Trent Horn: Why Are You An Atheist? - Catholic Answers Live - 05/20/19

DONATE: give.catholic....
SUBSCRIBE: / catholiccom
WEBSITE: www.catholic.com
Follow us on SOCIAL MEDIA
Facebook: / catholicanswers
Twitter: / catholiccom
Instagram: / catholicanswers
HOUR 1: Trent Horn - Why Are You an Atheist?
HOUR 2: Trent Horn - Why Are You an Atheist?
Catholic Answers Live - 05/20/19

[@veronicasmith5321]

I love listening and watching Trent horn all the time, but i wish he can come to NZ 💜😕

[@ASRCFTAtheist]

He may take a trip. But not now obviously lol

[@scorpionking685]

Veronica Smith that would be mean as. Chur

[@hiimdominic3780]

1:15:47 "What you are doing will never convert an atheist" Me:😆 Whaaaa? I personally know 3 converted atheists.🤦🏻‍♂️ God bless 🙏❤️🙏❤️🙏✝️🛐

[@Yeatlova]

yeah you will never convert an atheist the holy spirit does.

[@rhwinner]

Judging from the blowback in the discussion I venture to say Trent was his usual effective, air tight apologetic self... :)

[@carsonianthegreat4672]

Mean, median, and mode are all different types of averages!

[@hiimdominic3780]

Is this how this video started? I'm curious about the first callers reason for being an atheist. but for me the video seemed to start midway through while she was speaking.

[@mjcathoc]

Mean median mode!

[@Akira3kgt]

I am an atheist because I have not heard of any convincing evidence for the belief in any god. I only seek that which is true. Please convince me of why I should believe in your God. GO.....

[@Akira3kgt]

@this is the last cookie Is your comment supposed to mean that I should watch the video again? Because there was not any convincing evidence in that video. If you have some, I'd like to hear it.

[@huskyfaninmass1042]

Have you heard anything?

[@Obedience33]

Call the show. You have the fee will to believe whatever you want. Gift of free will from God.

[@michaelharrington6698]

I think a general framework could be something like this: Assumption of no supernatural is faith like in the same way theistic faith is. From the workings of the natural world we can infer something extra-natural (or supernatural if you will) must have at least initiated the natural world. The phenomena of consciousness (note, not intelligence or self awareness) can only be explained by a union of the natural world we observe and something else. Biblical history such as the Exodus is compelling (see Patterns of Evidence video on the topic). The resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation for the widely accepted historical evidences.

[@drycleanernick7603]

Explain to me how your 2 way scale used to define atheism is actually relevant in the definition of atheism. You are an AGNOSTIC. Not an atheist. If you believe there is no God, then you are an atheist, not a “gnostic” atheist. Why? Because belief has nothing to do with knowledge/no knowledge. It has everything to do with confidence. And to have confidence one way or another *implies* belief. It is what belief actually means.

[@Akira3kgt]

Wow, he rationalizes owning other people as property. The bible isn't describing indentured servitude. If the people who made up the ten commandments really thought slavery was wrong, then they would have made one of the ten commandments: Don't own other people as property!!! They didn't think it was wrong, that's why the bible specifically endorses slavery. It's horrible how religion twists ones mind so badly to have to justify and rationalize owning other people as property. This BS about breaking it to them slowly like children is ridiculous. If the bible was meant to teach people until the end of time then where is the follow up lesson teaching them that it's completely wrong to own people. But, the NT doesn't correct this and just says "Slaves obey your masters".

[@RicoCobos]

Jesus explained that God gave divorce to Moses and His people because men were cruel. The holy way to approach divorce was to recognize that it was wrong, in any form. He drew the line. The same truth could be applied to slavery. Men were and are selfish. Here again, we have an old testament take on slavery, observed in the time of Moses. The perfect thing to do is to not have slaves and give to those in need freely. But like Trent eloquently explained, men would ultimately practice slavery as payment for feeding and clothing the poor. God is reasonable... Even with our most disappointing of imperfections.

[@larrycarter3765]

Because atheism is correct.

[@johnyang1420]

Look up Jesus in Britannica…..Jesus is a historical fact.

[@walter7199]

Can someone explain how the whole praying to Mary and a bunch of other dead human beings in any way shape or form does not fly in the face of Hebrews 7:22-25? Is Jesus not the only Great High Preist needed to talk to God? I just cannot get over all of the images of Mary and the saints, if they were only of the cross and Jesus then I would have no objection. I've never considered becoming Catholic because I found it to be disturbing how much Mary is made to be what the Bible clearly states only Jesus is. I'd have no problem with the Catholic church and converting save for the moral dilemma of praying to someone who isn't God Himself. I hope you'll receive this warmly, God Bless

[@j.j.macbocephus6707]

Hi Walter, The first thing to do is to understand the Communion of Saints. You can probably find an in-depth explanation of it in this channel. The second thing to do is to understand what “pray” means. In our modern, Western linguistics we treat “pray” and “worship” as synonyms. Worship is praise and elevation of a deity above all, ie: God. God alone is worshipped. “Pray” means “to ask”, as in the archaic expression “pray tell” when asking a question. We ask for prayers to the Lord on our behalf from all the angels and saints in Heaven who are united with us as members in the Body. Be well, and thank you for the question. I hope I helped a bit. Feel free to call into the CA Live show, I’m sure they’d love to hear from you.

[@walter7199]

@@j.j.macbocephus6707 I really enjoyed reading your answer to my question. I'm a Baptist and I just have never had the thought that Mary should be devoted to or conversed with, and as surely as Jehovah is God it does say that Mary will be counted blessed among women for all generations. I still don't get why she has been given essentially what I have been taught is Jesus's job as the giver of grace. I'm just curious if you can understand my dilemma and maybe shed some light on it that alot of these websites can't.

[@j.j.macbocephus6707]

walter7199 Hi Walter, I’ve been where you are, so yes, I understand your dilemma. Mary obviously has a special place in Heaven, she was given a special job no man could do, we all agree on her uniqueness. The veneration and respect shown to her is what Christ showed to her. I can understand how it might appear overwhelming in nature given the focus the RCC places on her. For beginners, just leave it at “she’s clearly unique and special”, then gradually explore it from there. As for her having Jesus’ job, I get that too. I often internally struggle with that idea too, and I’m Catholic. As best I can tell, it boils down to a more macro/micro focus on Christ’s role in grace. God is the ultimate source of that Grace, and the Son was the only sacrifice capable of reconciling us back to Him. So, Jesus is the fountain of that Grace, but others help guide us to Him, be it Mary, or angelic messengers, or the saints that have come before us. They aren’t the source, just guides to help us find it.

[@walter7199]

@@j.j.macbocephus6707 thank you so much for the reply, I'm going to continue to ponder and meditate on this and if God wills it, I'll take the steps to become Catholic.

[@magadude9131]

Lol they have explained this so many times over and over and over again

[@thewolf465]

The one takeaway from this program (from Patrick's call at the 1 hour mark) is that the Kalam Cosmological Argument proves a cause at the start of the universe, but not that this cause was God. Trent is unable to rebut this and so he dodges saying he wants to get to the other callers. Trent should have stayed on Patrick a bit longer, the only interesting call of the day.

[@HolyKhaaaaan]

No, if the universe has a beginning, means that the universe is not self-existent. It means it's contingent. Only a non-contingent being can bring any contingent being into existence. The Kalam argument and the argument from contingency are a reductio ad absurdum; if everything is contingent, even the universe from which everything comes, then everything comes from nothing. But this is absurd, for from nothing comes nothing. Therefore, biological necessity there must be a non-contingent being that has caused the existence of everything else, by whatever means that might be. EDIT: Speech to text is a bit buggy.

[@thewolf465]

​@@HolyKhaaaaan thanks for your reply. Let me me ask you a few things. "Only a non-contingent being can bring any contingent being into existence. " Are you sure? How did you conclude it was a being? "for from nothing comes nothing" while I agree this seems reasonable, I'm not entirely sure we know this to be a fact in all cases. "Therefore, biological necessity there must be a non-contingent being that has caused the existence of everything else" This has not been demonstrated.

[@mannerofsteel3589]

Thank you for that positive analysis on my call. The disadvantages of the radio podcast format were definitely apparent from the time constraints, but I look forward to the next opportunity I'll have to continue my conversation with Trent. Thanks again.

[@mannerofsteel3589]

@@HolyKhaaaaan This is an interesting discussion, however your argument only begs the question or commits a special pleading fallacy with an assertion of a being, which is necessary (non-contingent), as the creator of all things contingent.

[@ASRCFTAtheist]

Do you know how call in shows work? I can go through this common objection of the Kalam if you'd like.

[@Ella-Is-On-Fire]

"Progressive revelation" "neccessary evil" ...all I hear is excuses and a lot of mental gymnastics 🤷‍♀️.

[@ASRCFTAtheist]

Why is that? Do you have reasons why it's just excuses?

[@alexamaya3208]

Or perhaps they are responses that are indicative of the paradoxical question being asked. These were replied to a question that wondered why God didn’t make a perfect world. But when you really think about it, what is perfect? Would it be possible to create a perfect world with human beings capable of choosing evil? If not, then if we remove free will from the picture, then is it really a perfect world?

[@fireball8099]

We all have it but rarely talk about it in layman language. Do you talk to your soul? Do you feel it? Is emotion your soul?

[@ASRCFTAtheist]

You are a body soul composite. So your soul is you Edit: It's like your hand. Your hand is part of you, your soul is part of you. There are better ways of explaining it, but that is my best shot at this moment

[@Thedoctorjosh]

Just an astounding waterfall of fallacious reasoning

[@ASRCFTAtheist]

By who? Which fallacies?

[@johnyang1420]

Read book Why We Are Catholic

[@josephhsu3221]

Some slavery was indentured servitude but why is it ok if they beat you up with a rod?

[@fullfanfareentertainment]

Trent's point was that it wasn't ok, but people of the time weren't ready to hear that so they got the law about not killing slaves instead

[@toddbowers418]

The mental gymnastics justifying a deity that allows people to own other humans is deplorable. Biblical morality is a joke.

[@ASRCFTAtheist]

Did you not hear the reasoning? Btw, walking can see as gymnastics for someone who can't walk ;)

[@drycleanernick7603]

Explain to me how atheism is not a “belief” that there is no god. Go!:

[@toddbowers418]

@@drycleanernick7603 Atheism is simply a rejection of the claim that a god exists. An atheist is someone who is not convinced in those claims. Are there any gods that you are not convinced of? For instance do you believe or are convinced that Thor (a god) exists? If not then you are an atheist. Some atheists take it a step further and claim that no gods exist but that requires a burden of proof.

[@drycleanernick7603]

@@toddbowers418 it seems to me that you are just trying to include agnosticism in the definition of atheism to justify not having to defend it. In order to “have your cake and eat it too”. Cuz most theists would be “agnostic” in the sense that they know a god exists simply that they believe in one. And me believing in one god, automatically makes it impossible for me to be any kind of atheist. Even if I don’t believe in the Muslim deity or Greek pagan deity. I cannot be an atheist if I’m a theist because being a theist means believing in something that is can only be one. The category of God literally logically can only include one type of thing, no matter how you look at it, it’s just they must be different from creation since it would be creator. I am a theist, therefore making it impossible for me to be an atheist. I can be atheistic* pertaining to some other religion, but I would not be an atheist. But since were using definitions, why don’t we cut to the chase. Do you, in addition to having a lack of belief in a God, also believe in any way shape or form, that a god doesn’t exist?

[@toddbowers418]

@@drycleanernick7603 first off thank you for the intelligent discourse. I agree that you are not an atheist if you believe in any deity. I just meant, and you clarified, that you are atheistic towards gods other than the one you believe in. I am assuming you are not convinced that other gods exist. Do I, in addition to having a lack of belief in a god, also believe that no gods exist? My answer is, generally, I don't know. I remain unconvinced that any gods exist but I am open to the possibility that there may be, in fact, one or more gods; I'm still waiting for compelling evidence. That makes me an agnostic atheist; I lack the knowledge but remain unconvinced. If, for example I believed that no gods exist, I would have to have some information in which to base that assertion and therefore provide a burden of proof for my position. The burden of proof remains with the one making the claim and I am not making any claims. In the meantime, I remain unconvinced. Just as I am unconvinced that leprechauns, bigfoot, Darth Vader, Santa Claus, or ghosts are real. Thanks again for the intelligent discourse.

[@dnznznfjsnsnsms9996]

Trent Horn teaches and defends doctrine that he will be condemning in the future. For now he believes in the Eucharist, but tomorrow when the pope says it's just bread that's what he will teach. He taught a few years ago that divorced and remarried couldn't receive Holy Communion, now, after Francis changed that doctrine he teaches the exact opposite. Incredible. if you have children, they would be better off listening to gangster rap, which professes no doctrine, than Trent Horn who professes false doctrine from the philosophical backdrop of the condemned heresy of modernism

[@johnyang1420]

Google “which church did Jesus start?” Catholic

[@dnznznfjsnsnsms9996]

@@johnyang1420 what does that have to do with anything? I'm Catholic. I'm just not a modernist

[@Regular_Pigeon]

@@dnznznfjsnsnsms9996 sounds like ONE church to me...