Is Religion Bad For Society?

[@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom]

WOW! I can’t believe how fast you put your thoughts together and released this! Well done, this is fantastic.

[@case.johnson]

Wait, did he post this within four hours of the O’Connor-Shapiro conversation being posted??? Even just editing the video seems like it would take at least that long. Are we in the Matrix? I get that he may have had some of the content already prepared since this is a common topic or something like that, but still….

[@jonasj2627]

Maybe he had early access? I thinks it’s possible for the premier unbelievable podcast.

[@resinsminia]

The early access video was released a week ago!

[@case.johnson]

Aahh! Now that makes sense. Haha. Thanks

[@joshrunyan]

@@case.johnsonNope, I’m sticking with your Matrix thesis.

[@prime_time_youtube]

Mike Jones from Inspiring Philosophy has produced some videos highlighting several scientific studies that indicate the positive impact of religion, particularly Christianity, on society. Some noteworthy videos include: 1. Is Christianity Harmful? 2. Does Christianity Cause War and Violence? 3. Meager Moral Fruits Argument Debunked

[@Rubberglass]

Love Inspiring Philosophy.

[@jacoblee5796]

Yeah…I can’t remember if it was one of these videos or debate he did but when asked why the vast majority of people in prisons tend to be Christian, he never really had an answer. If what you’re saying is true you’d think the worst of society is old tend to be secular, not religious.

[@Makaneek5060]

​@jacoblee5796 His answer was that they typically convert in prison.

[@philippbrogli779]

​@@jacoblee5796 I have a different explanation that relies on my speculation. The main atheist conversion place is the higher education. And people from the higher education are usually not landing in prison. Usually the poor people end in prison. The smart and well off people don't commit crimes which makes you end up in prison. PS. I don't intend to say Atheists are correct because the smart people belief in it. Extreme progressive and communist thoughts are also taught in higher education and they also don't end in prison as much. Higher education just allows for more experimental thoughts that don't require reality to get in the way.

[@TheRealShrike]

​@@philippbrogli7791 minor quibble, smart and well-off people often don't get caught. And when they do they have high paid lawyers.

[@matiasdsalerno]

The way he talks about religion and Christianity in this video really dismantles the whole “I’m a non-resistant non-believer” argument. It seems pretty clear he is quite resistant.

[@heather602]

God says so. Unbelievers supress the truth in unrighteousness, no matter how "humble" or "reasonable" they appear on the outside.

[@MBarberfan4life]

Alex claims he's a nonresistant nonbeliever, but he then fails to acknowledge the pragmatic benefits of following God. That's resistance

[@tategarrett3042]

I would say far more that he looses the right to claim "nonresistance" the moment he makes a video, or public statement like that, deliberately attacking Christianity as a whole. You don't make a career in internet atheist apologetics and then claim you're totally nonresistant.

[@tategarrett3042]

@@KayleePrince-we5pb I think the original poster was pointing out that Alex isn't no resistant, not that he should believe even though he doesn't think it's true

[@WaterCat5]

The pragmatic benefits have nothing to do with whether god is real lol. What do you even mean? Besides, the pragmatic benefits are very contested. It's not resistant to have an opinion when there is some doubt as to whether something's real. If god were real, he could just elucidate the benefits more clearly, and then people would acknowledge them.

[@WaterCat5]

@@tategarrett3042 You don't understand the meaning of nonresistance. It doesn't mean literally having no opinion against an idea. It means that the person is not holding onto their opinion in a way that is unable to be changed. Alex could very easily believe god isn't real, but if there exists reasonable evidence that could convince him, then he is nonresistant. Christians should focus on actually providing some evidence. Maybe start by showing anything supernatural exists.

[@tategarrett3042]

@@WaterCat5 I don't think that's a good definition of nonresistance. Nonresistance means you are not opposed to something, but what the clip mentioned above shows is that Alex is in fact opposed to Christianity. he might still be willing to be convinced of it if some bar of evidence or experience were met for him, but he is not nonresistant. Nonresistant doesn't mean "not actively refusing to accept any evidence" it means "not resisting and opposed to".

[@carlidoepke5131]

"Why should we assume that the modern Western values that we take to be "self-evident" will be self-evident once the metaphysical substructure that has grounded them is taken away? You know, it's not to be assumed that those values are going to just keep rolling on." Always such thoughtful insights, Gavin! thanks!

[@jacoblee5796]

Why then was Thomas Jefferson so admit about keeping the church out of government? In fact Thomas Jefferson was not well liked by religious institutions. They actually seen him as a threat. The Founding Fathers literally seen religion as the biggest threat to a truly free society. Which is crazy ironic because most of them were religious.

[@davecorns7630]

true, there's no guarantee that another violent revolutionary movement will not appear again, but i don't think i'll be alive to see

[@JNB0723]

But it was also Judeo-Christian values that held back western progress. Look at Galileo, which Alex brightly mentions. He was imprisoned for expanding human knowledge and science because it disturbed the balance of the church and the Biblical Texts. This is a point that Ben sidesteps, mind you, by saying he is Jewish and not Catholic. So, I believe your statement that western society is built hand-in-hand with religion might have been true 300 years ago, the modern western society stands nearly entirely on secularism (US Constitution, Enlightenment Thinkers who were atheists, Abolitionist Movement, etc.).

[@davecorns7630]

@@JNB0723 you're totally mistaken, the galileo case is nothing like you said, read about it and you'll see also the church was funding him to begin with

[@Hilter420]

@@JNB0723 Gallileo was not in trouble because he was a heckin epic atheist scientist but because he made baseless claims that he couldn't really prove, and those claims went against the church so the church had a problem with it. Sure what he thought was true but I think the church was mostly justified in their actions

[@bencook6585]

Two incredibly haunting books on the soviet union are The Gulag Archipelago, by the aforementioned Solzhenitsyn, and The Socialist Phenomenon, by Igor Shafarevich. Its really humbling to read those materials and see the depths of evil of which humanity is capable of. Great video Gavin on an important topic.

[@peteristevski3681]

The Gulag Archipelago is an awesome book!

[@tategarrett3042]

I also recommend Red Famine, about the deliberate Starvation of Ukraine.

[@firingallcylinders2949]

​War Against Humanity does a good job covering those events on YT

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

I couldn't get past the forward to Gulag Archipelago. The psychological warfare they committed on those people, in order to break them down and make them submit was horrible enough. I knew I'd be too haunted if I read the rest. I've heard enough about the horrors of the Soviet Union. It was at least as bad, if not worse than the Holocaust. Yet the Holocaust somehow overshadowed it. Which is a shame, because people have some sort of misconception that fascism was so much worse than communism. There are forces as work these days, pushing a neo communism that want to romanticize it, and it works among many young people. There actually isn't much difference between the two regimes.

[@tategarrett3042]

@@saintejeannedarc9460 Yeah I understand that. If it'd hurt your mental state definitely no need to read. I almost think it should be required reading in some circles though because there very much is a big push to romanticize communism and rehabilitate its image.

[@thomasc9036]

I am convinced that most people will only hear what they want to hear. I watched William Lane Craig and Dawkins debate. My atheist co-workers believed that Dawkins DESTROYED WLC. I asked them in what way and they can't even say but CONVINCED that Dawkins won.

[@thomasc9036]

@@patrickmeyer2598 I was the same. I never realized how much my atheism was faith till I became a Christian.

[@antoniotodaro4093]

I have met 13-year-olds who grasped concepts in philosophy with greater clarity than Dawkins

[@bookishbrendan8875]

Not an atheist, but I think that they’ve definitely gotten better since the Four Horsemen era. Nowadays it’s Joe Schmid, Alex O’Conner, Real Atheology, Ben Watkins, etc. They display a spirit of good faith that was utterly lacking in the sophistic rhetoricians of atheists’ yesteryear.

[@thomasc9036]

@@bookishbrendan8875 I don't know others but I was shocked at the historical misinformation and inaccuracy Alex presents in some of his talks.

[@bookishbrendan8875]

@@thomasc9036 oh for sure, he’s as prone to it as the rest of them. But I was pointing out the difference in their approach. The latter dealt in pots shots, slander and rhetorical mockery. This new wave at least holds itself with a modicum of respect.

[@robertboekee8733]

First! Thank you so much for your amazing work Dr.Ortlund! You have brought so much comfort to Christians like me.

[@TruthUnites]

so glad to hear that!

[@trygvenyhaug6668]

Great video! I would very much enjoy one on Dietrich Bonhoeffer:)

[@KrazyKittyKatKatcher]

This is not a commentary on the Alex/Ben discussion. He picks his own points that he is comfortable arguing against that are in his words "less nuanced" than Alex's view. You'll get much more from actually watching the Ben/Alex discussion as both of them do a great job :)

[@bradencross1]

Broooooo, you are straight up grinding out videos. Loving the frequency of the uploads!

[@Cletus_the_Elder]

I still listen to Christopher Hitchens, and have been listening to him more recently with the passing of Henry Kissinger. I find him rigorous in his arguments on many different issues, and he lived his professional and personal life with courage and integrity. His thoughts on religion seemed almost naive, however. Hitchens held on with almost religious fervor to the idea that there would be some blissful utopia when religion would be stripped away from humankind, despite strong empirical evidence to the contrary. Arguing against the evidence of recent history, he blamed Christianity and other religions for the horrific rule of the 20th century communist leaders. He argued that these rulers replaced the prior rulers whose position was justified by a theism, and communist leaders simply borrowed the vestments of those earlier leaders. He failed to see that there was deep brokenness people and that an absence of religious belief would not miraculously heal it. In fact, the atheist regimes of our time allowed themselves to be monstrously cruel.

[@zay7192]

Great video, Gavin. If I could add a few details to your argument, particularly with regard to eugenics. The "scientific" consensus just two centuries ago in the 18-19th century was that different colored humans were distinct species from one another. This position was obviously confounded by the Genesis account, which most people believed in during this period, and scientists had to find their way around this problem. Eventually, it became fashionable to make ludicrous arguments such as Henry Home's "distinct origins" theory where he argued God created each race separately. As the century turned from the 19th to the 20th, Christianity was seen as an inferior religion because of its insistence on the equality of man, something incompatible with the scientific dogma of the day. When we get to the most extreme example of eugenics with the Nazis, Hitler explicitly wrote against Christianity, decrying it for its protection of the poor, sick and so on. As you mentioned, we have a short memory span, it wasn't but a few decades ago that these positions became extremely rare in the scientific community, simply because people had seen what it was like put into practice in Germany. I don't think anything in Christian history compares to that level of violence, hatred, and destruction. If anything, the Church has remained a bulwark against the encroachment of secularism, which in it's early stages was genocidal at worst and heavily discriminatory at best

[@philippbrogli779]

If I understood it correctly, the much praised French revolution was mostly driven by the Atheistic cult of reason, which was violently opposed to the church. _"This led to the enactment of the Law of Suspects, which allowed for the arrests of between 300,000 and half a million citizens nationwide. 16,594 of these 'suspects' were formally executed after a trial, while around 10,000 died in prison, and thousands more were killed in various massacres staged across France. It is estimated that the total death toll during the ten-month Reign of Terror rests anywhere between 30-50,000."_ Atheists would probably just say this is a religious movement, because they were not complete atheists. But according to the statements of some of the people involved _"Robespierre was sickened by the Cult of Reason, which rejected any divinity. While Robespierre had no love for Catholicism, he detested atheism, believing that belief in a higher power was essential for social order. Often, he would quote Voltaire: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him""_ So the the non-Atheists in that movement didn't actually belief in a god, they just thought it was a necessary illusion so that the masses follow societal order. That is the reason why some of them claimed to be a deists, or in other word god may be somewhere out there, but he has no involvement in anything besides his usage by the elites to emotionally manipulate the masses. In my opinion that can't really be called anything but Atheism.

[@TheRealShrike]

You're not being accurate. The hard distinction between religion and science did not exist in the 1800s. Most, and I mean most, Christians believed all the racist nonsense. White Man's burden and all that baloney.

[@zay7192]

​@@philippbrogli779 Great comment, thank you for the information. God bless

[@philippbrogli779]

​@@zay7192 I found it curious that we learned about the French revolution in school (Switzerland, roughly highschool level). But not the English alternative. I asked the teacher why we learned about the violent version and not the non-violent English one. After all we should learn about how to do things right. And the English certainly had the better approach. His only comment was that the English people did some reforms and stuff. What we didn't learn is anything about the cult of reason. We just learned that the monarch was overdoing it with his magnificent palaces and stuff so the people were rebelling against the monarchy. I don't remember him saying anything about the people also rebelling against the church, and if he said something, he certainly didn't say they were targeting and killing tens of thousands of people for the sole reason of being Christians. It doesn't surprise me that he didn't really go into that stuff. After all he was Atheist and he seemed to be the typical liberal student who graduated and wanted to stay in the field of education. His lessons were pretty fun but he was also biased in some topics.

[@zay7192]

@@philippbrogli779 sadly, that seems to be typical in education. I recall a similar experience I had about US foreign policies in the last 50 years

[@edwardanderson2847]

Hi Gavin, Roman Catholic from Australia here. Thank you for another informative video. For some atheists, this double standard comes from a place of rather blameless ignorance, as education on Soviet and other socialist atrocities is sparse in my country. Next to, for instance, the excesses of the French Revolution, Lenin and Stalin's purges, the Holodomor, et cetera, the atrocities of Christian polities absolutely pale in comparison, so the argument that Christianity is a net detriment to humanity fails in the first instance. Man may be a helplessly violent and oppressive creature owing to the wound of sin, but history proves that he is substantially better and less inclined to his native violence when guided-indeed, ruled-by a transcendent principle of divine justice, rather than mere human decrees.

[@WaterCat5]

Man, I sure love reading history in a subjective manner. Why not just look at the data? People who are more religious are more violent. Now, you can argue this is due to socioeconomic factors or whatever else, but the simple fact remains. Pointing at bad actors is anecdotal. Simply put, your argument only makes any sense if you can prove these bad actors did their actions primarily out of a lack of god, and that's just not the case. If anything, the reason why there are atrocities committed by all ideologies is that some people are bad, for whatever reason. Depending on some divine justice that doesn't exist does not solve the problem, clearly. All it does is create a false peace that can easily be turned against peace, as seen with the violent rhetoric of the religious right in the US. Why is it the most religious people advocating violence? It's precisely because they think they have that divine justice on their side. It is a double-edged sword and not worth the trouble to keep around.

[@TheRealShrike]

Stalin did not commit atrocities because he was an atheist. His atheism was largely tangential to to his insanity and lust for power.

[@tomasrocha6139]

The multiple genocides carried out by Christian polities hardly pale in comparison

[@tomasrocha6139]

They don't pale at all just investigate the Albigensian crusade for example.

[@mmv10]

Thank you for including all of the book sources.

[@flavadave3943]

I can’t even imagine having the time or energy to read so many books. Lol thanks for doing the leg work for us! Love your videos and your perspective. Keep it coming.

[@tedmroyer]

Thank you for posting this.

[@alexrdy1986]

Gavin is superb to argue God and Christianity.

[@Psi_man]

First time viewer thanks to the Council of Trent. Enjoyed the analysis. As a Christian who started struggling with my faith and confirmation bias, I do find it comforting seeing apologists who have read and studied atheist books and still believe.

[@deion312]

Wow, such an in depth look into this question, great video!

[@keeganmet257]

I am really excited for this one. Thanks again, Gavin!

[@tsukareppi]

Wonderful and well-reasoned response! I have often thought about how to counter arguments such as the ones Alex puts forth. Now I have more ammunition. And thank you for always including book recommendations-I have the Tom Holland, and will definitely put that on my read next list!

[@PhrenicosmicOntogeny]

5:25 This section was kind of disgusting to listen to but also impressive. It's hard to imagine cramming so many misleading statements into such a short statement, but he managed with aplomb. I usually think Alex is pretty reasonable when I hear him speak, but that was terrible.

[@tategarrett3042]

yeah. For example his comments about Galileo are way off. I suppose that's not so much on him as on culture. Galileo wasn't threatened for religious reasons so much as political. His theory threatened to cause farther upset in an era already heaving from the turmoil of the Reformation, and he farther worsened his position by garnering the ire of the Pope himself due to something he had written.

[@WaterCat5]

@@tategarrett3042 Making it solely about Galileo avoids the issue. The church believed in geocentrism and stymied scientific progress because they dogmatically believed the bible was correct when it claimed the earth is the center of things. I don't see the value in trying to pretend the church didn't oppose heliocentrism by pointing out the catholic church has had a bad habit of silencing opposition. Both things are bad, haha. Seems like a poor strategy to counter wrong with more wrong.

[@WaterCat5]

I don't know why you think so. Christianity has flip-flopped on many views and then claimed the later opinion originated from it, rather than the initial opinion being forced to change due to factors external to the church. This is true of slavery, women's rights, civil rights, and more. Surely since you are on this video, you are aware of the plethora of videos which contend that the enlightenment and all its advances are due to Christianity? The American civil war contains plenty of instances of people supporting slavery using the bible just as Alex said. Even today, Christians love to contend that the American version of the nuclear family is "Christian" in some fashion. So you claim these are misleading, but why? I'm curious. I can find you plenty of videos or other media that exhibit exactly what Alex says. I personally feel the same way. I always found it disgusting as a child that my pastor would attribute my good qualities to god or the bible, as if I had not come to them by my own way or could not have.

[@tategarrett3042]

@@WaterCat5 Well I don't disagree that in some specific times and places the church - or at least some part of it - has opposed scientific progress, but you do have to look at the context of those specific instances (for example in the case of heliocentrism, the opposition was based of a misreading of the Bible, and on the general inertial that people have. Throughout all of time people are generally opposed to new ideas even when they have no moral reason to be. For example even Einstein's theories were opposed by the scientific community at first because they totally overturned the theories and ideas that were accepted at the time.). The other thing you have to consider is the broader picture - has Christianity opposed scientific progress on the whole, in most times and places, or only a few? The evidence here is fairly overwhelming. Isaac Newton, Boyle, Francis Bacon, and many others who basically created the disciplines that we recognize today as "science" all explicitly professed faith in Christ, and connected their scientific work to that faith. There are numerous other examples of this that network together into a picture that clearly shows Christianity's active role in promoting the sciences and the development of all kinds of knowledge on the whole.

[@tategarrett3042]

@@WaterCat5 Your first paragraph there alleges a great deal but doesn't show any evidence for any of it. Based on what you said in the second section slavery seems to be a theme you draw on so I'll look at that specifically. You claim that Christianity changed its position on this, presumably after the Civil War, and reference that many people used the Bible to justify it. This view ignores however that the views and ideas of those who tried to support slavery in America from the Bible arose after the slave trade had begun, and faded immediately after it ended. In short, it was an ad-hoc justification for a blatantly evil practice that was in fact explicitly condemned by the Bible itself as well as many Christians in America and around the world. As to your final comment - you say you find it disgusting that your Pastor said that good qualities come from God. If not from him, then where do you think that the good around you comes from? Why don't humans behave like animals do?

[@winstonsavage6338]

That is an excellent presentation that original discussion seemed to miss. I think however that Marxism and communism do count as religions because there is distinct metaphysical belief system that undergirds those philosophies and they have a specific value system associated with them and are executed with “religious” fervor. The problem with Alex and the people of his ilk make is that they presume that there is even such a thing as life without religion or that they themselves are not a part of some religious orthodoxy. If they were half as sincere or half as educated as they claim to be the vast proportion of the time and energy they expend criticizing Christianity would be spent on far more pernicious value systems like Marxism and Islam.

[@CroshBash]

You should talk to Alex if you can. He has interesting arguments for atheism but I truly believe he wishes to convert like he has said. If you could even just give him some of the gospel that would be amazing.

[@bookishbrendan8875]

The comments on memory were really fascinating to me. You might make the case that you can see this in all religions. Catholics today seems to be far more communal and okay with hierarchy and order, but often open the door for a kind of theistic collectivism that is concerning (a la integralism). Protestants today seem to distrust such centralized authority and prioritize the personal and individual, but often turn a blind eye to the solipsistic effects liberalism has had on the West’s notion of the Self and the harm it seems to be causing people today. I’d argue that both traditions still view the world through their memory of their pasts, and that their respective theologies reflect those memories. Atheists likely do this as well, pointing to their own history and viewing the world consequentially in light of it.

[@bridgetgolubinski]

Wow this was put out fast, thanks!

[@myjunedayya]

My fav YT channel!

[@bookishbrendan8875]

Thanks for the quick critique Gavin. I think the proposition on the table was great, but it left a lot of metaphysical questions unanswered, particularly Alex’s criticism of Ben’s free will takes.

[@Steve-wg3cr]

Great video, Dr. Ortlund. The problem is not religion IMO but the human heart. Humans will sometimes use any institution for evil. Dr. Ortlund mentioned government as one. Religion is another. Religion probably more susceptible to this than most institutions due to its nature. People have been known to commit acts of evil if they truly believe it is the will or a deity or god. At the same time, religion also lends itself to great acts of human kindness. There are people who will make great sacrifice in the service of others because they believe it is God's will for them to do so. As Dr. Ortlund stated, this topic is a complex one and can't be explained by simplistic statements like saying all religion is bad or all religion is good.

[@ThisGuy1098]

Another good voice on the Marxism question is Leszek Kolakowski who wrote "Main Currents of Marxism." Once a Marxist himself (born in the Soviet-occupied Poland), he converted to Christianity and wrote a number of works about the philosophy of religion later in his life. He came to see the atrocities of Stalinism as not anecdotal to Marxist thought but rather as an inevitable result of it.

[@TheRealShrike]

How do you get from atheism to Marxism is beyond me.

[@heather602]

@@TheRealShrike Marxism is rooted in atheism. As is communism. Did you know that close to 100 million people have been murdered in the name of communism?

[@Mark-cd2wf]

“If there is no God, then everything is permitted.” Fyodor Dostoyevsky, _The Brothers Karamazov_

[@thomasrutledge5941]

"if we deny ourselves freedom, then we don't really have the power to act morally. Because all true moral acts are not the acts we are bound to do, they are the acts we are free to do." - Alan W. Watts

[@michaelregis1015]

"If there is a God, then anything is permitted."- Slavoj Žižek

[@TheRealShrike]

Gavin, first time listener. I'm a former catholic, agnostic skeptic now. I enjoyed your non-combative conversational tone and I agree that the debate topic was too broad for Alex and Ben. I have watched hundreds of debates and so many of them go off the rails because of failure to define terms initially. As for christianity, of course some good has come from it. I have many criticisms of course, too. For our purposes here, the pace of change is problematic. Christianity has a terrible track record of putting bad men in power. I don't want to put a percentage on it but it's enough to be a problem . These men don't listen to the rank and file. They are power hungry and use their power to keep the status quo. On topics like the treatment of women, slavery, dignity of workers, the church is always hundreds of years or more behind. They wait far too long to do the right thing. And here we are at a critical point in history where many churches will cease to exist if they don't do the right thing, and they still won't do it. All of this brings me to my final point. A far more interesting debate question is where do we go from here? Traditionalist high control religions will be a disaster for humanity for so many reasons.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts!

[@williambranch4283]

No, it's politics that is bad for society.

[@ninjason57]

This is why it's extremely dangerous for people to build their worldview around what teachers/philosophers/anyone speaking authoritatively SAY from their primary sources rather than individuals studying the primary sources for themselves. After I studied the history of atheism there's a litany of information either denied, ignored or hid by modern atheists regarding God. Specifically that it's rooted in willing rebellion towards God rather than a simple unbelief. The willful ignorance can only be buried for so long before history repeats itself.

[@WaterCat5]

Maybe modern atheists have different reasons for disbelief than initial atheists? Anyway, I'm curious what information you found that makes you think it's willing rebellion. I feel like you must think atheism doesn't exist because no one can rebel against something they don't believe is real. I can no more rebel against god than I can against santa.

[@ninjason57]

@@WaterCat5 I would encourage everyone to start their own research on the French Revolution enlightenment era with the cult of reason. God exists, whether you believe him or not doesn't refute that truth. If you're not following the way of God then you're following a way that doesn't lead to God which will inevitably become hell.

[@heather602]

Exactly what God says about people suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@WaterCat5 It sounds like he's talking about pretty blatant suppression of facts. This is born from dishonesty, of course, but there is often a root of resentment in blatant dishonesty that leads to suppression of facts. This could imply, in at least some cases, that there is likely a deep rooted resentment and anger at God, that led to an outright denial and personal war waged against God. I've heard former atheists later admit, that when they did believe in God, that they had underlying anger towards Him, during the time of denial and railing against.

[@ttff-bd2yf]

So we should build on a book full of fairy tales?

[@happycrazyfun5883]

Could you make a response focused on Alex O’Conner’s objections to the goodness of the God of the Old Testament? He went through a few examples at the end of the debate with Shapiro. Would love to hear your response! Thank you for a great video!

[@DenverSuyom]

Would be interesting for you and alex to have a conversation, Dr.

[@TravisD.Barrett]

The orthodox Christian and Soviet filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky said “The end of civilization will happen when the last man who believes in the creator dies. A civilization without spirituality, without belief in the immortality of the human soul, is no more than a gathering of animals. It’s no longer civilization. It’s the end, the decline.”

[@rodwitzel9260]

Another excellent and thoughtful video. Keep them coming.

[@gardengirlmary]

Your videos are always so good. Appreciate your work so much

[@repentantrevenant9776]

I know that Ben Shapiro is known for being a skilled debater, but I’ve never been too impressed with his political content, and I feel even less impressed by his religious content. I feel like this debate was an easy slam-dunk on the religious side, but it feels like he didn’t do a whole lot of preparation. He didn’t have very much pushback for the Galileo affair, nor the Old Testament, which Alex dwelt a lot of time on. I think it’s partly because Shapiro is not Christian, so it’s more difficult for him to defend the West’s uniquely Christian heritage. Alex performed reasonably well for what should have been a one-sided debate. But it’s distressing that he still seems to hold so many blatant atheist myths about history and the origin of modern secular values. Or maybe somewhat encouraging - it means that, perhaps with a few obvious corrections, he’ll be that much closer to accepting religion 👀

[@jacoblee5796]

What blatant atheist myths? Can you give a couple of examples?

[@DaisukiJesus]

Yeah, Shapiro's lack of faith in Christ is one of the many reasons I stopped listening to him. Also I don't think he's that smart in general.

[@5BBassist4Christ]

First they said the Jewish God was weak. Then they said Jesus isn't Lord. Then they said the universe doesn't need God. Then they said Jesus never existed. Then they said religion is bad. The irony of saying "[Christians claiming secularism's progresses] is laughable if not offensive", and then saying, "Well, Martin Luther King Jr., Isaac Newton, Galileo, St. Maximilian, -they're not true Christians. Nor is the Soviet Union, nor China, nor Venezuela, -they're not true atheists." Yes, religion is a hindrance, -a hindrance to our recklessness. Removing religion from society is like remove the breaks from a teenage-boy's new car.

[@sakazuki4584]

Amen.

[@appropriate_socks2390]

Another great video! Thanks for your posts. You critiqued Pinker’s logic that because religions are not compatible with one another, “religion” is logically inconsistent and not true. I kind of chuckled to myself, because I think as a counter-argument one could easily say, “Hundreds of philosophers have constructed views based on rational inquiry and yet all disagree with one another. Therefore, rational inquiry as a system of thought is incoherent and philosophy must not be true.” Which obviously cuts under the foundation of his own argument.

[@ericb9804]

Two people can disagree on rational inquiry and yet acknowledge neither of them may be "right." Its hard to imagine the religious being as magnanimous.

[@appropriate_socks2390]

@@ericb9804 I think that's somewhat true! I definitely agree that many people can have rational beliefs and yet be open-minded to other people's arguments. I think there are certainly a lot of religious folks out there who aren't open-minded, but there are also many others who are. However, I think my comment was only trying to point out a flaw in Pinker's logic. If he is claiming that religious thought in general cannot be trusted because theologians can't come to an agreement, there is no reason that philosophical thought, which he does seem to admire, would also be exempt from the same issue.

[@ericb9804]

@@appropriate_socks2390 fair enough, but I'm not sure you understand the point. We can "trust" philosophical thought in a way we can't "trust" religious thought precisely because the philosophers don't make the same claims of being "right." Of course, they think they are "right" in a colloquial sense, and may even declare their opponent as being stupid or foolish. But they don't insist their opponent will burn in hell for eternity or won't get 40 virgins or whatever. Not only are philosophy arguments much more carefully reasoned, but the conclusions are much more mundane. I mean c'mon man, Pinker may be a clod, and sure there is lots of disagreement in philosophy as well as in theology, but saying they are equally untrustworthy is just silly.

[@appropriate_socks2390]

@@ericb9804 Haha I feel like this would be a lot more enjoyable talking about over a beer than, unfortunately, on KZbin. This is definitely a big conversation. I would agree that religious fundamentalism is definitely an issue. I would also argue that religious systems that are bad or wrong can cause problems. But as far as philosophy being "more mundane" than religion, I guess that I would like to hear more of your opinion about it or more specific examples. Nietzsche certainly reached some pretty radical conclusions, as did Marx. A lot of Camus' work explores whether suicide was the only rational choice one could make in a world without intrinsic meaning. Ivan from The Brothers Karamazov is a great literary figure exemplifying the person who logically reaches insanity, as is Renfield in Dracula. And while clearly there is a such thing as a religious radical, I think that there are plenty of figures throughout history who were so sure about their philosophical beliefs that they ended up justifying atrocities. There are people who think that blowing themselves up will get them 40 virgins. Plato thought that exposing children to the elements was ok so long as the child would not be a contributing member of the ideal republic. Again, definitely lots more to say.

[@ericb9804]

@@appropriate_socks2390 Fair enough - you make some good points. I guess it depends on what you think is the difference between a philosophical text and and theological text, and I certainly concede that line can be blurry. With Camus, we can agree that suicide is something a person can do. With Ivan, we a can agree that insanity is something that can happen to a person. Their topics are sensational, to be sure, but they are "mundane" in the sense that we all acknowledge them as being an inescapable part of the human experience. Similarly with Neitzche and Marx, they discuss "ideology" and the ways that we, as people, can be manipulated by our own commitments in ways we don't understand ourselves. Again, this is "mundane" in the sense that we all acknowledge that capitalism, religion, democracy, etc. are structures of ideas within which we are all, in some sense, complicit,. But that is not to say we agree with the analysis of any given writer. But even Nietzche and Marx are different from the sweeping "metaphysical speculation" characteristic of "theological texts." The point of such texts is precisely to transcend the "mundane" in the sense that they declare knowledge of something "more" or "beyond;" something that is somehow "fundamental," yet also hidden (for if it weren't it wouldn't need to be exposed). Some works of "philosophy" are of this type of as well: Hegel, Royce, even some of Plato, and we call them works of "metaphysics." But such works are not widely regarded as influential outside of theology discussions precisely because of the way their text is similar to theology texts. I suppose perhaps from a theist's perspective it seems reasonable to declare that "metaphysical speculation" is as much a part of the human experience as recognition of suicide, but then, that that is precisely the atheist's message - that no, its not.

[@Adam444Tv]

Yes - if it’s sold as the Law then if YOU a sinner can keep it you EARN your salvation… that kept me so sick, lost apart from God for years! I blame Catholics but that’s not just specific to them. It’s very radical that all a man has to do is believe and he came for the sick and ALL sinners . You also don’t have to “repent” first just ACCEPT the FREE Gift ❤

[@panaroid9636]

To me, this argument although interesting and does bring up important questions. To me the question of whether it is true or not is much more important.

[@samtomes7604]

Gavin I was wondering if you could do a video on confession?

[@thomasrutledge5941]

Your grandmother Anne Ortlund (born December 3, 1923) would be 100 years old today.

[@bretoner2]

Well done.

[@dokgo7822]

Great point! I hope more people can understand this.

[@94Marcel94]

Amazing Video! Thank you for your work 🙏🏼

[@vexifiz6792]

Very good response

[@MaverickChristian]

14:30 to 15:29 - Great point about history.

[@asphaltpilgrim]

I lean more towards the agnostic viewpoint but this is an excellent and nuanced take. I agree that self righteous confidence in lambasting opponents is a bad thing. Good job religion never does this. 😉

[@TravisD.Barrett]

Just watched the Death of Stalin. One of the only ways I could handle learning about the scale of the horror of Stalin’s Russia.

[@francmittelo6731]

When we are talking about religion, we are talking about people telling other people what they should believe and how they should behave. If we agree, then humans ABSOLUTELY need religion. Without leadership, humans will misbehave. This is why public washrooms in big cities are often dirty beyond good reason.

[@luismurga1902]

Interesting topic you are addressing. After reading in detail a certain book by R. C. Sproul, he (although other non-theological academics agree on the same thing) points out that to analyze each person individually one must consider (in descending order) what is: * A "homo religiosus" (“We are so incurably religious”) * A "homo mensura" (“We are the measure of all things”) * A "homo economicus" (“We are maximizers of our happiness and minimizers of our effort”) * A "homo grandeur" (“We are grand when contemplating our current situation”) * A "homo misere" (“We are miserable when contemplating our desired situation”) That is to say, human beings are irremediably religious, but people don ´ t usually explicitly point out which god they personally submit their conscience to, and that is where the famous “Covenant Model” by theologian Gary North comes in to better understand this kind of analysis. Unless statism (that is, the feeling of attachment to and defense of the state sector of the nation where one was born) is considered a form of religion, it ´ s incorrect to maintain the widespread and unfounded proposition that “Religion is the opium of the people", but it would be correct to point out that "The state sectors are the opium of the private sectors" or that "War is the source of health of the state sectors." These latter propositions can be precisely justified through the joint work of Robert J. Barro and Rachel M. McCleary, which is summarized in their book titled “The Wealth of Religions: The Political Economy of Believing and Belonging” (2019).

[@zacdredge3859]

I think Ben's biggest failure in the dialogue was how he at an earlier point suggests the net value of religion has to be weighed up in the question but when asked whether he would prefer a mass conversion of the Christians in a Western society to either Islam or Atheism he vacillated significantly based on 'what type of Muslims?' Now if religion as a broad category is good it shouldn't take a whole lot of thinking to say that while he would prefer %50 of the populous to follow Rabbinical Jewish understanding of theism that an average cross-section of Islam would still be better than Atheism. Instead Ben insists on a version of the question where Atheism is slanted against exclusively radical Islamists with the atheist populous remembering their Christian roots. They do dig into the issue of specificity with religion but I find it interesting that Ben positively claims the ethical positions we find in the West that are of value tend to be about valuing different kin groups etc but this is something that is only inculcated in the West through New Testament and gospel teaching around gentile inclusion. It often feels like Ben wants Christianity for gentiles because he thinks it's the closest thing to the real religion of Judaism, as he sees it, but never takes this as far as considering this as saying Christianity achieved what was promised within the Hebraic literature in this regard...

[@goodquestion7915]

If all "governments" said "pigs can fly unaided", should we agree wholeheartedly with one of them because the assertion must be true?

[@js1423]

I mean you should investigate whether pigs can fly or not, and then put your claims and research under rigorous peer review.

[@goodquestion7915]

@js1423 That's an excellent point. So, the first step is to AVOID believing until GOOD and REAL evidence is forthcoming. That's not what Gavin was recommending.

[@dokgo7822]

In the end, you propose the idea of basically everyone’s trying to get rid of evil, but I just don’t think that’s possible. It may be an extreme answer, but I feel like to get rid of evil you have to get rid of the human population, which is **obviously** a terrible idea! Maybe the better question is something like how do we deter the worst evils? Although this is kind of been done with the justice system, it definitely needs to be updated to today’s situation’s. Honestly, if it were up to me, I would make it mandatory that the people in government or that are in charge of the justice system have at least minor degrees in things like theology and ethics. (it’s possible this could already be a prerequisite and I just haven’t seen it, but if not, it should be.)

[@matiaskoivulehto5880]

Please address the slavery passages mentioned by Alex?

[@John_Fisher]

Have you had a chance to watch the original video yet? I think the response Shapiro gave is a good place to start.

[@cLaw-xz4vn]

The problem with this common claim is a failure to understand the nuanced lessons surrounding those passages. It is lyrical in nature which, understandably, makes it difficult to fully understand. However, that is also the reason scripture stands to the test of time. MLK's "Letter From Birmingham Jail" is one of the most relevant western modern texts that speaks to this issue. While it is in regards to civil rights and not slavery, it still applies to the topic. Fighting unjust laws through the grace of God is the most power form of fighting unjust laws. On the surface it appears counter intuitive. It appears as if we should fully obey those in power upholding those unjust laws. In the book of Ephesians, God tells us it is not humans but evil principalities. Evil has no chance against those who are in acceptance of Christ and express love towards others, ESPECIALLY, when it comes from those who have zero rational reasons to do so.

[@John_Fisher]

Similar to the take on how Hitchens forces the facts to meet his narrative of 'religion' being opposed to legitimate societal progress, there's the use of Galileo to attempt to show that religion is opposed to reason and scientific progress. This popular narrative really doesn't take into consideration all the facts of the matter. Understandably, an atheist and Jewish person might not feel the need to push back against this particular popular narrative (Shapiro said as much in his comment about the 'Catholic Church') but this is another case where it isn't often called out that the facts don't support this claim against religion or Christianity/Catholicism in particular. Prior to any 'persecution' of Galileo, you can find exchanges of letters where Jesuits in the Vatican eagerly wanted to discuss the intriguing possibility of heliocentrism with Copernicus without religious opposition to it, so it is a conflation to see that people who had a problem with Galileo created a religious justification for their opposition and say that their opposition was because of religion.

[@philippbrogli779]

I am opposed to the word religion in the first place. To me it usually is used as a rhetorical tool to bash your opponent on your head with while using clever definitions to exclude yourself from the label of being religious. Atheists are particularly successful in that rhetorical game. When it is useful to them the definition of religion only covers Abrahamic religions while even Hinduism and Buddhism is not part of it, and when that definition is inconvenient everything but their specific version of Atheism is a religion. In one definition the belief of a monotheistic god and an institution of a church is required for something to be called religion while in another definition of religion anything that "indoctrinates" and "has bias" is a religion, which of course they don't do. And the use of those definitions can be stretched and jumped around to whatever is useful in the current part of the conversation.

[@nickterlizzi5383]

As a presuppositionalist would say, “by what standard?” By what standard do these atheists claim that something is good or moral?

[@billsherman1565]

As anyone who's read real philosophy would reply, it depends on your ethics and the system you ascribe too.

[@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd]

According to what standard does God declare that something is good or moral?

[@johnxina-uk8in]

​@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd Uh, from the standard of himself, the being that created everything. I think he'd know more about acceptable behavior than a random atheist in the 21st century

[@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd]

@@johnxina-uk8in I take for granted my ignorance about most of reality. But, since a subjective morality is one that results from the interpretation of a person (as opposed to an objective morality), how is it that the morality of God, who is a person and since it results from his opinion, is not a Subjective morality?

[@chrissonofpear1384]

Let's consider Leviticus 25:46, then. Or Deuteronomy 21:11. And 2 Samuel 24. Which of these, are acceptable? Also, what of when He said... NOTHING... at all, seemingly? Pre schisms, blood libels... and the slave trade... Within Christendom? But yes, a standard, rooted in a jealous person, who might 'punish 7 generations' but also let others, be inherited, as 'bequeathable servants' (or worse) Would be at least easy to define.@@johnxina-uk8in

[@Gruso57]

I agree that religion as a whole doesn't make people violent. It's a point I wish prominent atheists would stop making. Any kind of ingrouping and outgrouping of humans is going to create conflict, religious or not. However, I also don't believe the idea of communism being a political religion is exactly wrong either, and it isn't "twisting" anything. Because they also weren't holding to the ideas of humanism as they claimed were so important.

[@godisreality7014]

Pope Francis said that anyone who believes in absolute truth is extreme and extremists are violent.

[@TheRealShrike]

Grounding morals in God is just as arbitrary and relative as grounding morals on some other factor such as human flourishing. Morality is always a long conversation and is a project of convincing others to get on board. Adding God to the mix doesn't buy you anything. Also...We haven't forgotten God as you quoted, we have forgotten empathy.

[@mikelangdon8882]

Thanks!

[@natehanson4421]

I'd like to recommend Dostoevsky. His writing gives some idea of the philosophies leading up to the bolshevik revolution. "without God anything is permissible". If the new atheists could see what Russia was like, and before and during that, they may be surprised at how quickly things went bad. Somehow I suspect they'd be blind to the similarities between them and the atheists of that era. I don't think secular morality has any mechanism to enable someone to see evil within one's self.

[@js1423]

Russia under the Tsar was not much better. There was a reason why the bolsheviks emerged in the first place. The people of Russia were serfs, with no rights. The country had missed out on the enlightenment and remained one century behind of the rest of Europe

[@godisreality7014]

@@js1423 Esau has been going after Jacob-Israel with the sword now for centuries. He is "the bolshevik" . (Genesis 27.40; Amos 1.11)

[@js1423]

@@godisreality7014 Not sure how that replies to anything I said. Russia should have modernized like Germany and Britain, and they would have avoided a brutal revolution

[@godisreality7014]

@@js1423 it´s all a set-up. Read Psalm 2

[@michaelbrickley2443]

What did Voltaire say? If there wasn’t a God we’d have to invent One

[@JonathanRedden-wh6un]

Two Christian contributions to twentieth century medicine are firstly bringing scientific medicine to the Global South (medical missions) and care of the dying in the hospice movement.

[@ThePlagueGameing]

The relationship with God started with Adam and Eve. Religion started when Satan asked, "did God really say...."❤️

[@godisreality7014]

I agree. God is reality and truth, satan is make-believe and the whole world follows after the beast. Rev 13.3

[@bradleymarshall5489]

To my shame I listened to Shapiro for years. He's doing far more damage to Christianity than most realize.

[@addjoaprekobaah5914]

He's not a christian and anybody who thinks he represents us is being simply disingenuous

[@DaisukiJesus]

Same here.

[@godisreality7014]

Shapiro is of Esau and he hates Jesus Christ.

[@bradleymarshall5489]

@@DaisukiJesus what got you out?

[@DaisukiJesus]

@@bradleymarshall5489 supporting the jabs, lockdowns, saying the last election was legit...a lotta things.

[@swampfox8379]

“If religion were a source of morality, the number of religious wars and atrocities ought to be zero.” Let’s assume this is an external critique. Based on atheism, what standard do you have for morality to say something is immoral? Assuming this an internal critique, who said war is immoral?

[@heather602]

Right. It's the same with this claim: "There is no such thing as truth." Then that statement by it''s own definition must be false.

[@TheRealShrike]

Atheism is just a non-belief in a deity. That's it. Many atheists actually do believe in objective morality. They would say objective morals exist, and adding God to the equation doesn't add anything. In other words, they think that objective morals are out there, and you don't need God to find them. I am more of a subjectivist. Just saying your morality came from God doesn't make it objective. There's no way to prove that it did. Which makes it just another subjective voice in the morality conversation.

[@heather602]

@@TheRealShrike Where is your proof that morals exist objectively apart from God?

[@TheRealShrike]

​​@@heather602I don't think morals do exist objectively. I agree with Alex that they are evolutionary adaptations. My point was trying to show you that some atheists actually do believe in objective morals. But they would not argue that these morals come from a deity. When any group of humans, religious or not, select a moral standard they are being arbitrary.

[@heather602]

@@TheRealShrike How are Jesus's morals arbitrary?

[@michaelkistner6286]

One thing I've been hollering about for a while now is that our framing of morality is skewed. Suppose I'm willing to grant that we all adopt a personal morality that is valid, to the extent that we don't "hurt" anybody, for us as individuals. An individual who does so can participate in the world in positive ways even in a pluralistic society. But that misses the point. The elephant in the room is the question: how does the collective (State) morally justify the use of force against moral non-conformists?. Moral relativists, which means almost everyone today, simply cannot answer the question. Doing so logically requires imposing a specific moral framework on everyone whether they agree with it or not. What follows from this is that we wind up in a world where power is the true moral arbiter. That means everything becomes political. We've abandoned belief in the possibility of moral reasoning and so each tribe seeks to harness the power of the state to enforce its idiosyncratic moral vision on the rest of the population. The situation is even worse when evaluating conflict between different societies with divergent moral paradigms. There the exercise of power includes bombing, beheading, rape, starvation, etc. The winners of these conflicts trumpet victory as the validation of their moral framework. Welcome to Nietzsche's world.

[@godisreality7014]

Consider that politics is religion with the goal of eradicating God by extinguishing moral absolutes and the people who believe in them.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

I'm surprised that Steven Pinker would write a book like that. I saw him in interview, and he seemed sensible enough. Certainly an intelligent man. That's such a trendy and trite atheist notion these days. Oh well, he seemed like he had more sense than that. May the Lord open his eyes.

[@NathanielStallings-nf6qi]

I hate debate topics like these bc they big the question from the start. The word “good” has implications on the way we view the world.

[@repentantrevenant9776]

I don't know how a moral relativism (Alex) could possibly argue that one system is "better" than another. Better according to whom?

[@Testimony_Of_JTF]

Nietszche deboonked Alex's views on morality a century ago

[@legodavid9260]

“Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the Lord." - Leviticus‬ ‭19:14‬ ‭ This statement from the Torah about not harming disabled people may seem like common sense to us today, but what's crazy to think about is how less than 100 years ago, the Nazis openly added disabled people to their Holocaust program specifically BECAUSE of their disabilities. Just something to think about.

[@goodquestion7915]

The introductory message I hear is: although Hell is real, don't reject the Cook in Chief, just because you fear being added to the stew.

[@thecommentors9973]

The question i would have is this. Would it have been possible for the same values to have arrived if christianity never came to power? You seem to be saying that since the christians did it first, only they can ground and explain these values and are necessary for them to continue.

[@AlexAlex-ij3mz]

Sam Shamoun made response videos trying to refute you about Purgatory, Mary, and other topics. Do you plan on debating him?

[@ninjason57]

Does Sam do structured debates? I usually see him just doing Skype debates.

[@NiceYoungJa]

Sam Shamoun has a great knowledge on scripture but lacks charity. If Gavin debates him, I would watch it.

[@Golfinthefamily]

I like listening to Sam and appreciate his ministry to muslims in particular, but I'm not sure he could stay civil and respectful. If so, I'd listen.

[@AlexAlex-ij3mz]

@ThoskaBrah How come?

[@fura21]

We want to see you doing debates against muslims and h3r3tics go ahead and upload videos otherwise you are just a lazy coward

[@repentantrevenant9776]

I was honestly surprised to see Alex take that side of the debate. This is just one of the most obvious things it the world to me. Even if you're an atheist, why on earth would you think that removing an objective source of value could possibly make the world a better place? Surely even a flawed shared system of values would be better than zero shared system of values?

[@js1423]

How is religion objective?

[@repentantrevenant9776]

@js1423 A true religion would be one that makes objectively true claims about the nature of reality, not just a private personal belief detached from reality.

[@js1423]

@@repentantrevenant9776 Was there a global flood?

[@danhoff4401]

If it's not true it's not objective source of view by definition. This is the only side of the argument an atheist can take without blatantly infantilizing everyone.

[@MrSeedi76]

Ah, it's really sad to see the "character arc" as an atheist KZbinr of Alex. He started out well meaning, seemed like a curious kid with an agile mind searching for truth. But since he decided he's "Hitchens reincarnate" he's been really going downhill. Strawman debates, lack of knowledge about history, philosophy, theology. Even though he claimed he studied theology. And I believe him. But it seems he didn't pay attention. All I ever hear from him is, "slavery, muuh, patriarchy muuh, Galileo Galilei muuh..." obviously he didn't even bother researching Galilei. He was not this "martyr for science" that atheists proclaim. He wasn't even incarcerated, he wasn't threatened with torture either. He was also not convicted for simply claiming "the earth revolves around the sun". He was convicted for claiming absolute truth for his theories which of course he couldn't prove. He spent the rest of his days continuing his studies living in luxury basically. I was even subscribed to Alex's channel for a while, thinking, "hm, what might the other side think". Until I realized it's just the same old strawman arguments (mainly aimed against the fundamentalist view of things) with little understanding what Christianity is, what Jesus even taught, etc. I mean, how is it possible that "slavery" even became an argument when Jesus said, "love thy neighbor". When you love someone, you don't make him a slave. End of debate. We can argue all day whether people follow Jesus's words of course. Or women? Religion has been "wrong" about women? Pardon me? How is this related to anything? Did he want to argue that it's kind of an "absolute truth" that women should work besides raising kids? The only reason two people need to work nowadays is because people can't afford their lives anymore living of one job. How is one position more "true" than another in that regard? It's simply societal convention which position one should hold. In Jesus "there is neither male nor female, slave or master." Honestly at this point I consider it a waste of time to watch anything Alex says. As long as he's no longer interested in digging for the truth and just rattles off the atheist buzz words like a broken record.

[@jr8260]

Perhaps you should reread exodus about slavery.

[@MrSeedi76]

​@@jr8260perhaps you should re-read the new testament. Especially the teachings of Jesus. You know, the one guy whose title became the name of the whole religion. Try better next time.

[@jr8260]

@@MrSeedi76 Colossians chapter 3 verse 22

[@MrSeedi76]

​​​​@@jr8260I said you should reread what Jesus said, not Paul. Also, where do you get the idea that Paul condones slavery when he's talking about a slave being Christian, not the master. So you obviously didn't understand what your read. BTW - no need to quote the Bible, I actually know what it says and opposed to you, I also know what the meaning in the context is. What do you think would have happened if Paul had taught to Christian slaves (not masters!) that they should disobey their masters and rebel? In a society in which Christians were a minority under rule of Rome. You atheists really need to come up with better arguments. So I'll ask you again - how do you come from "love thy neighbor" which Jesus said is the essence of the Bible, in combination with "love God", as well as the "golden rule" - to the idea that Christians believe slavery is just fine and dandy. Those are THE most important rules of Christianity - so how do you arrive at "muh, the Bible condones slavery"? It's a nonsensical argument, no matter how hard you try to twist what the new testament says.

[@jr8260]

@MrSeedi76 I suppose my question would be why there seems to be contradiction between Jesus and God when they are said to be one. In the old testament it lays out explicitly how slaves are to be treated, acquired, and dismissed. I won't go so far as to say it endorses slavery as a good thing, but it certainly doesn't condemn it. If I'm not mistaken, there are a few times where God claims to be unchanging so I don't really understand how what Jesus says could get you to a point where you could actually condemn slavery as immoral as opposed to just not ideal. I understand there is the new covenant with Jesus but does that render everything in the old testament irrelevant, even with God being unchanging? I've never understood how those can go together and am curious to hear your thoughts on it.

[@deadeyeridge]

Gavin, you don't think MLK jr. was a heretic? He certainly appealed to Christian morality in his writings and movements, but he also continued the expansion of heretical Oneness theology into the black church, which is still an enormous theology issue with it today

[@jayehm]

Should we (as Christians) be abandoning the idea that there are theists and atheists? Or religious and non-religious people? EVERYONE worships something. Religion are formed within societies uncontrollably. We have creeds we live by and it's not really our own but some ideas that others have evangelized us with. People are inhabited by spirits that inform their lives and they live out the commandments of those spirits. People, 2K years ago, would have worshiped Odin, Freyja, Morrigan, Mars, Venus, Athena, Dagon, etc. Today we worship the NFL, Universities, Democrats, Republican, Hollywood, XBox, whatever people are talking about or getting upset about when things don't go their way. We listen to their prophets and believe. Either way we are being informed buy something outside of ourselves in order to live our lives and that establish the religion embraced by people.

[@billsherman1565]

No, because worship is defined often as "the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity:" none of those things you claim people worship are deities. its a definitional error. Unless you just mean "likes a lot" in which case yes, everyone likes something, but thats hardly religious.

[@ericb9804]

Ok, but the only point that matters is if religion, as it currently exists, is "good" for society, as it currently exists. It seems wholly obvious that if we are to survive our own self-destruction, it will be because we come together under our common humanity. Religion, Race, Nationality, etc. - these are all forces working against us, regardless of however well they may have served us in the past.

[@chibu3212]

This sounds noble to an extent on paper but it’ll be a monumental task to ask (or coerce) people to give up or move away from Nationality and Race through the abolition of the concepts all together.

[@ericb9804]

@@chibu3212 Neither asking nor coercion would work. If people do it, they will do it for the same reason they do everything else - out of their own self interest. The only question is will they reach this conclusion in time to prevent their own demise.

[@chibu3212]

@@ericb9804 That’s a fair statement. However, you might be severely underestimating the amount of people that either believe in our are proud of those concepts and how it benefits their self interests. Ironically at least from my experience its predominantly nonreligious white European/ Americans that speak more about race abolition or moving away from nationality then minorities.

[@TheEpicProOfMinecraf]

Recently, I've been running across statements about Christian missionaries doing horrible things. I know that's an overly large subject matter, but it came to mind with the thesis of this video.

[@thomasc9036]

Of course, there are always exceptions. They are in the gov't, church, or any organization. That's why it is God who saves through Jesus Christ and not man.

[@tategarrett3042]

Unfortunately I'm sure some of those statements are true. A key component to look at though is - are the actions of these people justified by what Christianity teaches or condemned by it? And were their actions supported by the church or condemned (if/when they were found out). If they were unsupported and condemned, then it seems much more reasonable to say they acted out of their human nature, against what Christ taught, rather than that they acted out what they claimed to believe.

[@adamzhang7044]

​@@tategarrett3042The crusades were explictly supported by the church. In fact, it was the church that called for the first crusade

[@tategarrett3042]

@@adamzhang7044 the Catholic Church, yes, and the Pope primarily. This was done primarily for political reasons as the Pope was expanding his power and the eastern Byzantine empire, a nominal ally of Rome, was being invaded by the muslims. Christianity was used as a justification for the wars certainly. But this does not retract from the fact that while they were politically somewhat justifiable (as I mentioned the Muslims had invaded and conquered all of the formerly Christian "Holy Land" they were not actually supported by what Christianity taught. They represented a corrupt leadership structure abusing it's power, and the Bible, to justify fighting a war for its own reasons. Even if all of that could simply be dismissed though and the crusades were entirely caused by Christianity, one must compare them with the ears that atheism has brought on, in the past centuries.

[@adamzhang7044]

​@@tategarrett3042 Thats quite convienient, isn't it? But it doesn't actually matter what the moltivations were, and whether they were corrupt or not. The very fact that Christianity has the power to make armies of men fall head over heels into committing massacres is what atheism is against here. Not to mention the stories in the Bible which, without much room for "phenomenological" interpretation, condone and even encourage wars on behalf of Christianity. To side track a bit, your excuses for the church and Christianity: "political reasons", "corruption", "not what Christianity taught", works just as well for the Soviet Union and its atheism

[@albertosanchez6096]

What about Norway, and othe european northern countries. Most modern secular countries, which were not imposed secularization, have high quality life standard. Why dou you usually focus on dictartorship countries who used atheism as a control tool for not having competence against their absolutist goverments?

[@diegonicucs6954]

It seems to me that there is an obvious flaw in this analysis, which is to say that "hey, the vision that ended up winning was the Christian vision" which is exactly the criticism that Alex made. At some point, those fighting against slavery had to move away from "current" traditions and provide a different interpretation of the text to push for change in society, so at some point, both views were within the same general Christian tradition. It cannot simply be said that because those driving the change were Christians, then those changes were possible, since the opposite view was also Christian, It cannot be the "same" that makes the "different"

[@repentantrevenant9776]

Because slavery was in every society on the planet, but was only overturned in Christian society for explicitly Christian reasons. It's hard to make the case that both sides were the "Christian" side, because slavery doesn't need Christianity to exist. It's easy to see why slavery would appeal to slaveowners regardless of their belief system. The fact that Christianity *overturned* slavery, and that it was specifically a profoundly Christian enthusiast leading the charge (William Wilberforce) goes to show that Christianity has something in it that other worldview systems do not have. And of course, atheism gives absolutely zero grounds for believing in equality, or any reason whatsoever that would oppose slavery.

[@diegonicucs6954]

@@repentantrevenant9776 "but was only overturned in Christian society for explicitly Christian reasons" then you need to read more history, that is completely false. And with this the rest of what you said goes to waste.

[@heather602]

​@@diegonicucs6954Just because people were using the bible to justify slavery doesn't mean that it's condoned by God. People twist scripture to justify all kinds of sins, such as homosexuality. It doesn't mean God condones it. It means sinful humans distort God's word to justify sin. Genuine followers of Christ were the ones who pushed for the eradication of slavery. Not because Christ followers are inherently good or inherently better, but because born again believers have the Holy Spirit indwelling them, and if they follow the Holy Spirit's leading, things like slavery will be grotesque to them because slavery is grotesque to God. Divorce is also something God hates.

[@diegonicucs6954]

@@heather602 That's an ad hoc answer, it could be completely the opposite and there's nothing in what you said to prove otherwise. Furthermore, what is being discussed here is the tradition and belief that corresponds to it, not God.

[@heather602]

@@diegonicucs6954 I gave you a response with a reasonable explanation and included another example (homosexuality) to demonstrate that people twisting God's word to suit personal agendas continues. It's interesting that you dismiss my response, yet you yourself have failed to provide any evidence for your position (whatever it may be) Citing "tradition" of belief won't work.

[@johnxina-uk8in]

I love that alex constantly misinterperates the bible to suit his evil view of christianity. The letter of St. Paul saying "women shouldnt be leaders or teachers" was a letter sent to local churches that had false teachers blaspheming. Hes not saying women can never have authority over men ever, hes saying in the church men hold a higher spiritual authority, if he read this or knew anything about the bible he wouldnt be regurgitating this non argument

[@antillious]

Or if he knew the history of Galileo, or if he knew the history of misinterpretation of slavery. His grab bag argument, while off the cuff, was stuffed full of standard vague atheist boilerplate. Each of those statements have been fully dismantled, and based on his education, he should know that. I lost a lot of respect for him with that one.

[@christophekeating21]

This is the beginning of the official party song of the socialist unity party in east Germany. Tell me if it sounds atheistic to you. She gave us everything, The sun and the wind, unsparingly. Where she was, there was life. What we are, we are through her. She never left us, though the world froze, we were warm. The mother of the masses protects us, her mighty arm carries us. Creator of the world, the sun and the wind? Yup sounds 100% atheist.

[@daman7387]

That was fast lol

[@Arunava_Gupta]

Very correct. The new atheistic stance is an one-sided and extremely unnuanced one crafted to suit a particular agenda. In reality, the modern history of some places has been greatly shaped by (good) religion. In India, our secular and liberal constitution also bears the imprint of the sublime thoughts of the spiritual teachers of the mediaeval period who in their time were responsible for initiating great equalitarian movements among the masses taking inspiration from the pure devotional texts and scriptures such as the Bhagavata Purana. In the modern period, Mahatma Gandhi sought inspiration from religion. The Bhagavad Gita was a constant source of solace and inspiration for him and the political movement for the freedom of India that he started was also, at the same time, a movement for religious reform seeking to remove social evils like casteism from society. How all these facts of great significance are conveniently ignored by the new atheistic writers in their attempt to propagate their ideology!

[@larrycarter3765]

Yes it is.

[@TempleofChristMinistries]

Grave sins have not been committed by the church, it has been committed by those who are false prophets illegitimate children of god, those who do not belong to the Christ who are not born of light, not those who are the Christ believers the Sons and Daughters of the most high god, they have not committed these grave evils. True Christ believers are always The Good Guys in the story, you are in error.

[@godisreality7014]

"the church" is a tool for anti-Christ mind control.

[@pdrsan993]

Do you have a standing desk or are you sitting down?

[@goodquestion7915]

Religion is the ONLY excuse to hurt people that is PRAISED after evil has been committed in its name.

[@theeternalsbeliever1779]

That's simply not true, because political ideologies like Nazism and Communism have been used the same way.

[@goodquestion7915]

@theeternalsbeliever1779 are they PRAISED today? That's the operative word. In other words, would you feel excited upon being invited to their club? Would you proudly tell your family and friends that you belong to those thought-groups?

[@lukem2971]

​@goodquestion7915 some people feel that way about those aystems, yes

[@goodquestion7915]

@lukem2971 what about you?

[@CroshBash]

Nah. Dixie is still praised and that wasn't a religious fight.

[@2l84me8]

Religion does not improve society morally nor ethically. Societies are proven to be better off without religion and religion is not a deterrent to immoral actions.

[@thomasrutledge5941]

"The whole history of religion is the history of the failure of preaching. Preaching is moral violence." - Alan W. Watts (1915-1973)

[@tonysales3687]

If one is to find out what is true ' persuasion has no place' obviously. Also my own subjective view cannot be used. One could argue that an objective view is the only option left to us' but if we examine closely this also fails as everything has been put together by thought' which is limited' and anything limited cannot come upon truth as this would require a path; or method. So how do we discover that which' has no limitation' that is whole and unlimited. All of this naturally leads to the ultimate question' what is love' and can i live that way. must i give up thought' do i cease to be if i do give up thought. when we came into the world our brains were not operating on thought, we had no knowledge at all' no education' no words learnt' and yet we were aware' alive' do you see this fact. we had no content and yet we were extraordinarily alive' with no knowledge or thought operating. if one can abandon all of that content ' then this question of what is love and truth is answered naturally. because then it can flower and is there.

[@NomosCharis]

This a good follow-up to the debate. However, I think Alex has a good point that has not been adequately addressed, least of all by Ben Shapiro (could we expect otherwise?). It is a little trendy right now to adhere to a religion merely for practical reasons-i.e. because it is beneficial for society or life in general. I think this should concern us as Christians a little bit. Eventually, the bubble will pop. Even if Christianity's values are useful or necessary to life and society, that does not make Christianity true. And any convert who becomes a Christian merely because our values are useful or necessary is a shallow convert at best. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Tom Holland, and Jordan Peterson do not go far enough. Extra steps must be taken, or else their version of Christianity will implode and fall apart along with the faith of whoever buys into it.

[@repentantrevenant9776]

Recognizing the goodness of Christianity is the first step. Recognizing truth by its fruits. Many people leave Christianity because they experience harm in the Church, so we shouldn't be surprised that people return to Christianity when they see good things coming from the Church. Intellectually accepting the truth claims is the next step.

[@NomosCharis]

@@repentantrevenant9776 yes, but that next step must be taken. Or else the popular brand of Christian faith will be vulnerable to rhetoricians like Alex O’Conner. Also, there is a difference between truly, objectively “good” and merely expedient. Many are recognizing the latter about religious faith, but I am not so convinced about the former. The truly “good” must be rooted in what’s true, or else it is not really good. It’s just useful for us.

[@repentantrevenant9776]

@NomosCharis completely agree. I believe Christianity to be true, thus I have hope for a moral system grounded in reality. If atheism is true, there unfortunately would be no hope for every having objective moral truths in my opinion.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

Also, if the good things (coming from the church) are not John 14:12... should many bother? Including, Spanish Jews... And many, also, do not see Matthew 7:13, and Romans 8:30... to be wholly, hopeful. Or Revelations 13:8.@@repentantrevenant9776

[@fuhd9892]

Is it true that MLK denied the trinity?

[@theeternalsbeliever1779]

Idk about the trinity, but he is known for denying Christ's divinity.