ‘Elohim to form the compound name YHWH-’Elohim (= the Lord God). This identifies the covenant God YHWH as being one and the same as ’Elohim, the almighty creator. There is no logical reason (particularly any based on the term used for God) to ascribe this account to any other author(s). The same principles apply in the rest of Genesis and throughout the Old Testament. The JEDP system is self-contradictory, as its proponents need to break verses into sections and even credit parts of sentences (that use more than one term for God) to different writers. Such a hotchpotch would be unique in ancient Middle Eastern literature. The ‘scholarship’ used to promote the documentary hypothesis would be laughed out of court if applied to any other ancient book!Conclusion Ultimately, the author of Genesis was God, working through Moses. This does not mean that God used Moses as a ‘typewriter’. Rather, God prepared Moses for his task from the day he was born. When the time came, Moses had all the necessary data, and was infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit as to what he included and what he left out. This is consistent with known history, and with the claims and principles of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21). On the other hand there is no historical evidence, and no spiritual or theological basis whatsoever for the deceptive JEDP hypothesis. Its teaching is completely false; the ‘scholarship’ that promotes it is totally spurious. Propped up by the theory of evolution, it exists solely to undermine the authority of the Word of God."

Many can believe or have opinions for whatever they personally believe.. I will not try to change anyone's mind.. That is a personal thing for the individual to decide if he or she would accept or not, the Christian faith in toto.. As for me and my family, we will serve and believe in the Lord Almighty God, HIS Son Jesus Christ and read HIS word from the Holy Bible as it is written..

Freud was right

Marx was right about religion being a product of conditions, but it’s much bigger than economics, it’s about existentialism. Humans naturally wonder about life and the universe, and apparently religion is the most comforting answer, but with proper scientific training perhaps this force can be overcome.

But online it says that they celebrated Christmas as new year in the soviet union as a public holiday

Sending infinite gratitude for this.

Subscribed! 👍 apostate alladin

I always take a while to watch these videos. I definitely love all the new information I get out of them, but man they're depressing, and this video is particularly heavy on the bitter without any sweet to go around. To be honest I don't think I have a strong opinion on the first "real atheist" here - my gut wants to go with Vanini. One could easily argue him a pantheist, looking into more detail, to be honest I don't put much stock in calling historical figures pantheist on what were likely analogies meant to make their views more comprehensible to their contemporaries. Saying something like "the Earth itself is the creator" or "God is natural law" or such doesn't necessarily represent a sincere, thought-through viewpoint they're holding, but just sounds to me like rhetoric meant to convey that they don't feel these concepts are lofty/special. The real atheism is the friends we made along the way! But obviously, trying to call one of them the first documented atheist is silly semantics, and to be honest, as far as their impact on thought and culture goes, the simple fact they rejected the prevailing beliefs of their culture is infinitely more meaningful than if they believed in some sort of hand-waved irrelevant-to-life higher power, or took the full final step into assuming nothing supernatural (and even then, it depends a lot on what they felt fit into the "super"natural bucket in the first place). Especially since the "documented" part there is more key than "atheist" - I imagine many freethinkers in eras past found it easier to tell people that they "didn't believe in a god that X" rather than just saying "didn't believe in god" in an attempt to focus the conversation on something practical and not just anger people to no benefit. Once it becomes a matter of deciding like "who was the first 16-17th century European to put this specific sentiment in a way that we'd associate with a certain belief system now" you're trying to unravel so many layers of semantics and rhetoric that it gets pretty damn blurry. But that's not to say I didn't find it interesting to hear about all of them! Still very proud to be your patron. If you're not too busy, I'd actually like to hear your thoughts on my suspicion of "deism/pantheism as rhetoric" being a common case throughout history - it simply having been more convenient for many of these thinkers to re-frame god than to deny him, since the end result was identical (removing any mandates from religion on people and culture).

western church triggered the crusades, imperialism worldwide, is centralised and has a leading figure never to be questioned. orthodox church is full of saints that rebelled against authorities, has no central authority figure, and more then 30 thousand churches were destroyed during the soviet union which is the reason why it could not spread and grow as fast since then and recovery curve naturally is lower before L shape starts.

its the pop size

Interestingly, Abdus Salam was an Ahmadijja, so by many he's not even considered by muslim. Even his tombstone was damaged because of that.

guys lets not comment without really knowing what they where criticizing. my first reaction to this video is that contains some "unexplained facts" that will depict mutazilites as skeptics (if unexplained). they say quran was created but they dont mean this book was made up by some arabs during 600s. they said that to indicate quran isnt eternal (according to them only god is immortal/eternal without beginning etc) and quran just like universe angels paradise etc is created (comes later, has beginning) so you should know that no muslim denied quran as a word of god but they debated over nature of it. but their logic was short-lived and nothing more so they lost higher ground to other schools of thought. moreover, many those "great" minds clearly sucked in philosophy/theology since they criticized shit that answered in sunnah and quran or just by simple thinking. such as burden in quran God said that no man had a given burden that he couldnt bear so quran is filled with various examples of it. the worst thing can happen to man were happened to people who came before them. it is like saying in perfect capitalist system you couldnt accomplish a shit. we have examples of who achieved it one way or another. or the meanings of hajj pilgrimage. some rituals have metaphorical reason. some has spiritual. you dont need a big brain to say that. or the necessity of some rituals: guys let me break down it for y'all. daily prayer = you get up early, do some physical exercise good for your health. you wash yourself before (mostly) every prayer good for your overall health (especially when the medicine isnt developed as of today) more washing means less bacteria means strong and good health. also daily prayer force you to create a daily routine which is essential to be successful in life. so even these seemed meaningless to some great medieval minds we can see their positive impact now. their "arguments" are nothing more than empty discussion and rhetoric you would encounter in pubs and there is no analytical thinking in that.

Would you do a video on the Catholic church reformers way before German Martin Luther, such as Czech Jan Hus and English John Wycliffe ? Do you consider them proto-atheists?

Apostate Alladin got me here. Subscribed. Also love the last video on atheism in Europe. Greetings from Belgrade Serbia

I learned a lot thank you

This was true Eslom. That encouraged freethinking ❤❤❤

Why did you promote a book by Jim Al Khalili, a Popular historian whose works greatly contradict the works of actual historians of that time period?

That was a very balanced take, very interesting!