6 Common Atheist Myths

[@HolyKoolaid]

Sorry we had some audio issues early on. Fortunately, Eric was able to get them fixed later in the stream. Woohoo Eric!

[@alananimus9145]

7:23 for starters not all Christian's believe Jesus is god. The problem with saying Hitler wasn't a Christian is that it assumes Christianity is a coherent monolith. He is literally making the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

[@AlanWinterboy]

Shit happens. Thanks for your efforts. Unfortunately, the audio kills during the most interesting-to-me questions.

[@ewenyap3018]

the audio is all over the place, you should run this through a post normalisation program....its litteraly unwaatchable going from super low to super loud, i allmost blew a speaker...i dont know at which point the audio is fixed, but i stopped watching at 34 minutes.. this is a very interesting video, so please fix the audio :)

[@jrpence]

I've heard some live streams and podcasts have each speaker have a backup of their own audio. That way, if the main audio becomes unusable you can reconstruct based off the backups.

[@FakingANerve]

I should have read the comments before hitting play. If my stomach were more full... 😳 haha.

[@flysmask]

Honestly, while I appreciate the history lesson, I don't think it's that important in the context of Hitler. Whether he truly believed he was Christian or not didn't matter as much as the fact that he used religion as a backing to his crazy claims and plans. This is the ultimate problem with religion. Because it is considered Devine and perfect and the literal word of God, it is therefore infallible. Who are you as a mere man to compete in value, moral and practices against the word of God. You have no idea, the thing that made me shift negatively in my view of religion is when I watched an Islamic scholar debating I believe a secular scholar about morality. I remember very clearly, he said along the lines of: who said your definition of morality is correct? God is perfect, you are not, why should you use your morality to judge God's demands. This is the real point, where I truly understood how dangerous religion is. And why we really need to work harder on proving its very human and NOT-Devine roots.

[@rosemadder5547]

Interesting... i totally agree

[@skepticusmaximus184]

Yes. Whether Hitler claimed to be/was/or wasn't Christian/Catholic, and/or the pope was or wasn't an obviously in alliance to Nazism, its clear they were both fair weather friends who played in a political diplomatic drama. They may have feared each other's competitive power and courted their mutual cooperation, or at least 'honesty among thieves and tyrants'. Resolving the ACTUAL beliefs of such individuals, in this this historical context seems anywhere from daunting to futile.

[@robertx8020]

I agree And yes, Hitler silenced christians but did he silence them BECAUSE they were christians? Or did he silence EVERYONE who spoke against him? I would go with the latter! And in that case the "see? he was against christians because he killed them" holds no water Btw most ppl in Germany were christians of some sort and a lot of them voted for Hitler or supperted him.

[@WorldCupWillie]

I don't think Hitler was a Christian but he was a theist. Also, didn't he believe that humans were specially created?

[@kcshaun78]

Honestly religion is behind most wars. I hope someday everyone in the world will get along. Weather the instigator really believed religion was behind their motives I don’t believe. They just used people’s love and fear of their religion to get people to believe what they are saying.

[@goodenergi]

I love being able to speak factually. I had a couple of these misconceptions and i love to see them ripped apart. I definitely believed the connection between the pagan and religious holidays. I need to research further into that. As atheists, we need to seek truth. Not just the truth that lines up with our way of thinking.

[@slevinchannel7589]

Honestly, more on my mind: Have you seen 'The Past, Present, And Future Of Work - SOME MORE NEWS'? I was surpirsed just how much 'for the average Person' and how 'universal' this video is. Legit: who cares what political Orientation this guy has? His videos about Work and Unions and also Inflation are Universal.

[@hellohsaytin6813]

There are many aspects of christian traditions that were taken and adapted from pagan traditions, in order to help assimilate more people into christianity. Watch Religion For Breakfast, that guy is a legit religious history master, unlike the random yahoo in this video. To be honest, i think this guy just wants to go against the grain so badly that just being atheist wasnt enough, he had to go against the grain of the atheists as well, and form opinions that he is touting as facts, that not one other truly educated person in the world believes.

[@slevinchannel7589]

@@hellohsaytin6813 Your comment is very pseudointellectual but ironically accuses others of being pseudointellecutal. Yuo downtalk Holy Koolaid,which is arrogant enough, but the logic-errors in your very last sentence truly set the deal

[@JonS]

19:18 Nazism was not "a form of violent Communism". Hitler hated Communism, and the Nazis fought street battles with their enemies, the German Communists, in the 1930s. The "Socialist" bit in "National Socialist German Workers’ Party" was propaganda to win support from German labor organizations (plus the meaning word "Socialism" was not exactly locked down in the 1920s in the way it is today). The Nazis were hyper-nationalists obsessed with military and state power and social control. Unlike those of the Marxists, Nazi policies did not seek economic levelling, the eradication of class or private property or the redistribution of wealth. This is why they won over so much of the German aristocracy. Before moving to America two decades ago, I had never heard this claim that the Nazis were Communists. Yeah, I know Communism has become a byword for any bad government in this country, but in most of the world, the Nazis are considered to be extreme, authoritarian right wing, as opposed to extreme, authoritarian left wing of Communism.

[@CorbinSimpson]

Yes. The correct translation of Nazi economic policy is "privatization": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization

[@stephenhill8790]

Those that don't understand where communism came from and like to join it to Nazis usually are very right wing anyway so often try to say this

[@markhackett2302]

Yup, Naziism is NOT communism, and the night of crystal knives was removing communism. What ONeil is doing here is repeating idiocy that doesn't know what either Naziism or Communism is. I also point out that according to its name, the DPRK is a democratic republic, whilst being neither.

[@JonS]

@@markhackett2302 it was Thomas who said that, not O'Neil

[@markhackett2302]

@@JonS No, it was ONeil who said it, not Thomas. Tim ONeil.

[@hodsinay6969]

Thanks a lot about showing those myths. I deconverted from Judaism less then a year ago, and your videos helped me a lot with diconstructing stuff before and after my deconvertion (I probably watched more than 80% of your videos). After I became an atheist I was tempted to go with the narrative which is the least favorable to religion, and I bought on to some of those narratives. And videos like this are a good thing both to correct me on stuff I was wrong about, but more importantly reminding me to always be curious, but don't drink the koolaid, even if it feels like it's coming from your "side"

[@erwinw.thiessen6967]

P

[@francescoghizzo]

I'm curious, is it true that, as it is frequently said, in the case of Judaism, respecting the tradition and performing rites is more important that the actual belief? In other words., is it true that many jews enjoy following jewish traditions but don't necessary believe in god?

[@hodsinay6969]

@@francescoghizzo I don't know about how many, but I can say that the specific sect I was a part of they always said that your beliefs and intentions are much more important than what you do, in contrast to what other sects say that the most important thing is to do exactly what god told us to do. It's the difference between "hasidim" and "litaim". So on the community level you must believe, and then there is a difference between what's the important part. But still, I know that some people say that doing the rituals is more important than believing, and some say that even if they will stop believing they will still keep the rituals to be able to keep being in there community. And some really follow through with this and do all the stuff without believing in god. And there are a lot that believe in god and say this is enough because doing everything he told us to do is too hard. And many do some rituals because of the community (like circumcision which most people in Israel do even if they don't believe or don't do anything else) I know that I only blabbered and didn't give any real data, but that's what I can tell from my experience in living all my life in an environment of most of the people I know being religious in Israel.

[@francescoghizzo]

@@hodsinay6969 so there are actually a lot of different opinions and interpretations!

[@hodsinay6969]

@@francescoghizzo there is a nice proverb that's being told all the time in the circles of people I was in "two Jews three opinions". The fact that there are a lot of opinions is something really true and we are laughing at ourselves about it all the time. And about interpretation, if someone asks about what the bible says according to the Jewish tradition usually the answer is "mahloket" which means that there is a disagreement about it.

[@NJ-wb1cz]

I think determining if Hitler was personally Christian, or a "correct" Christian is a bit useless. It doesn't matter much. What matters is, he used religion and used Christianity and used Christian drives to promote his own ideology. Same as Stalin used Atheism to impose his ideology

[@markhackett2302]

If Hitler wasn't a Christian because he said bad things about the RCC then so are all protestants, and Hitler didn't do any different from Martin Luther who created the Lutherian church after and because of his criticisms of other christians.

[@andrewharper1609]

Personally I don't care if Hitler was a Christian or whether he was an atheist, because that argument completely misses the point. The fact that he did horrific stuff is beyond argument because he did. Neither sideways to associate with him so the question is which belief set reduces the probability of his atrocities being repeated. Christianity has been affiliated with probably the majority of the European Nationalist movements over the years whereas atheism hasn't. And let's face it religious hymns suck, prayer doesn't work and Christians killed each other quite happily for centuries before Communism was even a thing. Christian crusaders attacked Constantinople, the British and French slaughtered one another for centuries before the Entente Cordiale and both supposedly Christian. Not to mention Northern Ireland. Religion is just garbage that humanity has failed to put in the trash.

[@NJ-wb1cz]

@@markhackett2302 yeah, but I don't even mean in in some partisan sense. By forcing Hitler into some team or out of some team as some sort of cartoonish token of evil instead of a human like any of us, we're losing the ability to actually understand him and learn any lessons from him other than banning words and superficially similar ideologies

[@vikruus7997]

Exactly, in any other conversation about this, I wager that almost everyone watching is always careful to state its NOT the individual "christian/moslem/hindu/etc" that's the problem but the INSTITUTION that is the problem, but the Hitler card is conveniently used to de-rail any real conversation. Throw the HITLER card on the table, and everyone just seems to lose contact with reality. Suddenly, as in this case, it IS about the INDIVIDUAL and not about the INSTITUTION.

[@deductivereasoning4257]

Stalin came 1st so how could Hitler use the same playbook? And it is no coincidence that Stalin used who he did. But the poster is right, it doesn't matter. No history does, only to pseudo intellectuals is contrived history a subject equivalent to empirical math...

[@alohaohana901]

Thomas, when you were a Christian sitting in church, looking at everyone else, did you ever think to yourself "I wonder if these people are actually holier than I am. I wonder if these people are really spiritually mature as a result of sanctification. I wonder why I am not as good and holy and mature as they are?" I thought that in church all the time...then I came to the conclusion that everyone else is looking at me wondering the same thing. It's all such a nauseating fraud isn't it?

[@zemorph42]

Almost everyone. I've met a few who definitely thought they were holier than the rest of us; one said so explicitly. A few others claimed to be prophets, or otherwise had a direct line to God, and I met a homeless person who claimed to be Jesus Christ Himself! I'm sure there are a few in every congregation.

[@skwills1629]

It would be Impossible for Me to Ask that when I was Younger. I Grew up in The Churches Of Christ. Not a Pentecostal or evangelicals Church. I never Referred to Myself as "Sanctified" or Think the people Around me were supposed to be Holier than I am. I also never Prayed to Invite Jesus into My Heart, never Got Saved at a Specific Moment, and never referred to Jesus as My Personal Lord and Saviour. I don't even Know what Pentecostals Mean exactly by "Sanctification" but it seems some sort of Individual specific Change God does, Which is Profoundly Felt but in The Moment. The Churches Of Christ say You simply Read the Bible, Study what it teaches, and Live he way You should. We are not "Sanctified" like that. The term is used as it is in The Bible but simply referred to the Fact that You have chosen to be baptised and Wal Are Christ and are thus Set Apart from the Way of the World. it is Entirely Voluntary and While God is Involved it is not Really some sort of specific Change Separate from Baptism. For want of a better term, it is more a Legal Status than a Medical Procedure. Because You Agreed to Walk with God through Christ and have met the legal Requirements You are now Recognied as being Separate from the World. It doesn't Actually Change You in a Physical Sense, though it can be Powerful as an Ideological One. But I doubt I'd see it as One Person being More Holy than I am over it.

[@ddavidjeremy]

I would have a hard time believing that these early pioneers of science would say that the church was not a significant source of intimidation standing in the way of progress. Just because they didn't barbecue anyone in particular wouldn't make the belief that they were capable of such deplorable char-broiled barbarism any less real. It was about suppressing all new ideas that were not biblical in nature. Scientific and Philisophic alike. Great interview. It has certainly inspired me to look deeper into the topics discussed here.

[@c.guydubois8270]

Yeah friend, the last recorded act of the inquisition occured 100 years before my birth... Those Bastards..

[@markhackett2302]

It was only when he gave up on God being the cause (perfect God = perfect spheres) that Kepler got his law. Until then he kept trying to fit the observations to circles because God was perfect, and so were circles.

[@seratoxin3825]

@@c.guydubois8270 they're killing people for promoting science today. it never ended.

[@historyforatheists9363]

"I would have a hard time believing that these early pioneers of science would say that the church was not a significant source of intimidation standing in the way of progress. Just because they didn't barbecue anyone in particular wouldn't make the belief that they were capable of such deplorable char-broiled barbarism any less real." The problem here is that if you look at the Church's attitude toward what we call science, there was no sign they were even likely to to apply "char-broiled barbarism" to anyone for speculation about the physical world. As I noted in the video, there was a centuries-old principle called the "Two Book Doctrine", where the "Book of God" and the "Book of Nature" were both equally valid and complimentary sources of truth. This left a very, very wide degree of leeway for anyone examining the physical world, as it was seen as illuminating the "Book of God" by expanding the "Book of Nature". Even when the latter seemed to contradict the former, the emphasis was on finding how to reconcile them, often by reinterpreting "the Book of God". The idea that the Inquisition was constantly scrutinising the work of scientists ready to burn at any provocation is fantasy. They had little to no problem with science and were actually themselves usually highly scientifically literate. The Galileo Affair is often held up as typical, when actually it was highly exceptional. And it had more to do with theology and politics than science anyway.

[@ddavidjeremy]

@History for Atheists Fascinating. I'm certainly willing to suspend my suppositions in light of your statement. I am admittedly biased as I do not hold the Catholic Church in high regard as a result of their more recent transgressions. We shouldn't need anything but facts when engaging apologists. I'd rather leave the non fact based statements to my interlocutors. Thanks for the comment and the interview again.

[@crispymidget8531]

I'm always down to learn and correct my errors in knowledge. I think that is the true spirit of skepticism.

[@leebarnett2610]

I learned more from this discussion than I have learned in the last month! Thanks!

[@gullyfoyle3253]

Great content, SO informative and eye opening. Really appreciate the opportunity to see this and have misconceptions I believed corrected, thank-you! 'I wanna believe as many true things as possible and as few untrue.'

[@slevinchannel7589]

Holy Koolaid is great but what about Hbomberguy and Sir Sic?

[@SCS-1964]

You just cannot ignore these two actual statements by Hitler in speeches he gave to the German Christian citizenry. >>>>>>>>>>>> We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people. ---Adolf H. in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928 We were convinced that the people's needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out. -Adolf H. in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933 This statement clearly refutes modern Christians who claim Hitler as favoring atheism/paganism.

[@Theadrianreason]

German citizen here. Even tho the catholics didnt like the nazis, they liked whatever they had with them and still fight for the concordat to be valid to this day. From wiki "After the Second World War, it was initially disputed whether the Reich Concordat would continue to exist because it prescribed the confessional school. During the preliminary deliberations on Article 7 of the Basic Law (education and religious instruction), repeated applications were made to incorporate the provisions of the Reich Concordat into the Basic Law. However, the motions did not go through, and the concept of Catholic religious instruction, which is emphasized in the Reich Concordat, was not used in the Basic Law. As Carlo Schmid reported in his memoirs, the "Nazi-friendly attitude of certain sections of the Catholic hierarchy in Germany" during the National Socialist period was also discussed. The problem was then hidden in the general formulation of Article 123 of the Basic Law on the continued validity of law and contracts. This article of the Basic Law declares all state treaties concluded by the German Reich to be valid if they meet certain formal requirements. The Reich Concordat was implicitly recognized with Article 123 Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law, without it having to be listed. One of the reasons, according to Schmid, was that if the concordat were to remain in force, the dioceses in the eastern regions of the German Reich would be treated by the Vatican as dioceses in Germany as long as they were only under Polish administration but had not (yet) been formally ceded."

[@ladyaj7784]

This was incredibly insightful. I hadn't heard about the complicated catholic/nazi relationship from the atheists OR the church. Thank you for the education!

[@alexmorgan2148]

All I can say is thank you so much for posting this video. Thank you for correcting many misconceptions I personally held, and thank you for helping improve other people's understanding.

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

Religion is fine with science, if science happens to say something that could agree with part of religious Dogma. Otherwise it definitely is a conflict model.

[@historyforatheists9363]

That is only sometimes true. As I noted in the video, for most of Christian history there was plenty of leeway to adjust and revise *religious* doctrine to fit science. The way the Bible verses that indicated a flat earth were interpreted to accommodate the Greek model of a spherical earth is a clear example of this. Some forms of Christianity became much more rigid, however, and restricted this capacity. But that was a fairly recent development, with the rise of Biblical Literalism in the Protestant sphere in the nineteenth century.

[@jerrylong6238]

@@historyforatheists9363 Religion is the opposite of science.

[@historyforatheists9363]

@@jerrylong6238 Define "religion". Then define "science".

[@markhackett2302]

@@historyforatheists9363 And so you replied with a content free claim "it is only sometimes true". Odd that applies EVERYWHERE.

[@markhackett2302]

@@historyforatheists9363 Why?

[@bolanmoonward3483]

There are very few "coherent" Christian beliefs, in the sense of being universal among them, and none that are sound. Therefore, I see as a "Christian" anyone who is a theist and adheres to a "Christ" figure. Thus, I reject the argument of the guest that Adolf Hitler was not a "Christian'. I'd grant that he was not an "orthodox Christian", and was antagonistic to any Christian establishments. That some Christians opposed him is quite beside the point. I'm not claiming that Hitler was a Christian; I don't know. I'm just rejecting this guest's arguments against that claim.

[@historyforatheists9363]

There are several Christian beliefs which are central to any form of Chrisitanity. Some Christians may not hold all of them, but to claim someone who didn't believe ANY of them was somehow "a Christian" stretches the definiton of the word into total meaninglessness. Hitler didn't believe Jesus was God, didn't believe in the Virgin Birth, didn't believe in the Resurrection, the Redemption, the Second Coming, the Last Judgement or Heaven and Hell. Find me a form of Christianity that accommodates the lack of belief in any of those key ideas.

[@El-Silver]

there are core chirstian doctrines jesus the son of god was born did miracles died for our sins and resurected from the dead hitler rejected all of these he didnt even belive jesus was the messiah (so the chirst) if he was a chirstian the word has no meaning

[@markhackett2302]

@@historyforatheists9363 No, that is not a central form of belief. JWs are Christian, but don't believe in the Trinity.

[@markhackett2302]

@@El-Silver Hitler believed Jesus was Christ. That makes Hitler a Christian.

[@El-Silver]

@@markhackett2302 except he didnt since the messiah was a jewish term he believed that jesus was just a dude who was a great anti semite but got killed and failed at his mission.

[@rosemadder5547]

I love to question my views on... everything and really appreciate those who do the same or inspire me in that. Like you guys and this channel in general 👍 haters in this sense are just fearful of their foundation being shaken... shook? Shaken...

[@PrometheanRising]

The point about Stalin, Mao, etc.. is that they share in common with theism being faith-based movements. And faith as the underlying method is a far bigger problem with far bigger consequences than merely taking the belief in god on faith.

[@shriggs55]

I've ran into almost all these things said by Evangelicals, along the way.It was fun to see them all put together like you did.Your explanations were right on.Keep em coming,Thomas, keep them coming

[@SCS-1964]

You just cannot ignore these two actual statements by Hitler in speeches he gave to the German Christian citizenry. >>>>>>>>>>>> We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people. ---Adolf H. in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928 We were convinced that the people's needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out. -Adolf H. in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933 This statement clearly refutes modern Christians who claim Hitler as favoring atheism/paganism.

[@CaseAgainstFaith1]

When I saw this was a 1.5 hour video featuring someone I was unfamiliar with, I started to watch the video with some hesitation, wondering if I really wanted to watch it or not. Turns out, I enjoyed it immensely and will check the guest’s website out! Thanks for this video.

[@josiahhanson1920]

Love Tim's work. Really wish more of my fellow atheists would check him out. I could use less stupid on my Twitter.

[@robertx8020]

Not going to Twitter might be the only way ;)

[@Music-vr7sz]

Then block religious people. Nothing here is stupid except Tim being an obvious grifter.

[@TerenceClark]

Minor quibble, but your guest isn't quite right about excommunication. I'm effectively excommunicated from the Catholic church, but I haven't identified as Catholic for 25 years. It's actually one of the things that bugs me about the church. In their eyes I am always Catholic no matter what I have to say about the matter. The priest I spoke to about it said that I am "A Catholic out of communion with the See in Rome". In short, you don't have to actively identify as Catholic to be excommunicated. Now, to his point, excommunication sure doesn't matter all that much to someone who doesn't see themselves as Catholic. My only gripe with it is when the Catholic Church runs their demographic numbers they're cooking the books by counting probably tens of millions of people who haven't identified as Catholic in a very long time. And I'm pretty annoyed to be counted among them.

[@henrimourant9855]

I think there's a process where you can like unbaptize yourself and won't be counted as a Catholic. My atheist uncle did this (it's not excommunication though).

[@TerenceClark]

@@henrimourant9855 the priest I spoke with were of the opinion that it wasn't possible, currently. Though I guess there was some policy in like the 1980s and 1990s that allowed for something like that. But it caused a ton of problems and they revoked it. I don't remember the details of that, though

[@fmtpulmanns7593]

I'm pretty sure you can revoke your catholic membership card. Lots of people have done so pretty recently in Germany in response to the whole child abuse scandal thing. It's a laborious process - I think you have to go to your local priest first, then send a letter to the bishopry and then some, but it is possible. They clearly don't want to make it easy for obvious reasons).

[@historyforatheists9363]

"I'm effectively excommunicated from the Catholic church" So am I. Technically, that's what Catholic theologians call a *latae sententiae* - a kind of *de facto* excommunication caused by the actions or choices of the person. But we were talking about a formal declaration of excommunication, or *ferendae sententiae* imposition. These are not the same thing.

[@skwills1629]

This assumes they count as Catholics People Who left when doing Demographics. There is a difference between saying You are Always Catholic in a Theological sense and Qualifying that as a Statistic. it is also not Really what The Church teaches.

[@xdassinx]

Look, I don't say Hitler was a Christian. But as demonstrated by the history "expert" here he used the hell out of Christianity. Saying anything else is special pleading and or a no true Scotsman. All those "weird" ideas about Jesus. Jesus not being a Jew and so on. That's a mental gymnastic held by Christians to one degree or another throughout history. Antisemitism had been long baked into European Christianity by the time Hitler rolled around. That was one of the things Martin Luther kept during the Reformation. So those "weird" ideas weren't new. And they were Christian.

[@page8301]

Hitler was baptized Roman Catholic, never was excommunicated and never renounced his faith while proclaiming himself to be chosen by "divine providence", or god's will in other word, to guide the German people into a "better" future. So yes he was Christian. That is indisputable. If you want you can speculate how "pure" he was or what he thought about Christianity in private but no one knows and in the end it is just speculation. Furthermore ALL of Nazi German was Christian, meaning all party members and supporters of Hitler including those in the death camps were Christian. This is not debatable it is a verifiable fact.

[@historyforatheists9363]

"Saying anything else is special pleading and or a no true Scotsman." I make it absolutely clear that he did use the hell out of Christianity. "Jesus not being a Jew and so on. That's a mental gymnastic held by Christians to one degree or another throughout history. " True. But Hitler also didn't believe Jesus was God, didn't believe in the Virgin Birth, didn't believe in the Resurrection, the Redemption, the Second Coming, the Last Judgement or Heaven and Hell. So, he wasn't a Christian. "So those "weird" ideas weren't new. And they were Christian." They were held by both some Christians and some NON-CHristians. Hitler was one of the latter.

[@markhackett2302]

Hitler was a christian, though.

[@davefevans]

I love your channel and how factual it is. Too many secular or atheist shows are too jaded and you take the high road and keep it factual and tend to lean towards history scholarly historical facts over hearsay. Thank you.

[@natew.7951]

this guy is amazing, excited to follow his blog

[@DutchJoan]

Thank you @Tim O'Neill for sharing a solid way to research history and to be precise instead of just running with a story. And to dare to be of a different opinion. Thanks @Holy Koolaid for yet another very thoughtful and inquisitive and open-minded conversation. I love your content and am always looking forward to the next video. I don't give up because of a bit of bad audio, I just quit doing what I'm doing to listen a bit more intently. But I can imagine it can be frustrating when it happens. Thanks @Eric D Murphy for producing and fixing the audio problem so we could all end on a positive listening experience. What I take away for myself is Tim's remark that the catholic church said something along the line of: if nature shows things differently than the bible tells us, then we are reading the bible wrong. That is a healthy attitude to have in regard to all religious texts.

[@MasterCedar]

Okay, I can accept that hitler was not a christian but find it more frightening that he was just playing to the audience and who were they, if not christians being told what they wanted to hear?

[@RickReasonnz]

A Certain Someone also told people what they wanted to hear. If anything, it's a Machiavellian tactic to garner power.

[@markhackett2302]

Hitler was a Christian, though.

[@MasterCedar]

@@markhackett2302 Yes Mark but my point is that if he, as is claimed by christians was "not a true christian" then the really frightening thing is that his audience/supporters were christians, right up to the level of the pope.

[@markhackett2302]

@@MasterCedar I get that too. But Hitler isn't as clearly not a Christian as trump is not a Christian. "Two Corinthians walk into a bar...", holding a photo shoot where the bible is upside down, "I like both books", etc. Hitler, however, was no less a Christian than Snake Handlers are not Christians, despite them having different views on what counts as bible.

[@morganpauls1873]

after a point i think the matter is not the foundation of the act but the state of the population

[@Joviaero]

I really believed the Christmas pagan one, that's one I've heard my whole life even when I was a Christian. Great to learn more on this stuff!

[@jipersson]

In Denmark we call Christmas "Jul" or Yule like the Yule log. Christmas is a Heathen tradition that were Christianized when the Catholic priests trying to keep the Danes from celebrating midwinter with a drinking feast that lasted a week. so they invented Jesus birthday on the 25th, In Denmark however we start celebrating "Jul" on the eve of the 24th where we celebrate "A Jewish guy" by eating pork roast and receiving gifts. The 25th in Denmark is called 1st Yule day, then there's a 2nd Yule day and a 3rd Yule day. In Denmark we also have something called "Nisser" that's also a part of the Yule tradition, which is the Elf on a shelf, Tim also were mistaken about along with every thing else he said, Then there's also Santa that lives in Greenland and visits families on the eve of the 24th, and finally there's this Jesus character no Dane with respect for himself believes in. I've certainly not ever known anyone that does, even though they are both baptized and confirmed! You'd think that if the date of Christmas were a Christian invention, they'd stick to a lunar calendar date like his death date that jumps back and forth every year with months. But they based it on the Solar calendar. a much later invention made by Romans. So don't change your mind about your understanding about where Christmas originated except it weren't Pagans but Heathens (People from the heath) Jutland, Denmark!

[@FakingANerve]

It's hard to be convinced otherwise when the answer is muted. 😂

[@hellohsaytin6813]

I dunno. The Hitler thing kinda just sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy. He believed in God, he believed Jesus was the son of God. His actions and the opinions of other Christians matter not.

[@MrGreensweightHist]

Yep. He was Catholic. The Holocaust was simply another step in a LONG line of Catholic Antisemitism

[@skepticusmaximus184]

Exactly. Atheists don't need to be in the business of playing no true Scotsman on behalf of Christianity. That's a mater for their own internal disputes.

[@compulsiverambler1352]

Hitler didn't believe Jesus was the son of God, or even that he was an angel like the early church did and Jehovah's Witnesses do. He thought he was a purely human anti-Semitic radical who failed, that he didn't rise from the dead, and that the crucifixion happened because he failed and it served no divine purpose of any sort. Even an atheist could believe those things about Jesus and still meet the definition of an atheist. If in the context of trying to ascertain somebody's BELIEFS, you call everyone a Christian just because that's the label they give themselves, the word becomes misleading and useless. If we're talking about religious traditional practices, religious ancestral background or religious cultural influence, which are often all that people in Europe mean when they say they're a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or other religion, then a person can call themselves a Christian regardless of beliefs and it still has meaning if we're all clear on that context. But in the typical context that people are asking what religion Hitler had, they are caring about what he believed, so it makes no sense to call him a Christian.

[@hellohsaytin6813]

@@compulsiverambler1352 Damn, your whole second paragraph was just 2 sentences. Im impressed. Your name does not disappoint 🔥 But i guess i just didnt hear that he said he didnt believe jesus was resurrected. I heard him say hitler believed jesus was an anti-semite, but i just thought "Everyone thinks they know what God REALLY wants." 😂

[@robertx8020]

How do we know WHAT Jesus believed? We only know (in some cases it is only hearsay) what he SAID but he also was a politician! So what he said and thought might not be the same. Besides, while I appreciate the 'lecture' just we shouldn't just believe what we were told in the past, shouldn;t the same apply to this person? Should we accept it or investigate? In a few years someone might come up and debunk all of this, Then what?

[@ToaArcan]

Broke: Hitler was an atheist Woke: Hitler was a Christian Bespoke: Hitler's religious beliefs were _fucking weird._

[@markhackett2302]

No, he was a Christian.

[@markhackett2302]

@Jamal Ramadan Nope, he was a Christian. As Christian as evangelicals in the USA are.

[@scienceexplains302]

The fundamental *conflict between religion and science* is that religion generally requires you to believe on faith. For example, the Bible repeatedly blames people for not believing prophets when those people had no way to know whether the prophet had any special information. *Faith is the opposite of science.* That is a giant conflict.

[@skwills1629]

You should not use the term Religion as a Synonym for Christianity, and You do that. You even say The Bible...not all Religions use The Bible. Religion is not this One Thing, and Does not Require Any One Thing. Generalising All Religion like this is Silly. Also, No Religion Requires You to "Believe on Faith". In fact, the way You define the term, as a belief Held Without Evidence, is not what the Word means in Christianity, which is the Actual Religion You are Specifically using as a Model for how All Religion is. Christianity does not accept belief Without Evidence as the Meaning of Faith, though, and does not Ask You to believe Without Evidence, much less is it a Requirement. Also, what You said of The Prophets is False. People did have Reasons to Think The Prophets had Special Knowledge. They often even did Miracles to prove this. And No, I do not have too Prove God Exists or that The Prophets Really Worked Miracles here, as the Topic is what The Bible says. I am Using the Bible to Prove The Bible but, that is valid since I am using the Bible to Prove what The Bible Says. his is not an Argument about it being True. Faith means Trust or Confidence. Not Belief Without evidence. Hebrews 11; 1 doe snot say Faith is Belief Without evidence. Nor does Hebrews 11; 6 prove this is what it means. And Christianity does not Require You to base Your belief on Trust, it says You should Trust After You are shown the Evidence and already Believe. You Trust Your Beliefs. Trust comes AFTER You believe. You Base Your Faith on Your Beliefs, not Your Beliefs on Faith. I never said this makes Christianity different from other Religions.

[@scienceexplains302]

@@skwills1629 Hebrews 11:1 does say exactly that, and John’s Jesus also said he prefers people to believe without evidence. That was the point of the Doubting Thomas passage. I didn’t say every religion uses the Bible. I used the Bible as an example, as indicated by the phrase “for example”. People are criticized in the Bible for not believing prophets when they had no reason to believe them. Adam is expected to obey the voice of Yahweh Elohim before Adam has any knowledge of good and evil or whether Yahweh is a demon, his imagination, or something else. The original audience was already trained to “believe god” so the story made sense to them. What miracle did a prophet perform that you have physical evidence of (not just that you believe whatever the Bible tells you)?

[@skwills1629]

@@scienceexplains302 - No, Hebrews 11; 1 does not say Faith is Belief Without Evidence. The Entire text of Chapter 10 an Chapter 11 are about Attaining a Future Goal, and Faith being the Substance of Things Hoped For is about being Confident that The Things You Work for Will come about, and it Being the Evidence of Things Unseen is not about the Existence of God, it is about Things that haven;t happened Yet. It is Obvious if You Read the Text. As for saying Hebrews 11; 6 Proves it is about the Existence of God Et All, No, that's not what it is saying, and I have Read verse 6 but I have Also Read the other verses, and You haven't. Calling Mine Mental Gymnastics and yours the Plain Reading of the text is a Scripted Dismissal and not true. Yours is not how ANYONE Understood the text for Centuries. It is Clearly not he Obvious meaning of the Text. You critisise The Bible because You Hate Christianity, not Religion. And When You attack Religion its Really just Christianity. And No one is Critisised in The Bible for Not believing in the Prophets when they have no Reason to, and I've seen that said before using the same Words. it's not just the same general Argument. This is basically a Quote. You are Quoting the Authority of Your pastors in The Holy Religion of Atheism, and don't Think for Yourself. Also, this is not Rational. "Adam is expected to obey the voice of Yahweh Elohim before Adam has any knowledge of good and evil" Which is not Really the same Thing. You don't need to Know Good and Evil to Know how to Obey. "or whether Yahweh is a demon, his imagination, or something else." Thank You for Admitting You've never Read The Bible. Anyone Who Reads the Creation Account Would Know that YHVH could not have been a Demon and Adam did not merely hear his Voice. And His Imagination did not Create The Garden of Eden in front of Him. Which is an Alleged Contradiction you lot Invoke because You Think there are 2 Creation Accounts. "The original audience was already trained to “believe god” so the story made sense to them." It is God Capital G, as God is a Name. And You are Stupid. You've never even Read the Bible and have No idea what its History is. You don't get to lecture me on its Original Audience. You have to Virtue Signal Your membership in the tribe of The Holy Religion of Atheism buy demeaning god and selling god in lower case. I simply do not Respect You. "What miracle did a prophet perform that you have physical evidence of (not just that you believe whatever the Bible tells you)?" Why would I need Physical Evidence of a Miracle that happened approximately 3000 Years Ago? You Act as if its either This, or else I just believe whatever the Bible says for no Reason other than it is in The Bible and that is a Black An White Fallacy. I could believe in The Bible based on Historical Evidence or the Quality of what it teaches, or a Combination of the Two, and that is still not just believing something because the Bible says so nd believing The Bible just because its the Bible. And While You Will wist this, a Catholic or Orthodox Christian would Believe The Bible because of the Authority of The Church as They do not see The Church as based on The Bible but the Bible as a Predict of The Church. This does not Mean they believe in The Church with No Evidence, and People do have Reasons to believe in the Church beyond simply being Told to as Children, as there are Adult Converts. And The Catholic Church does have Miracles that occurs today as do the Orthodox. Learning Simplistic Dismissals from The Pastors of the Holy Religion of Atheism is not Rationality and Free Thought, it is simply being Shallow and Looking for Confirmation to Your Bias and wanting to View Yourself as Superior to others.

[@skwills1629]

@@scienceexplains302 - One Last, No, John's Jesus did not ay He Prefers People to believe Without Evidence either, and that is a Stupid Argument from The Pastors of The Holy Religion Of Atheism. Thomas was not Condemned for demanding Evidence and Jesus did not say ONLY those Who Believe without Evidence Will be Blessed or that he Preferred it. The Text never says Thomas is Condemned. Your Pastors Lied to You. All Jesus was saying is that People Who do not have the same Opportunity as Thomas Will Still be Blessed, not that He prefers People to believe Without Evidence. Now that I gave you the Correct Meaning of the text, You Will call what I said Mental Gymnastics to avoid the Truth of what My Holy Book Really says because I don;t Like it and Posit Your Claims as The Plain Reading of the text even though You can't Prove Yours is "The Plain Reading of thew text" and can just Assert it without Any Evidence. The Joke is, You Only believe this is saying Jesus preferred people Who believed Without Evidence because You Believe Without Evidence what The pastors of The Holy Religion of Atheism Brainwashed You with. Oh and I Know. You have Read the Bible Multiple Times for Yourself. You use to be a Christian and loved Jesus but Reading the Bible and Studying its Real history made You an Atheist. I've been shown the Script before. You are programmed to say that. It is not True.

[@scienceexplains302]

@@skwills1629 You may have read the Bible, but not critically. You failed to meet my challenge, instead saying I am committing a fallacy. That’s one way to avoid the issue. You believe not on evidence exit on something else, otherwise you would have given the evidence. I read the Bible by seeing someone’s claim and trying to disprove it, whether I agree or not. I look at the original language to the extent of my current understanding. I read history and apologetics. You throw verbal tantrums as above. I like my way better

[@evanbjammin]

Great conversation! Thank you both. 🎸

[@fred_derf]

Myth one Tim is skating the line on committing a No True Scotsman Fallacy.

[@historyforatheists9363]

How? If you're another person trying to claim this re what I've said about Hitler, consider that Hitler didn't believe Jesus was God, didn't believe in the Virgin Birth, didn't believe in the Resurrection, the Redemption, the Second Coming, the Last Judgement or Heaven and Hell. Then find a way to explain how he could be a Christian in any coherent or reasonable sense of that term.

[@markhackett2302]

@@historyforatheists9363 How not? If you're another person trying to claim that Hitler wasn't a Christian join AIG and go hog wild. Hilter DID believe Jesus was the son of God, he believed in the CHRISTIAN God. Believing in the trinity is not "core".

[@henrimourant9855]

Excellent stuff.

[@zelbeaters]

The audio issues make this nearly unwatchable. Please fix and reupload! These are really interesting topics.

[@hockeyinalabama]

Some of these explanations are inspiring me to ask for sources. For instance, why would Christians be celebrating the tree in the garden, which represents the fall of man, on Jesus's supposed birthday? And the dates lining up with cosmic events were just complete coincidence? I'm not saying he's wrong. I'm saying the explanations sound suspect to a point that I want to see what he's basing the claims on.

[@historyforatheists9363]

"why would Christians be celebrating the tree in the garden, which represents the fall of man, on Jesus's supposed birthday" The religious play that the Christmas tree derives from was not on his supposed birthday - it was a tradition on Christmas Eve. So it was prefiguring the birth of Jesus as a saviour from the Original Sin caused by the Fall by dramatising the Fall itself. The play ended with a prophecy of the coming Messiah and the tree was left up as a symbol of the hope of that redemption. There was also a medieval tradition that the cross Jesus was crucified on was made from the Tree of Knowledge and stood on the same spot the Tree had grown. So the Tree was a symbol of the Fall, but also of Redemption and Salvation. To this day figures of Adam and Eve are still traditional Christmas tree decorations in parts of Germany for this reason. "And the dates lining up with cosmic events were just complete coincidence? " No. As I said in the video, they chose dates that lined up with cosmic events precisely because they were looking to map Jesus' life onto the whole span of human history and cosmologically. The date of Dec 25 had already been arrived at via reference to the calculation of his death on March 25 and the idea that he died on the same date he was conceived. March 25 + nine months = Dec 25. But this was one of several proposed dates for his birth and the fact Dec 25 was the traditional winter solstice *does* seem to be why this one won out over the alternatives. So, no, not "complete coincidence" - a confluence of various ideas and influences. History is complicated. I intend to write a detailed article on this before the end of the year (or maybe put it in a video), but the very reliable Religion for Breakfast channel does a detailed analysis of the relevant evidence here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/o4jKq52trppkobc

[@hockeyinalabama]

@@historyforatheists9363 thank you for helping me understand. It seemed odd as I originally understood. I appreciate the time you took to answer answer this question so completely.

[@historyforatheists9363]

@@hockeyinalabama No problem - it's what I'm here for. And well done on asking for clarification and reading and carefully considering it when given. Too many people commenting here seem more interested in dismissing me so they can cling to ideas they find comforting or appealing.

[@hockeyinalabama]

@@historyforatheists9363 I am interested in the truth. I just have some bias that makes me think the church is always innocent and sincere on these topics. Growing up in Alabama where you see the opposite of that kind of behavior from the current church colors your expectations.

[@markhackett2302]

@@historyforatheists9363 So "I haven't a clue" is your answer.

[@johngoodman9894]

As much as I want to absorb the provided informarion, the audio issues make it practically unwatchable. I'm still watching in hope that this may be resolved as commented earlier by another subscriber

[@tranquilthoughts7233]

I disagree with the whole "Hitler wasn't a christian" argument Tim brings up here. What he is saying is that the beliefs that Hitler held about jesus are not the beliefs that christians hold about jesus and therefore he wasn't a christian. By doing that he makes himself out to be an arbiter about who qualifies as christian and who doesn't. I'd very much like to know what metrics he uses to determine christian status and i'm fairly certain that whatever metric he uses it will exclude some denominations that are commonly accepted to be christian from being christian. I'd like to ask Tim, do you take mormons to be christians? Because mormons hold a whole lot of what most christian denominations take as weid and/or false beliefs about jesus and yet they themselve consider themselve christian. Just try telling a mormon they are not christians. For me the whole thing is rather easy. Hitler thought of himself as christian, at least from everything we have of his own words, so he was christian. He might have had some fringe views about christianity but that doesn't make him less christian. But to be fair, wether Hitler was christian or muslim or rastafarian is really irrelevant since this question only ever comes up when some religious ideologue (usually christian ones) bring up the claim that Hitler was an atheist and therefore all atheists are Hitlers in waiting. In that situation the only relevant fact is that Hitler most certainly was not an atheist and that he used religious justifications for his actions.

[@miscalotastuff733]

Mormons do not use the holy bible exclusively. The book of mormon is antithetical and sacriligious to the bible. You are not to add or subtract from the bible. Adding the bom to it is blaspemy. They teach and read more from the bom than the bible. I would say they arent christians as they are breaking bibilical commandments and teaching false doctrine. While they do believe in jesus they focus more on ol pervert jo smith than jesus. The whole religious aspect is up for debate when you state these theological reasons. How you view them up is up to you. I dont view them as christians.

[@tranquilthoughts7233]

@@miscalotastuff733 Then may i ask you what criteria you use to determine wether any believer can be considered a "christian"? In your mind, what does somebody has to believe in order for you to consider that person a "christian"?

[@miscalotastuff733]

@@tranquilthoughts7233 the bible makes it clear that no other books maybe put before the bible. If your using an add on and teaching from that your not following christian doctrine. You arent true christian. Your in a place of false doctrine.

[@markhackett2302]

@@miscalotastuff733 Well THAT is wrong. The OT was not the NT. And God doesn't appear in the NT at all. So the OT was put before the NT for all Christians, otherwise no God, no original sin, nothing to die for. Hitler believed in the Christian God. That makes him Christian.

[@miscalotastuff733]

@@markhackett2302 thank you. As I said assholes exist on both sides of the line. Christians need to come to terms with facts instead of being in denial.

[@Anom990]

The audio changes at the start drove me insane but lots of great info.

[@HotloadsTTV]

The volume levels are so unbalanced it's hard to hear Thomas and Tim is too loud. Tim's audio quality is terrible.

[@HotloadsTTV]

When I've done work like this I require a sound check, video check, and test recording to make sure audio is balanced and video is good.

[@RickReasonnz]

@@HotloadsTTV Feels like they launched in to with without a cursory sound check. Annoying, but hopefully they learn for the future.

[@shondo2010]

I'm very much a believer, but I thoroughly enjoy your content as well as several others. It's probably because I'm not that believer who is on the extreme fringe end of it.

[@__Andrew]

A atheist myth iv seen a time or to (and got me for a long time as well) was that large chunks of the Christian religion was basically plagiarized from Egyptian beliefs. The reason i think i still see this around is because Bill Maher used this in his movie "Religulous". Over all its a fine movie but Maher devotes a fairly prominent section of the movie to the work of Gerald Massey. Problem is Massey was a kook and none of his work has ever been recognized basically by anyone much less knowledgeable Egyptologist. It was extremely dishonest for Maher to include this in his movie.

[@thisisgettingold]

Let's not pretend many mainstream religions aren't advanced sun worship.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

For thirty years I begged Jesus or his father Yahweh to pay me a visit, but they never did. What is wrong with me? A 75 year old atheist.

[@morganpauls1873]

nothing at all you're just meant to do something other than talk to that particular like of entity existence has no meaning so therefore nothing is itself a meaning so the point of existence is to exist you should treat yourself in kind and remember joy and kin for only then will suffering and existence be defeated by purpose

[@comeasyouare4545]

Atheism existed well before the advent of the scientific method. I find that theist enjoy a good parable. Once upon a time about two hundred thousand years ago. Two hunters were sitting in the middles of a vast open plain next to a fire . On a moonless dark star filled night. They had been contemplating the meaning of existence. After a long pause one of the hunters said: I think there has to be a meaning, and a purpose for our exitance , and a designer. The other hunter pondered this for a moment, and then stood up and said: I told you not to eat those mushrooms. Hence your first atheist.

[@skwills1629]

This assumes We are Born Atheists. And that God does not Exist. And that God as an idea was just Crested by Some Guy. None of which is actually shown to be True.

[@comeasyouare4545]

@@skwills1629 Nope! We're born a blank slate. God is a belief, or the lack of belief in a God are Both beliefs . AS far as it's known we don't form any beliefs until we're aware of a concept. And no again the concept of a god, or gods has been invented by us countless times. This is evident throughout recorded history.

[@skwills1629]

@@comeasyouare4545 - The Blank Slate Theory was disproven. The Cerebral Cortex along has Hard Wired Structures and Innate Knowledge. And there is Evidence that Belief in God, or at least the general Concept We call God, is part of tat. The general Sense of a Creator or some Intelligence behind Nature. Also, Atheism is not a lack of belief in a god. It is a belief that no gods Exist. It is impossible to lack belief in a concept You've been Introduced to. You can either Accept that it is true or Reject it as False. You can be Uncertain, but even then You generally lean One way or another. You cannot lack.

[@comeasyouare4545]

Nope! I'm afraid it wasn't proven . Unless it has been proven that newborns have beliefs. Now what you're describing is inherent instincts. Which all animals have. Appling god to an instinct would apply to all animals.

[@comeasyouare4545]

SK Wills 3 hours ago (edited) @Come as you Are - The Blank Slate Theory was disproven. The Cerebral Cortex along has Hard Wired Structures and Innate Knowledge. And there is Evidence that Belief in God, or at least the general Concept We call God, is part of tat. The general Sense of a Creator or some Intelligence behind Nature. Also, Atheism is not a lack of belief in a god. It is a belief that no gods Exist. It is impossible to lack belief in a concept You've been Introduced to. You can either Accept that it is true or Reject it as False. You can be Uncertain, but even then You generally lean One way or another. You cannot lack.

[@Nathouuuutheone]

I wish the title implied this is a 1h30 interview. I was not expecting that at all. Plus the audio problems make it extremely hard to listen to.

[@ScottWorthington]

I would love to listen to this, but audio issues are unbearable. Sounds like it was recorded on an artichoke.

[@nathanjasper512]

Nah, artichokes are fairly balanced. Sounds more like a brussle sprout to me.

[@DoctorOnkelap]

@@nathanjasper512 And this is how the holy war got started between the followers of the sacred artichoke and the disciples of the divine sprout.

[@scienceexplains302]

Tom O’Neill, what does scholarship tell you about Christopher Hitchens’ mental process while preparing some of his statements on history that turned out to be false? Because you made proclamations that you know what his mental state was. I agree with what you said about skepticism. Let’s apply it to ourselves at least as much as to others.

[@historyforatheists9363]

"Because you made proclamations that you know what his mental state was." I did? Where? I recall that I made some observations on Hitchens' tendency to pursue a particular line of argument, ignoring counter evidence and alternatives. That's what journalists do. It's not how historians do things. This is why it's not wise to rely on history from journalists. (PS MY name is Tim)

[@markhackett2302]

@@historyforatheists9363 Where you made claims about Hitchens' state of mind.

[@0125AR]

I wonder what's the oldest surviving athesistic text is. Were there ancient athesists, godless ones? I assume if something were too exist religious groups would burn them if they existed.

[@michaelnewsham1412]

Epicurus, Lucretius.

[@0125AR]

@@michaelnewsham1412 neat something to look into thanks 👍

[@X1Y0Z0]

Useful conversation however it was mainly unintelligible. Hopefully you’ll make a better audio presentation to which I can listen

[@miniflem1]

Tim is really good, I always assumed the burning of the Library of Alexandria was true.

[@seraphinaaizen6278]

It was. The issue isn't that it didn't happen, the issue is that we don't know exactly who burnt it and it wasn't burned only once. The reality is probably more complex than there was a single event, but rather than the library had varying collections of differences sizes throughout the ages, and that there were a number of different events that led to it being destroyed and then rebuilt. Then destroyed again. And ultimately was vanquished by the general ongoing decline of intellectuals in the city that failed to sustain and rebuilt it after successive such events.

[@karlazeen]

I think it was the romans first then christians and muslims, through their collective dogmatism knowledge was destroyed.

[@markhackett2302]

It was. Tim is wrong, because he desperately needs to sell his books, so he can't piss of a Christian Majority.

[@Faustobellissimo]

I couldn't bear the audio. Could anyone please sum up the 6 myths for me?

[@jipersson]

Tim certainly is a great Christian apologist! SOOOO many things wrong with Tim's hypothesis about history, pulled out of some orifice of his! Antisemitism is intrinsically a Christian invention, so regardless whether Hitler were a Christian or merely a cultural Christian, he did the bidding of the Church and went after Jews and homosexuals alike. And about Christmas or as we here in Denmark still call "Jul", Yule for you English speakers a thousand years after that Norse tradition were Christianized, If Luke 1:26 is the verse that's supposed to "prove" that the date of Christmas were invented by Christians, 6 months into Elizabeth's pregnancy with John the Baptist. It would have been according to a lunar calendar as with his death date, NOT a more resent solar calendar! I guess Tim isn't a fan of Vikings conquering and running most of England up to the time the northern countries by royal decree were Christened! The Catholic church had a big problem with making the Norse people give up on their old traditions and the week long drinking feast (Christmas) Yule were. So they invented a solar calendar date of Jesus birth! There are many more things wrong with Tim's Christian apologist sermon here, like the origin of the Elf on the shelf, another Nordic tradition called "Nisser" or "Kravlenisser", but I rather not expose myself to a TL;DR comment!

[@natew.7951]

you should go to his blog and submit your evidence. this guy is a historian, I'm sure he'd love to learn if you have evidence that he's not aware of

[@jipersson]

@@natew.7951 I refuse to believe he's a historian, He seemed very convinced that his fantasies were correct and every Atheist wrong, so I'd hate to crush his undercover Christian apologist delusions, which is the only way I can interpret his attempt to discredit Atheism and Atheists! I've heard the exact same excuses regarding the murder of Giordano Bruno in year 1600, from Catholics, the fact though is that you were not even allowed to think the thought that earth rotates and orbits the sun, until 1822, and it took another 14 years (1836) until the Catholic church took Johannes Kepler's book about the Heliocentric solarsystem off the list of banned heretical books. Something a so called historian would or should be aware of!

[@natew.7951]

@@jipersson dude you're making athiests look dumb. This guy is a skeptic. He bases his beliefs on evidence. He certainly isn't proposing anything that would show "every athiest wrong". That's such a misinformed position, considering no scholarly athiest would argue with anything he said. Like l said, if you think he's wrong then show your evidence. Because this guy will.

[@jipersson]

@@natew.7951 LOL So I'm the one that makes atheists look dumb??? Scholarly atheist! What on earth is a scholarly atheist??? I don't care what he claims to be, but he certainly isn't a Historian! Bases his Belief on evidence? NO! Belief and evidence are two very different things, if you have evidence you don't need belief! why? BECAUSE YOU HAVE EVIDENCE!

[@RickReasonnz]

@@jipersson From his blog: "I have a Bachelors Degree with Honours in English and History and a research Masters Degree from the University of Tasmania, with a specialisation in historicist analysis of medieval literature." So yes, he is a historian. You may disagree with his conclusions, as according to the comments, a fair amount of us do, but take a care not to ignore his qualifications.

[@zemorph42]

Once I understood the reasons why we know the Earth's shape it did seem obvious to me, and I did have an additional advantage of understanding the scientific method better than 99.9% of flerfs, but I can see why it is not obvious without that understanding.

[@kaydenpat]

If Hitler believed in God, he wasn’t an atheist. If he referred to Jesus as his lord and savior, he’s a Christian. Why are we parsing his beliefs to take him out of Christianity? And how exactly was the Catholic Church opposed to Nazism? It wasn’t. That’s why the church had to apologize for its reaction to Nazism.

[@h.g.wellington2500]

Also lol at the opposition leader who said anti-semitism was against his Christian beliefs. Was he not aware of hundreds of years of extremely Christian anti-semitism in Europe?

[@markhackett2302]

"Why are we parsing his beliefs to take him out of Christianity?" Because Tim needs to pretend Hitler wasn't Christian. The reason why he doesn't know what Naziism is or Communism is is because he needs the RWNJ claims to be true, that Naziism is Communism and they are both Atheist.

[@El-Silver]

because hitler lied in his public speeches and didnt belive anything about chirstianity he didnt belive jesus was god or the son of god , he didnt belive in a virgin birth , nor the miracles , no dying for sins, no resurection , no afterlife if he is a chirstian no one is since the word has no meaning.

[@markhackett2302]

@@El-Silver Except the only reason you gave he lied is you hate the idea he was a christian. He DID believe in Jesus (that is not required to be God, early Christians DEFINITELY didn't believe JC was God before he died, only after death did he get Godhead), he believed he was real, that is why he holocausted, he wanted to kill those Christ killers. And he used the CRISTIAN bible as justification for his acts, because he was a christian, but you HATE that idea.

[@markevans8206]

The world would be a better place if Revelations had been left out of the Bible.

[@GapWim]

On the 1st atheist myth, the argument goes that Hitler wasn't a Christian because he didn't believe many of the core tenets of the Catholics/Protestants. … This only makes the argument that he didn't belong to that denomination, not that he wasn't a Christian. Newton didn't believe this either … so he also wasn't a Christian?

[@El-Silver]

no , because demoninations exist but core ideas like jesus been the son of god that became man born of mary did miracles died and especially resurected are core of chirstianity , hitler rejected all these tenents if he is a chirstian the word has lost all meaning

[@WukongTheMonkeyKing]

@@El-Silver there are a LOT of weird Christian denominations and sects. Some don't accept the divinity of Jesus, while acknowledging him as a prophet or a great teacher. There is biblical support for this, particularly outside the standard Canon.

[@El-Silver]

@@WukongTheMonkeyKing i dont know of any today back then yes , but even the first chirstians had at least the most basic fundaments hitler denied all supernatural elements of chirstianity and did nto belive in jesus as a savior nor the miracles rather he belived that he was just rather a failed antismetite claiming hitler was a chirstian because there are many chirstian denonmiations is wierd since hitler did not follow any traditional chirstian belive and didnt think of himself as chirstian

[@WukongTheMonkeyKing]

@@El-Silver think of it like how some catholics don't think protestants are Christian. Or how some protestants don't believe catholics are Christian. What do they think of Gnostic Christians? Or coptic? Or russian/Greek orthodox? Just because it is unusual, doesn't mean it is or isn't Christian. Really, Christians themselves don't agree on definitions. I'm not worrying about no true Scotsman stuff until Christians can agree on a definition.

[@WukongTheMonkeyKing]

@UCYZORuD9vBFuAzPfYsHIvdA Not quite. By my logic, the definition of Christian is very loose, and is defined by the claimant. If someone claims to be Christian, I will generally take them at their word, because Christians don't agree on who is and is not Christian. For example, check out the Wikipedia article on Nontrinitarianism. There are several examples listed that are alien to most modern denominations. Not only that, there are the non-denominational Christians who are basically a religion of one, not lining up with anyone enough to claim membership bit still call themselves Christian because there is no denomination requirement. The "core ideas" of Christianity are not universal.

[@PrometheanRising]

Guest appeared to confuse abiogenisis and evolution when discussing his 12th century monk.

[@historyforatheists9363]

No, he didn't. Listen more carefully.

[@PrometheanRising]

@@historyforatheists9363 You are correct, sir. My apologies for getting that wrong. It is at around the 59 minute mark for anyone playing along.

[@robertx8020]

"WE SHOULD NOT CHERRYPICK " Then follow it up with "yes X said Z " but look here where 'A said B' How is that not the same? I agree that 'we ' might sometime cherrypick BUT If your statement is 'the bible is true' and we can point out 4 things where it is wrong! Then Yes, you might call it 'cherrypicking' but I would say it isn't! And even if the church isn't always follow the bible, that only shows that they are excellent manipulators!

[@historyforatheists9363]

"How is that not the same? " Not only is it not the same, it's the exact opposite. Cherry picking is only selecting the evidence that supports a chosen position, ignoring counter evidence and other examples. Looking more broadly and considering all relevant evidence is the opposite of that.

[@robertx8020]

@@historyforatheists9363 I disagree Let's leave it at that

[@historyforatheists9363]

@@robertx8020 You “disagree”? How? You have some other definition of “cherry picking” and can show, with examples, of how what I say fits it? Then *do* that. But you don’t get to accuse me of something serious and then dodge when challenged to back up your accusation.

[@robertx8020]

@@historyforatheists9363 I will get back to it if you insist but first I have to go to work. So don't turn this into "oh you don't want to back it up" And no, I don't have any 'other' definition of cherrypicking..but I guess whe have an other definition to where it applies!

[@historyforatheists9363]

@@robertx8020 Okay, whenever you're ready.

[@KNS6000]

I had a very hard time hearing more than half of this long interview. I was really looking forward to this. Oh well.

[@KenLord]

That whole section about Hitler not being christian is just one long No True Scotsman fallacy. Hitler portrayed himself as Christian. He spoke out "as a christian", he wrote reconciling christian beliefs with nazi goals. He wanted to appear christian. And at the time millions of nazi followers considered him to be christian. You can't simply declare that hitler wasn't christian because he supposedly didn't believe in christian doctrine X, Y, Z. There are something like 40,000 sects of christianity. Every one has slightly different, or majorly different beliefs. Some absolutely have beliefs that overlap with Hitler's and which also deny supposedly fundamental doctrines of christianity ... I mean FFS. Millions of Protestants do not believe that freaking Catholics are real Christians! And every day hundreds of "Christian Leaders" who are doing nothing but running tax evasion / crime syndicate mega churches for profit while getting caught violating every aspect of what makes for a good christian ... are nonetheless considered to be Christian. And "technicaly" "by the book" all Hitler had to do to erase any supposed non-christian tendencies he had, along with all the atrocities he committed, to be forgiven and accepted in heaven, would be to accept jesus and pray to be forgiven before he blew his brains out. There literally are no christian doctrines that you ever have to follow if you just pay off Pascal's Wager on your death bed. And wow he was a hell of a lot more believably Christian than Donald Trump after all of his embarrassing antics while being supported by christian leaders. i bet there are literally millions of americans who would draw their guns on you if while in their home you said Donald Trump wasn't actually christian. O'Neill doesn't get to be the ultimate judge of this anymore than he gets to be the judge of anyone's sexuality or gender identity.

[@kaydenpat]

Agreed. If someone says they’re a Christian, who are we to parse things out to say otherwise? That goes for both Trump and Hitler. A bad Christian is still a Christian if that’s how they identify (even if they do so for nefarious reasons).

[@fred_derf]

You summed up my thoughts very well. Thank you for saving me the typing.

[@KG-VanityInKnickers]

And that ends up being the irony, doesn't it... Christians are always so eager to distance themselves from even a hint of association that they continue to wear blinders to what's going on in their own backyard.

[@markhackett2302]

Yup, point to Martin Luther, and the entire non-RCC churches that argue that the RCC is evil, or "at best" wrong.

[@ramadadiver59]

It's not a no true Scotsman fallacy . If you claim to be a vegan and eat meat Your not a vegan despite what you claim about yourself . Nor does claiming to be a Christian make you a Christian .or claiming to be an atheist make you an atheist or a Buddhist etc . Why? Because terms must be defined.. If Hitler did not believe Jesus was Jewish ..the Messiah the son of God was crucified for humanity and rose on a 3rd day and was God himself ( The most basic fundamentals of Christianty ) then he is not a Chrsitian by definition What is worse than a fallacy is someone claiming a fallacy when it's not . It shows the lack of understanding of fallacies . Can someone claim to be an atheist yet believe in God and act as if a God exists ? No Nor can you simply call yourself a Christian and that makes you a Christian And if your not a Chrsitian you are certainly not the judge In determining who is and isn't a Christian Is a demon or fallen angel a Christian because they believe the Chrsitian God exists ? No because being a Chrsitian is not simply about knowledge .but also about morals attitude behaviour and actions .

[@Anglomachian]

The principle reason for the first council of nicea was the Arian confession of I remember correctly. That’s the closest to discussing biblical canon it discussed.

[@skwills1629]

They never discussed The Biblical Cannon at Nicea. They did at Trent though.

[@Anglomachian]

@@skwills1629 they discussed the validity of the Arian confession. That’s a debate on biblical canon. Vis a vis, whether it counted as part of the canon or not.

[@skwills1629]

@@Anglomachian - If by Confession You mean Book, there was no such a Discussion and No Evidence of a Book Of Arius ever being considered in The Bible. No, they did not discuss whether or not "The Arian Confession" should be part of the Bible. The Debate was on How Biblical texts, and other Things, were understood. And Considering This is The Catholic Church and not Protestantism, they did not Think The Bible Lone was the Sole Basis of The Faith.

[@Anglomachian]

@@skwills1629 oh for goodness sake, Read what I’m actually typing, you pedant. I said they discussed whether or not the Arian confession was canon. It wasn’t a book, there was no Bible at the time. They discussed what was true according to Christian doctrine. The canon doesn’t exclusively refer to what is written down in the myriad versions of the Bible.

[@Kuijk_ENQ]

I get the strong impression that Tim O’Neill doesn’t know what atheism is.

[@henrimourant9855]

What makes you think that? Tim doesn't believe in God. That makes him an atheist.

[@historyforatheists9363]

I have no belief in any God or gods. Am I an atheist? I think so. So ... what?

[@markhackett2302]

@@henrimourant9855 What makes you think that? Tim isn't an Atheist is a claim about his mind and unless you are also tim (hi tim!), you are no better qualified than the OP.

[@markhackett2302]

@@historyforatheists9363 So you are Hitler?

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

Hitler only seemed to ever be against the exceptionally annoying be nice to everyone Christianity. I don't recall him ever saying anything bad about any other version. Honestly, seems fair in that regards as it is the worst form of Christianity however much it tries to scapegoat its own members (looking at you weirdly anti-murder Westboro Baptist Church).

[@rddrg18]

Was Hitler baptized?

[@geraldmeehan8942]

Evidently Putin has been

[@nathanjasper512]

I'm sure he was. He grew up in the church. And I think being unbaptized back then was fairly uncommon. 90+ percent of Germany was some form of Christianity.

[@henrimourant9855]

I was baptized but I'm an atheist. I haven't bothered to get unbaptized because I don't care tbh.

[@nagranoth_]

Does it matter? How does and old man dunking a helpless baby in water make any difference to the grown up version of that baby?

[@nagranoth_]

@@henrimourant9855 I did, simply because I don't want to be registered as belonging to that group.

[@12jswilson]

One thing about Christmas not being a pagan tradition is that statistically, there probably was a Roman holiday on that day. By the end of the 2nd century CE, the Roman Calendar was littered with ~190 holidays. More specifically, the Feast of Sol Invictus was popular from the reign of Aurelian onward and Sol Invictus was depicted similarly to how Jesus was depicted in the early church artwork. Namely, the sun disk of Sol Invictus was behind his head like Christ's halo. Sol Invictus was seen as a monolatrist diety as a precursor to the monotheist Jesus, at least in perception to the politheist roman laity, even if in actuality the 2 cults had nothing to do with one another.

[@historyforatheists9363]

" ... statistically, there probably was a Roman holiday on that day "" Except, there wasn't. "the Feast of Sol Invictus was popular from the reign of Aurelian onward" Except there was no "Feast of Sol Invictus" on Dec 25. Steven Hijmans, the scholar who literally wrote the book on the Roman cult/s of the Sun makes this very clear. "Sol Invictus was depicted similarly to how Jesus was depicted in the early church artwork." Yes. That just has nothing at all to do with Christmas and Dec 25.

[@douglasschnabel4480]

From an historical perspective, the standard for assessing Hitler's relationship with Christianity is not whether he, privately, adhered to every aspect of Orthodoxy. Rather, it is whether he publicly confessed to the faith and whether he used that public confession to attract support for Nazism or himself. In this regard, he was a Christian politician acting from a Christian platform. From an historical perspective, Hitler's relationship with Christianity is quite comparable to that of Donald Trump. Many people have expressed serious doubts about Trump's private convictions about Christianity. However, there can be no doubt, from an historical perspective, that Trump presents himself as a Christian politician, who uses Christianity as a platform to attract supporters.

[@movieklump]

Tim O'neil who has not written a peer reviewed book on the historicity of Jesus is calling Richard Carrier, who has, irrational? I have talked to O'neil on this subject and he is big on the name calling.

[@darrell3643]

Would have been a great discussion if the audio wasn't all fkd up

[@drlegendre]

15:33 - Putsch. The "beer hall putsch".

[@Thor.Jorgensen]

I think the talk here about "Was Adolf a Christian" ignores a lot of factors. For example, yes, he did not like the Catholic Church. The reason being that the Catholic church, in Adolf's eyes, had too much political power. The German government at the time with Adolf at the head also created its own state church, called the German Evangelical Church. They were simply opposed to all Christians of other denominations. The question then turns into that of a "who's the true Christian?" and that doesn't get us far. We also have to remember the private accounts mentioned were witness testimonies by deeply religious figures who did not think Adolf was Christian enough and that he ought to go to church more. Plus, since they are only written witness testimonies, most of which only came out after the war ended, there is little we can do to verify their authenticity. We, however, can verify the recorded conversations, in none of which he speaks of religion. But why just look at Adolf alone? What about the rest of Germany? The country saw an incredible surge of church attendees during the reign of Adolf. The state propaganda often depicted Germans as Christian saviors, and yes they kept the belt buckles from the first war that said "God is with us" it wasn't erased. Germans didn't lose their religiosity overnight.

[@neilforbes416]

At about 4 minutes, the level of Tim O'Neill's audio feed suddenly dropped.

[@Kentchangar]

Excellent video (apart from the volume levels ;) )!

[@russellcrick3873]

Very interesting discussion. However the sound quality was not great. During many of the most interesting answers I could no hear mr. O’Neil’s answers…

[@kayb9979]

31:05 Hooray! Finally someone gets the real story about the belt buckle crap.

[@MultiCappie]

Tim O'Neil, was the Serapeum of Alexandria (including its great library) _not_ intentionally demolished on the orders of the Cristian Emperor at that time???

[@historyforatheists9363]

It was. This came after it had been used as a base for a group of radical anti-Christian zealots who were kidnapping, torturing and killing Christians there. The army surrounded them and a siege began, with both sides petitioning the emperor to intervene. The emperor ruled that the pagans holed up in the temple could go into exile but that the temple was to be demolished to prevent it from being the focus of any more pagan unrest in what was a majority Christian city. We have five accounts of all this but none of them mention any library being destroyed in the process. This includes a highly hostile pagan account, about half of which is taken up with talking about what idiots and barbarians the Christians were. But makes no mention of a destroyed library. What we do have, however, is a first hand description of the Serapeum by Ammianus from several decades before this, which talks about the libraries it had once held in the past tense. Libraries were expensive to maintain, so it seems as funding for the temple dried up after the conversion of Constantine, the book collection dwindled and was sold off. This explains why there is no mention of a library being destroyed when the temple was demolished - it was no longer there by that stage.

[@jemborg]

I appreciated the efforts of Tim but I couldn't help thinking he was the Jimmy Dore of atheists. For instance, I just can not find the Catholic Church to be _that_ benign. Maybe when it had established absolute dominance it lessened the reigns a little. I think in the persuit of truth he may be failing to see the forest for the trees, tending to see nuanced exceptions as the norm. The _accepted, painstaking & "definitive" account_ of Jesus and his resurrection I found as annoying as his own contempt for others' work. Sure, some charismatic faith healing cult leader(s) _may_ have existed because that stuff happens... _and that's it!_ Roman soldiers sincerely claimed they saw Julius Caesar levitate... how accurate do you think those accounts are ffs?

[@historyforatheists9363]

"I couldn't help thinking he was the Jimmy Dore of atheists." Who? "I just can not find the Catholic Church to be that benign. " Nowhere do I say it was "benign". I'm simply noting that some of the ways it is often thought to have been not benign are wrong. "tending to see nuanced exceptions as the norm." No, I'm just noting that people who accept "the norm" can sometimes fail to see exceptions. History is about accuracy in details, not sweeping generalisations that obscure facts. "The accepted, painstaking & "definitive" account of Jesus and his resurrection I found as annoying as his own contempt for others' work." I have no idea what this even means. I made no claim to any "accepted, painstaking & 'definitive' account of Jesus". What on earth are you talking about? "Roman soldiers sincerely claimed they saw Julius Caesar levitate... how accurate do you think those accounts are ffs?" Not at all. What has that question got to do with anything I said? Very strange.

[@markhackett2302]

@@historyforatheists9363 Awwww, ignorant pretending is pretending. You need to sell your speaking, so you can't afford to piss off a Christian Majority, so you whitewash reality and stick your head in the sand.

[@philippe-antoinehoyeck9374]

I feel like it would have been possible to fix the audio afterward... this is impossible to listen to.

[@bobdob3411]

Thank you for illuminating me

[@markhackett2302]

He's wrong about a huge amount. See DPRK, North Korea. Is it therefore Democratic? A republic? Is the entire evangelical movement atheist or not christian, because THEY complain about the RCC too.

[@jonleiend1381]

That was really good.

[@williamjones3858]

Hitchens never stated it was the 1st treaty,but the official, and I posted a video of him stating that on your page.

[@historyforatheists9363]

Here are Hitchens' exact words: "The very first diplomatic accord undertaken by Hitler’s government was consummated on July 8, 1933, a few months after the seizure of power, and took the form of a treaty with the Vatican." (God is Not Great, p. 286) So yes, he did state that it was, literally, "the very first". And he was factually wrong. To begin with, Hitchens gets the date of the signing of the Concordat wrong: it was signed on July 20, not July 8 as he claims. And it was far from “the very first” treaty the Nazis signed with foreign powers or groups. Hitler had re-signed a trade and friendship pact with the Soviet Union on May 5 and the Four Powers Pact between Germany, France, Italy and Great Britain was signed on June 7. Indeed, a couple of weeks before the Concordat was ratified the Nazis signed the Haavara Agreement with the Zionist Federation of Germany - a Jewish organisation.

[@williamjones3858]

@@historyforatheists9363 as I stated before there are two videos I posted one on this page he stated the official treaty

[@historyforatheists9363]

@@williamjones3858 I have no idea what the hell you're trying to say. Again, in "God is Not Great Hitchens" stated that the Concordat was the "very first' agreement signed by the Nazi regime and, as I've shown you, it wasn't, so he was wrong. The end.

[@markhackett2302]

@@historyforatheists9363 Quite why YOUR deliberate incomprehension of reality is HIS problem escapes me. He posted two places that prove you are wrong. If you claimed not to understand him, who cares? Do you have evidence otherwise? If so, absolute claims are to be thrown out, but you keep them in and always "for some reason" on your side.

[@paulbrandel5980]

So much for Bruno being scientist ahead of his time😮😅

[@angle5861]

omg university of tasmania i live in tasmania

[@BavonWW]

Anyone referring to the late Mr C. Hitchens as 'Hitch' should be placed on a three month suspension from this site. Such public use of nicknames is best restricted to sports or the Cringe Olympics. '''Baksey', 'Dawks', and 'Russo' would have it probably found it cringeworthy too. I do.

[@seraphonica]

Thomas, how dare you! we don't talk about Giordano Bruno! 😉

[@pabstep2611]

The comparison between Julius Cesar's existence and his crossing the Rubicon and Jesus' is really inappropriate. There is ample physical evidence for Julius Cesar that is basically impossible to explain unless he really did exist and unless he really did cross the Rubicon. The case for Jesus on that same basis is futile. And that is coming from a guy who says that history is about finding out what likely happened (1:21:54), which is correct.

[@historyforatheists9363]

"The comparison between Julius Cesar's existence and his crossing the Rubicon and Jesus' is really inappropriate. " It's not a "comparison". The point I'm making is that ALL historical analysis is a matter of assessment of what is most likely. That includes things that we have very good evidence for (Caesar) and things that we have very fragmentary and weak evidence for (Jesus). You seem to have missed the point.

[@pabstep2611]

@@historyforatheists9363 Thanks for clearing that up. In that case, I might have missed the point. I would still use the term "comparison" here, since analysing the similarities and differences between features of A versus B is the definition of the word comparison.

[@historyforatheists9363]

@@pabstep2611 Okay, but I'm not actually looking at the differences. I'm noting that both have one thing in common - that we can only arrive at an assessment of likelihood. And I deliberately chose something we can say is *very* likely to have happened (Caesar crossing the Rubicon) deliberately to illustrate my point that nothing in history is certain or proved, just varying degrees of likely.

[@markhackett2302]

@@historyforatheists9363 Really? "They have one thing in common"? They are both claimed to be men. Was that "the one thing in common"?

[@kristofftaylovoski60]

So Adolph was just a really incompetent pseudo-Christian ???

[@markhackett2302]

Apparently Martin Luther and every Evangelical are not and never were Christians, because they have complaints of the RCC and it being corrupted.

[@CorbinSimpson]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_(World_War_II_aftermath) does not cite Hitch. A nuanced defense of Nazism is too kind. With so much nuance, the pragmatic effects of the Church have been ignored. The other sections were decent, but ignoring Vatican-financed ratlines is a lie by omission. Your description of science is something of an equivocation. It's acceptable to claim that the Church did not conflict with science until the 1900s, when particle physicists started to experimentally disprove omniscience; however, we must then *not* claim that folks prior to that era (Newton, Bruno, Galileo) were scientists! As you note, they all operated over a century before the modern scientific method, and the modern scientific method is what gave us the observations necessary to let go of God.

[@historyforatheists9363]

"The other sections were decent, but ignoring Vatican-financed ratlines is a lie by omission." Your problem there is that the words "Vatican financed" are not supported by the evidence. The Church and the Vatican (which are not the same thing) certainly did finance various networks and institutions that assisted with the resettlement and repatriation of hundreds of thousands of refugees. And individual Nazi sympathisers like Bishop Alois Hudal certainly used them to smuggle Nazis out of Europe. But the idea that this was done with the knowledge, assistance or approval by the Vatican is the problem here. The consensus is that it was not. "we must then not claim that folks prior to that era (Newton, Bruno, Galileo) were scientists!" Historians of science can differ over when exactly the full scientific method was developed and practiced and therefore who was a "scientist" in the modern sense. This is why I note that Bruno was not simply not a scientist by any modern definition, he was not considered as doing the same thing as those like Kepler, Galileo and Newton by those men and their peers. Kepler et. al. were trying to establish accurate information about the physical world by measurement, calculation and experiment. Bruno was not.

[@petergrant2561]

The problem with the Pope is that it is essentially a political position which (despite the theory of power of the papacy) has only limited actual power. The hierarchy of cardinals and bishops has enormous capability to undermine anything the Pope wants. Politics rules the day for all practical purposes.

[@russellcrick3873]

You guys mentioned Bart Erhman multiple times and I do enjoy listening to his ideas. However I’m also curious to know what Mr. O’Neill thinks of Richard Carrier’s works. Ever since giving up theism I have leaned heavily towards the mythicism camp. Supernatural simply doesn’t exist so it seemed logical to believe that a supernatural being never existed….

[@historyforatheists9363]

" I’m also curious to know what Mr. O’Neill thinks of Richard Carrier’s works. " I think Carrier is wrong about the historicity of Jesus. I also think he's a very poor scholar, though very good at creating the illusion of being a good scholar for those who can't see past his smoke and mirrors tactics. No-one who has a professional background on the issue finds Carrier at all convincing - he's mainly good at convincing people who don't know enough to see what he's doing wrong.

[@markhackett2302]

@@historyforatheists9363 Strange. Carrier thinks you are wrong. But even Hitler believes you are wrong about claiming he wasn't Christian. Strange that.

[@davidhoffman6980]

@1:13:36 "...and then got spread around by Thomas Jefferson-the American president-" Oh that Thomas Jefferson. 😆 lol

[@historyforatheists9363]

No-one else was ever called Thomas Jefferson? Ever?

[@davidhoffman6980]

@@historyforatheists9363 Sure there were, but in that context, I think there are few of us that didn't know who you meant.

[@historyforatheists9363]

@@davidhoffman6980 I try to make things clear. Many people would be unaware that Jefferson's writings were influential on points of history and in the past I've had people question the idea that he could possibly be the source of a historical myth. So I specified that, yes, that was who I was talking about. Also, Americans may find this hard to believe, but there is a big wide world out there that isn't as aware of early US presidents as the average American.

[@davidhoffman6980]

@@historyforatheists9363 isn't the bulk of this channel's audience American?

[@historyforatheists9363]

@@davidhoffman6980 Possibly. But we're on this thing called "the World Wide Web". Perhaps people like me who are not American are rather more aware of the fact there is that big wide world outside the US and so more careful to think about non-American audiences.

[@Nai61a]

The audio issues were the final nail in the coffin for me. I have engaged peripherally with o'Neill before, but thought I would give it a go. When he says we have to "do history better", he means do it his way, believe what he believes, interpret things as he interprets them. I am not saying he is wrong about everything; there must be some useful stuff in there. But his agenda seems to be that of the provocateur, to be that kid in the class who thinks it's cool to be so not cool that you are, in fact, cool.

[@historyforatheists9363]

"When he says we have to "do history better", he means do it his way, believe what he believes, interpret things as he interprets them." Er, no. As I quite clearly say in the video and everywhere on my site, I mean "to pay attention to the consensus of actual professional historians say based on many years of analysis of the evidence". " I am not saying he is wrong about everything" Gosh. " But his agenda seems to be that of the provocateur" Nonsense. See above. Noting and explaining the consensus of experts is only being a "provocateur" to people who are wildly off on the fringe or beyond. So perhaps you need to look harder at yourself and ask why me merely presenting expert consensus is so "provoking" to you.

[@Nai61a]

@@historyforatheists9363 Not sure how I missed this response. "... actual professional historians say based on many years of analysis of the evidence." - You mean, almost by definition, Christian "professional historians" or historians writing in predominantly Christian tradition and culture, since they can be said to be in the majority on this topic. They have accepted as "evidence" things which we now question and/or reject. It is time for a new, modern and much more sceptical approach; this is beginning to happen. There is no good, credible, extra-biblical, contemporary evidence for the existence of the "Jesus" character as described in the New Testament. That is not what biblical scholars of old, steeped in the Christian tradition, would have said.

[@historyforatheists9363]

@@Nai61a "You mean, almost by definition, Christian "professional historians" or historians writing in predominantly Christian tradition and culture" Nope. Explain why, for example, no Jewish historians who specialises in the Second Temple Period, accepts Jesus Mythicism. "There is no good, credible, extra-biblical, contemporary evidence for the existence of the "Jesus" character as described in the New Testament. " Wow, did you cram enough qualifiers in there? Firstly, we have no contemporary evidence for MOST ancient figures and we have it for absolutely none of the various early first century Jewish preacher who were around at the time. So why would we expect it for this particular one? Secondly, we aren't talking about Jesus "as described in the New Testament". We're talking about the historical Jesus those later stories were based on. Different thing.

[@Nai61a]

@@historyforatheists9363 Mythicism is interesting and is gaining some traction, but I wasn't really arguing for the mythicist position here, hence "as described in the New Testament". The Jews have other battles to fight. I hypothesise that they have not wanted entirely to alienate their Christian (potential) allies so they don't take the hard line explicitly. Implicitly, of course, they believe that the virgin-born, miracle-working, dying-and-rising "Messiah" "Jesus" is made up. And it was that "Jesus" I was talking about. I have heard Jews arguing that the NT has no business being published alongside the ancient Jewish texts, and that is perhaps relevant in this context. There may come a time when Jewish scholars will take a harder line. Who knows? Currently, I take the view that there may have been a man called "Jesus" - no shortage of those - who was preaching radical ideas - no shortage of those - and whose followers were convinced that he was their "Messiah" - probably a few of those about in those troubled times and since. I think it is fair to say that most atheists take this view, too; that, at least, is my experience. The point is, Christians are NOT just arguing for a possible shadowy figure with some radical ideas. They are arguing for the whole package. They will take what YOU say and use it as if you agree with them, ignoring the fact that you do not. They do this with Bart Ehrman, too. Yes, I have learned the hard way that I need to include all those qualifiers as well as the phrase "as described in the New Testament" in order to avoid endless discussions about Josephus, Tacitus et al, and "for the Bible tells me so". The argument about other historical figures is specious. I suppose it depends on whom you mean, but their not existing is, in the final analysis, not particularly significant. Generally speaking, we have enough evidence to take it as more likely than not they existed, even when extraordinary claims are made on their behalf, claims which we confidently dismiss. As I say, it depends whom you mean. You would have to give me an example so that I could compare what we have for this "Jesus" - stories and proselytising propaganda - and what we have for the kind of figure you are referencing.

[@historyforatheists9363]

@@Nai61a The idea that these particular Jewish scholars, of all people are somehow hypersensitive to the feelings of Christians is ridiculous, and shows you have no knowledge of these scholars’ work or methodology. And if you’re talking about the Jesus of the NT and not the historical Jesus, your comments have zero relevance to me or anything I’ve said. Go find a Christian and talk to them.

[@scienceexplains302]

Earth flat vs *globe*, not just round. Something can be round and flat, such as a pizza.

[@Dadas0560]

Right, what Tim is, basically saying is "believe me, because I have done the work, and you haven't". You can never know "why it's true". You can only know why someone thinks it's true. And you can either be convinced, or unconvinced.

[@benroberts2222]

or you could read the really long posts on his blog where he lays out the primary source evidence and scholarly citations. I agree you shouldn't just believe it because he says so.

[@Dadas0560]

@@benroberts2222 Sure I can read them. Still, I am unable to evaluate the truth of their content. Thus, unless I want to do the same ammount of work, I can only be convinced, or not, thus I can only use faith - the worst mrchanism for getting at the truth.

[@RickReasonnz]

@@Dadas0560 ... how else do you propose someone communicate their work? It's without sources that would require "faith"

[@Dadas0560]

@@RickReasonnz I'm not talking about communication. I am talking about anybody else who is not an expert in a given field and has no motivation to become one. Such a person has no way to figure out if what the expert says actually represents reality or is just another opinion. And in the case of historical stuff where the information is scarce or doesn't exist, why should anyone believe the expert at all? I can give one example from this video, where Tim claims that the Pagan origin of the Christmas tree is BS. Well, in Europe there was this Pagan tradition of hanging pinetree branches on the walls or from the ceiling and decorating the with apples, or other stuff. Yes, this was done for Christmas, but it's not like it came from nowhere. Plus, Christmas trees don't grow in Jerusalem, so they can not be associated with Jesus Christ. If any trees can be associated with Jesus Christ it's palm trees, and they don't grow in most of Europe. Plus, if we study Catholic celebration rituals of Easter, for example, across European countries, it is clear that they just incorporated earlier local traditions and made them Catholic traditions.

[@RickReasonnz]

@@Dadas0560 Didn't even listen to that due the the fucked sound quality, but I'd put that down to synchronism. Regardless, He is a historian, he provides his sources. If you disagree with his conclusions that is entirely within your prerogative to do so. But he is an expert presenting research by other experts, so don't call that faith.

[@badger1296]

Its a-buck-22, but watching it in 20 minute intervals is working well.

[@janusatthegate6201]

The anthology of thrown-together myths and laws from various cultures cannot be called a novel. Every "chapter" in the bible disagrees with the other "chapters."

[@scienceexplains302]

I can speak to the Gospel of Thomas. “Hello, gospel. How are you?”

[@deusexlacuna]

Considering the activity in the comments, what was plainly stated in the video about Hitler using Christianity, and my brief skimming of the literature I find that the "Hitler wasn't a Christian" is a weird hill to die on. The author has repeatedly stated that Hitler "didn't believe Jesus was God, didn't believe in the Virgin Birth, didn't believe in the Resurrection, the Redemption, the Second Coming, the Last Judgement or Heaven and Hell". So what? People have had differing views of who Jesus was throughout the centuries, as an example one can look at Bart Ehrman's work on early Christianity. I get that Hitchens and Dawkins, not historians themselves, made statements that exaggerated or not supported by the historical record. Nevertheless I think it's disingenuous to take their claims out of context.

[@historyforatheists9363]

"So what?" So he ... wasn't a Christian. "People have had differing views of who Jesus was throughout the centuries, as an example one can look at Bart Ehrman's work on early Christianity. " So, as I've also repeatedly asked, show me a form of Christianity that would encompass someone who didn't believe Jesus was God, didn't believe in the Virgin Birth, didn't believe in the Resurrection, the Redemption, the Second Coming, the Last Judgement or Heaven and Hell. You can't. So he wasn't a Christian. " I think it's disingenuous to take their claims out of context." That would indeed be disingenuous ... if I'd done that. But I haven't. So what are you talking about?

[@markhackett2302]

@@historyforatheists9363 So he was a Christian, just not what YOU demand Christianity be.

[@historyforatheists9363]

@@markhackett2302 Yawn. One more time: show me a form of Christianity that would encompass someone who didn't believe Jesus was God, didn't believe in the Virgin Birth, didn't believe in the Resurrection, the Redemption, the Second Coming, the Last Judgement or Heaven and Hell. You and about a dozen others have been challenged to do this and you've failed. What seems to be the problem? Oh yes the problem is ... you're wrong.

[@sharpie6888]

@@historyforatheists9363 I don't get how people aren't getting this through their thick skulls

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

The Hitler being an atheist thing, it’s kind of a complicated topic, there’s no evidence Hitler was an atheist, he liked philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, and Spinoza, but he like Friedrich Nietzsche more for his writings about the great Superman thing anything else, many historians have came to the conclusion that he was a pantheist, due to his love of nature, and Spinoza.

[@jamesbusald7426]

47:17 He said those words out loud.

[@historyforatheists9363]

"Who had run away from his monastic house"? Yes. And?

[@markhackett2302]

@@historyforatheists9363 And you ran away.

[@jamesbusald7426]

22:10 some evidence. streams of words don't help.

[@henrimourant9855]

Go read his blog he puts all his sources there. And it's true if you look at the history of concordats.