Sean McDowell vs Hemant Mehta - what the other side gets wrong - Unbelievable? USA dialogue

[@truthj5661]

To me it’s a breath of fresh air when a theist and an atheist have a decent conversation.

[@BrianThomas]

Oh I love it. This is one the best conversations I've heard in a while and I'm getting so much from it. If this was a debate I would have heard the same stuff over and over again. We need to have more of these conversations, but with KZbinrs from both sides. I'd love to see/listen to that.

[@gramajan4]

Sean is not a theist, he is a Christian. Big difference. :)

[@ohdehhan]

@@gramajan4 What is the difference?

[@bradzimmerman3171]

Poor Sean he has a lot to go through, idiot to truth, long run sometimes

[@bradzimmerman3171]

Dumb Sean Atheist is not a religion

[@codeunited5905]

The truth is: Even if this video was 12 hours long, I would watch this, Because this is the most civilised Christian-to-atheist Conversation That I've ever heard.

[@jordanjohnson9415]

Sean is so unbelievably patient-it’s breathtaking.

[@onedaya_martian1238]

Sean is just saying that he has faith his dad is right. That would be a betrayal to Sean's family and livelihood if he actually realized that if he was born in Saudi Arabia, he would be an evangelical Muslim.

[@jankopandza1072]

@@onedaya_martian1238 you can be born in India and be hindu the fact that our Universe is fine tuned stays as a fact and main reason why so many secular scientists today are switching their position. They accepted the evidence before them . The fact that Universe is fine tuned for life on Earth. Few atheists went so far to invent the multiverse Marvel studio ideology that bacfired so quick that it got forgotten before it came alive .. the question is only one. do you accept the evidence and fact of Universe being fine tuned by agent outside of Continuum or not. it is that simple. Do you follow the evidence or are you a cultists .

[@sheilaallen6877]

Very interesting and enjoyable. I applaud these men who are so intelligent and articulate and charitable. So refreshing to see men who are so different but still able to discuss their ideas and beliefs. Thank you for sharing.

[@bernardobila4336]

Indeed

[@neilsiebenthal9254]

If the moderator wasn't there it would have gotten heated.. It got close.. Sean is clearly a bigot who doesn't understand Christianity doesn't get to decide morals... Yalls "morals" are trash, they're full of hate.. Just stop it..

[@iamjonjim]

Even as a person of faith, I can understand Hemant’s requirement of a direct-tangible experience to begin to sway him toward faith. While I admire Sean’s passion and authenticity, even the 10 (disciples) accounts weren’t enough for Thomas which is why he said himself he needed a direct-tangible experience to believe Jesus was raised from the dead (John 20:24-29). It took Saul having a blinding encounter with Jesus himself (Acts 9:1-19) to be converted to Paul. I think the best we can do continue to be a living example, continue to pursue truth gracefully, and pray that God may work in the way only He can. I absolutely loved this conversation and am grateful for Sean’s example.

[@briannaalejo9226]

me too. I totally get Hemant's requirement of having a personal experience in order to be swayed towards faith in God. But notice how he also says that even if he were have a personal experience, he will still not be swayed. I get you would question personal experiences, I do it all the time as person of faith. But it seems, to me, that Hemant has made up his mind.

[@spadesofhearts7714]

@@briannaalejo9226 Idt Hermant made up his mind to just completely reject Christianity even in the face of evidence. It depends on the kind of evidence brought forth. If he were to go "permanently" blind one day, and be healed sometime in the future, many people of faith would believe it's God's handy work. However, if you dig deeper you might find that it was something the doctor missed and that his "permanent" blindness was actually temporary. To put it simply, it would have to be something that we can say without a doubt was God's doing without the possibility of it being something else.

[@rock801]

Maybe we should discuss how we determine truth and how genuinely we apply this to all possible stories, an example you pass laws but fail to enforce them yet you claim justice is served, that would constitute bigotry.

[@briannaalejo9226]

@@spadesofhearts7714 And give an example of this evidence that would no doubt be God's doing that would satisfy you? Would be God coming to you in a dream? Or what if He showed himself in front of you and your family and friends saying to believe? No, we can throw all of that out the window because personal experiences are flawed, they could be hallucinations. Historical evidence of biblical prophecies proven? nah, those are coincidences. Tell me, what evidence will satisfy you? How can unbeliever constitute "evidence that we can say without a doubt was God's doing" if he does not believe in a God in the first place?

[@spadesofhearts7714]

@@briannaalejo9226 You are absolutely correct. If the proof isn't good enough it can be debunked as Schizophrenia, hallucinations, or something else. For me personally, I'd like to see some sort of miracle. Or maybe he could tell a person something that'll happen in the future. There are countless ways God could prove his own existence. I mean, according to Christians view of God, he can do anything right? If a sign of his existence is too much for him, I don't believe it's fair that I have to burn in Hell for eternity for not listening to the words of other humans. Also, what prophecies are you referring to?

[@schnellster1]

Excellent and all the right points placed by Hemant!!!!👍👍👍👍

[@heavenlyblisslv]

Sean did a really fantastic job with his explanations. As a Christian, I really appreciate his commitment to fair common sense explanations in defense of the faith.

[@romnarz]

You think that Sean did a great job because you are a Christian . I think that Hemant did a great job because I am a atheist. Although this seemed a friendly cordial discussion in fact if you listen carefully as ever they talk past each other . Just one example Sean is ‘happy’ for evolution to be taught but still thinks some of the ‘weaknesses’ should be taught . When in the classroom The religious right take that ‘right’ to just teach the weaknesses . Sean would have to admit that a lot of the religious right are not as reasonable as him .

[@onedaya_martian1238]

@@romnarz Exactly. Perhaps the controversy of refraction should be taught ! Rainbows are not the splitting of white light passing through a dense medium resulting in different wavelengths appearing. They are really a covenant by god to not flood the earth out of anger, again. Also children should be taught miracles by watching 700 club and Pat Robertson healing people at the end of his show. I mean, why study medicine when calling on Jesus cures arthritis or gets rid of kidney stones !! Can I get an Amen ??

[@collectibles4u]

​@@romnarz I think the atheist did a great job and I'm a Christian, I also think Sean did a good job. Personally I gleaned from both unfortunately as a collective whole we have lost the ability to listen. Not trying to single out any one person but I see it every day and it's really depressing. I can only speak for myself I'm trying to learn to listen whether I agree or not.

[@robinl6659]

We really don’t want to see the truth about ourselves? It is an inner heart matter. No one is absolutely moral or good.Mans heart is deceitful,clouded with pride. Serious

[@tongasmith910]

It is exactly as it needs to be

[@anonymousjohnson976]

I agree. Everyone mostly has done bad behavior and also has good behavior, it is just human. However, what I absolutely hate is that when someone has their bad behavior, even though they have done good, people will shun them and push them out of their lives, even in family members. Makes no sense. I try to look at the good in everyone and ignore the bad, if possible.

[@gramajan4]

@@anonymousjohnson976 Jesus died for our bad behavior. It's called sin, and it can be forgiven by the blood He shed on the cross.

[@anonymousjohnson976]

@@gramajan4 : Actually, you do not know any of what you said is true, because there is no real proof. You cannot use the bible to prove the bible (circular reasoning). I do not want someone to take my place and be tortured for what I have done wrong, and I didn't ask them to either and wouldn't ask anyone to do that. You do know that you are in a blood cult, don't you? Why all the blood needed from a loving god? Even in your church communions, they say: "take, eat, this is my body and take, drink, this is my blood." Sounds like a cannibalistic ritual to me. I cannot believe I actually did that when I was a christian. I am out of it now as I have grown, become more educated, and have an open mind, which has led me to having the critical thinking skills I so sorely lacked when I was christian. Also, why do christians have to wear a torture device, or execution device, and display it everywhere? When Jesus returns, do you think that is what he is going to want to see, all the crosses? Anything else you want to learn about the bible, let me know.

[@mruncletheredge]

@@anonymousjohnson976 why even try.... they need it.... facts don't register.... only faith works for them.....

[@jomamastool]

Amazing conversation. But the host jumps in at very inopportune points in the conversations a little too frequently. I feel like there were points about to reach a conclusion and he would jump in while they're still trying to convey their thoughts to the other.

[@eamontdmas]

That's Justin for you. It's all about him, all the time.

[@bromponie7330]

I really admire Sean McDowell, such a polite, respectful and nice (sometimes too nice) guy. I wish I could have his charisma and patience, as I find it sometimes quite frustrating dealing with some atheists. Spread the love!

[@ItsMisterWilliams]

You know, and Sean is a genius. He is so prepared for every topic in every conversation...every...time. It's absolutely impressive.

[@kukuriku.rikukuku.588]

Another brainwasher kid...

[@redpillpusher]

Steven Williams ...”genius”??? no ...its called apologetics training. anyone can learn it.

[@ItsMisterWilliams]

@@redpillpusher well okay. Yeah. I suppose I used the word genius too leisurely, but regardless of training, he certainly has a particular wisdom, strategy and overall way to carry himself that isn't common. It's odd to see an effort to tear either of these men down in any way. The point of the reply was to show an appropriate respect and appreciation, but to respond with name calling, such as brainwasher, or minimalizing his work and experience played out in this arena just strikes me as... At the very least improperly placed. But I suppose that's why I don't use Facebook or any of that stuff. "This guy is smart and good at what he does." "No, he's evil and brainwashing." "No, he's just a regular dude at his job, might as well flip burgers." I just don't get it...

[@redpillpusher]

Steven Williams ...fair enough. I don’t believing in “tearing down” people either but I do believe in calling a horse a horse. for the record I don’t see hemant as the best spokesperson for atheism. personal character notwithstanding for either.

[@wellingtonsmith4998]

About the bad father keeping people from the Heavenly Father: when I gave my life to Jesus I was so glad to have a loving Heavenly Father, not the distant, emotionless earthly father who raised me. So, no, a bad father did not keep me from faith, it made me want a Perfect father even more.

[@ceb591]

That was my thought too until I met people from other Faith's who had exactly the same testimony.

[@devanshroyal8372]

I don't think Sean was talking about a general case, he was talking there are a few people whose relationship was effected by the actions of their earthy father, because of which their view on the Heavenly father changed without finding out more about him.

[@Wordoffakes]

This is why I left the faith. Because I'm a better father than god

[@hhmaster789]

Heavenly Father is the best father ~

[@kimmmimemwest1895]

Heaven is pretty distant...

[@barry.anderberg]

Justin Brierley is one of my heroes. Unbelievable? came along when I was really unsure about whether or not Christianity was intellectually credible and episode after episode I found that it was and my faith grew and grew. Thank you!

[@PremierUnbelievable]

Barry Anderberg very good to hear Barry! Thanks

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

If an invisible Unicorn exists outside of space and time and it's not detectable by any scientific means. What would it take for you to be convinced that it exists?

[@barry.anderberg]

@@crazyprayingmantis5596 A proof that said unicorn is a necessary being that cannot in principle not exist.

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

Barry Anderberg And what would prove that to you?

[@barry.anderberg]

@@crazyprayingmantis5596 are you familiar with Aristotle, Aquinas or Leibniz? I highly recommend reading Edward Feser's book 5 Proofs if you haven't.

[@King_David794]

Sean is one of the sharpest Apologist. God bless you and your Father’s Ministry

[@joebarnard4708]

My jaw dropped at 19:00 when Sean asked if it was possible if a bad experience with a father could translate into a bad view of God. Well, of course it could, unless God was real and showed himself real in a way to reverse those feelings. Some seek God, in particular, to experience a good father and find there is nothing there.

[@darwel007]

The Atheist response to that was pitiful beyond belief. I would like to see a redo with a much more formidable opponent

[@pedroamaralcouto]

@@darwel007, I never heard of someone that is an atheist because of a bad relationship with the father, concluding that God is not needed. May you provide examples? Saying "of course it could" is not a good comment. It might be possible, but if someone brings that up, there should be at least some examples. I could also say that a person can become a Christian because of a bad relationship with the father because God could be the father that person never had. That's theoretically possible, but that doesn't mean it's common or meaningful if I can't provide examples.

[@dantereinhardt6911]

@@darwel007 Well, that was a question for a psychologist, not an atheist. So, he should bring in a psychologist to answer that.

[@darwel007]

@@dantereinhardt6911 I think you responded to the wrong commentary. Try again

[@dantereinhardt6911]

@@darwel007 No, it was your comment I meant to answer. Sorry if I was misunderstood, English isn't my first language. But what I meant is that specific answer couldn't be adequately answered with surety by just any atheist, instead it would be a question better answered by a psychologist, which would be someone that understands the human psyche to a point where he could answer whether it would be possible for someone to have a bad relation with religion due to paternal abuse. After all, without data and understanding of the human psyche, anyone else can only just guess any accurate answer for that question, but not have the data or the technical knowledge to answer why they arrived to that conclusion.

[@Pseudoornitologist]

The host was interrupting a lot. I felt like it ruined the flow of the conversations.

[@Джонатан-р8д]

If you've never seen the show before, he does it every fucking time. It's unbearable.

[@kamana6435]

That was great really loved the dialogue. Gave me a lot to think about., especially the ideas and beliefs we rely on when life gets difficult.

[@onedaya_martian1238]

The hardest truth of all, seen when life is difficult, is that "life is unfair". In fact, individually, life is random. However, it is our property to abstract and make some sort of order out of what is apparent chaos, that gives meaning out our short existence. If it needs an imaginary being to conceptualize something beyond what we experience as "reality", I guess that is why humans have their religions. This is the great understanding few people have.

[@seanbarry6523]

I respect the fact that Sean is honest .He is saying things Christian would never say in public

[@mashah1085]

Actually, Sean and Hermant have the exact same answer for "What would make me doubt my beliefs?"....for Sean, he said it would be "Show me the dead body (skeletal of course) of Jesus, thus proving the Resurrection never happened." Though he didn't state it directly, same for Hermant (or any of us non-believers) "Show me or introduce me to the resurrected Jesus...have him appear before me."

[@ataho2000]

Faith (by definition) is belief without evidence. When you have evidence than you would say "I have confidence". The higher the reliability of the evidence, the higher the level of confidence.

[@fourteatwo]

Faith (by the definition of idiots) is believe without evidence. It is only atheists who claim it to be possible to form beliefs without evidence formed on their own belief structures leading them to a "worldview" that is a worldview like non stamp collecting is a hobby. Guess you have a high confidence in your belief that beliefs can be formed without evidence whilst the general consensus is that evidence is that what causes beliefs. Now the evidence can be interpreted wrongly or even be fabricated, but evidence it is. So what evidence do you have that a belief can be formed without evidence?

[@jessebryant9233]

You need to stop believing nonsense on blind faith and consult a dictionary. Clearly you commented before watching much of the debate... And there is no "evidence" to support your naturalistic "faith". You claim to have "confidence" in your "beliefs"? Okay, give us some of your best "evidence". If you have any, that is.

[@ataho2000]

@@jessebryant9233 I will give you some evidence. 1- I observe the nature and say, "I belief that there must be a force that pulls all objects to the ground and I try to find evidence for this invisible force". After conducting many experiments I collect the data and confirm that there is indeed a force that pull objects towards the ground and we call that force Gravity. 2- I observe the nature and say: "I believe that gravity have the same effect on all objects, meaning that all objects should fall to the ground at the same rate. In order to justify my belief I build a vacuum chamber and drop a feather and hammer at the same time and just as I suspected, they hit the ground at the same rate. In both cases my beliefs were justified by empirical evidence. 3- I observe a glass falling of the table without anyone touching it. I say, I believe that a ghost made the cup fall. I conduct all kind of experiments and end up empty handed. In the end I conclude that my belief is unjustified. I can decide to hold my belief based in faith or I can disregard that belief as a false one. PS. There is no such a thing as "naturalistic faith". Faith is defined as knowledge ‘verified’ by faith. The definition is circular. Faith is belief without reason. Faith is by definition, irrational (knowledge lacking reason). Faith claims knowledge of the unknowable; it is contradictory. Faith in god is not a type of knowledge; it is belief without reason. Religious faith is a conventional abstraction. Faith is different from belief as well. Belief is a statement or idea of pre-knowledge or pre-understanding that can be verified and tested using the scientific method. A belief can be proven true or false. Newton believed gravity existed before he could fully define it or state it into a hypothesis. Faith is irrational belief. Belief that cannot be tested.

[@jessebryant9233]

@@ataho2000 1. That is stuffing nonsense... But, where did nature and such immaterial forces come from? As is the case with you blind-faith believers, you are skipping the most fundamental of questions and essentially assuming naturalism in order to argue for it. But doing so is a fallacy. 2. Did you just say... "I believe"? Why do you believe that? By faith! Then you test that - using your own brain that, according to you, is the byproduct of eons of accidental, unguided mutations and literally mindless processes, processes that were supposedly based upon survival and NOT truth! You clearly do trust your own thinking (whatever that means in a naturalistic universe), but can you test and confirm it, without using viciously circular reasoning? Now when it comes to your own moral conscience, are your beliefs justified by testing? And if so, how so? 3. So how is your belief that naturalism is true, justified? How have you tested your faith? _Origins of the universe? Origins of life? Darwinian evolutionism?_ PS: Yes there is. All atheists practice a naturalistic faith, and you are no exception, as you have just demonstrated. And where did you get this supposed definition of faith? Not the dictionary! (Again, I suggest you consult one.) As for the laws of logic you continue to appeal to, as if there is a way that human beings should strive to think, well, they are NOT part of nature! They are immaterial realities that can only be discovered. Given your own naturalistic faith, your belief in such immaterial realities and standards is not rational! Naturalistic faith is unjustified given ALL of empirical observation regarding causes, design, information, laws, conscience, etc. The terms 'faith' and 'belief' and 'trust' are all synonyms... Not all beliefs can be proven to be true. Take your naturalistic beliefs for instance. You can't prove 'em, but you cling to them with a dogmatic zeal, even trying to justify them using that which is, by definition, outside of your own faith! Also, Newton was a man of religious faith! As were so many of the pioneers of science! The thing is, they believed BEFORE they looked, in fact, their belief was WHY they went looking! Chaos theory doesn't given you scientific inquiry... Faith can be irrational belief (as is the case with your own naturalistic view of the universe), but the Christian faith is based upon evidence, reason, and history. Christianity is far more testable than any of the 3 core doctrines of your blind and irrational, naturalistic faith - which I mentioned above. _Or maybe you can prove me wrong?_

[@ataho2000]

@@jessebryant9233 I was gonna respond to all the bullshit in your comment but I saw the phrase: "As is the case with you blind-faith believes" and I'd have to say that you are responding at the wrong person because I don't suffer from type 1 and type 2 delusion. I'm an atheist.

[@ugo9248]

26:40 when an India person tells you they experienced their gods will you believe them? since that's the yardstick for believing in a god. It's so arrogant when Christian dismiss other religious believe when they have similar Matrix for evidence

[@anamericanfriend2367]

Actually experience isn't all. Jesus existed and was crucified and raised from the dead. That's the difference.

[@ugo9248]

@@anamericanfriend2367 Elijah and Muhammad also flew into space on a chariot because some books said so.

[@anamericanfriend2367]

@@ugo9248 🙄

[@ugo9248]

@Luke Crawford yes, facts he rose from the dead and flew to space maybe he is another galaxies I wonder what happen to all the zombies that rose from the dead when he died 🤔 or are just going to conveniently leave that part out. Scientists believe in god? I guess Richard Dawkins didn't get the memo.. Most notable Historians believe a big part of the Bible is made up of forgery and events and characters. Christianity only spread because through violence, colonization, slavery and political gain there is nothing divine about it. And no notable scientists today believes the world was created in 6 days.

[@ugo9248]

@Luke Crawford am very sure you haven't read the Bible well or you just read the feel good parts, you don't speak with any facts. There are more evidence for Muhammed existence if you do any research but am sure you do not believe Muhammad flew into heaven on a chariots. Historians Richard carrier, Robert price with years of work have evidence to disprove the resurrection. Let's say the resurrection was truth it is absolutely wasted because the effects of the original sin, the death of Jesus was meant to cleanse still existence like difficulty in child birth. The death is completely useless because nothing changed. Besides is not much of a sacrifice if you die and wake up 3 days later to move to paradise. Christian claims to worship yahweh and hear from him but have many denomination that conflict, the catholic believe they are right , same with jehovah witnesses, pentecostal same, there is no consensus. Some believe in trinity, others doubt how can a God be this inconsistent. Same God of Abraham speak to jews too. Let me just leave Islam 😅😅.

[@tylersimmons6524]

I do enjoy these types of discussions much more than a typical debate.

[@combinedeffects4799]

Why is it when you figure things out - somehow , that disproves God , if God created the world , the universe etc , then we just uncover what’s already there.

[@kimmmimemwest1895]

Atheist just don't believe God exist .. they never try to disprove God ..

[@combinedeffects4799]

@@kimmmimemwest1895 perhaps like a blind person walking from the. Ramp straight into highway traffic

[@kimmmimemwest1895]

@@combinedeffects4799 no it's like it's no proof God exist

[@GarageStudio7]

@@kimmmimemwest1895 Where did the singularity come from? Evolution of consciousness?

[@daniellima2973]

If god created the world by naturalistic means as you suggest , hence we just uncover . Than that creator needs to be demonstrated. Otherwise I could say that extra terrestrials did it and it would be more plausible. Or I could say ferries did it or insert any unfalsifiable creator . Existence needs to be demonstrated:

[@jacoblee5796]

Nobody is convicted on eye witness testimony alone. You have to build a case around the eye witness testimony and if the the evidence doesn't support the eye witness testimony the case is thrown out.

[@MichaelAChristian1]

Jesus loves you! Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED! Get a king james bible and believe. Read Matthew. Read 1 John 4. Read Romans 4,10.

[@jacoblee5796]

@Luke Crawford Except they don’t….nice try though. Biblical stories line up with history the same way Spider-Man does or Harry Potter.

[@Revivalism23]

​@jacoblee5796 spider man and Harry Potter did not built human civilization.

[@jacoblee5796]

@@Revivalism23 I never said they did…

[@ZombieTactics]

It's unfortunate for Hemant that he became famous. If you read his writings, or watch his channel ... it's not really well thought out. Smart guy, needs to read more.

[@joshuacole8284]

I agree. When I watch his videos, I get the impression that he is intelligent. And I really want to like him. However, his videos are littered with straw man arguments.

[@johnlinden7398]

I THINK YOU OUGHT TO READ MORE ! CHECK OUT MATT DILLAHUNITY, ARON RA , SAM HARRIS AND CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, ETC ; TO COMMENCE ON YOUR PATHWAY....TO GETTING REAL !

[@hazzah.04]

@@joshuacole8284 nah his videos are all good

[@jinu03]

@@hazzah.04 Not really... Check Dr. Ravi Zacharias and his apologetic arguments. Hemant misses the facts n spills the beans in his effort to sell it to those who might be not well versed, what the Holy Bible is all about.

[@jdhuskey]

@@jinu03 Check out the podcast _Dragons in Genesis_ if you’re interested in what the Bible is _really_ all about.

[@hollygilmore4075]

Such a great video! Good questions posed by the mod and good answers on both sides of the aisle!

[@CC-ru4rr]

i hope there are more christians like sean mcdowell who respect separation of church and state. thank you sir!

[@pauldaigle2344]

Except for Gay Marriage. He's 100% on board with the state enforcing his religion there.

[@CC-ru4rr]

@@pauldaigle2344 agree. i commented this before I got to that part.

[@jessebryant9233]

Sadly, the secular humanists won't respect the separation of church and state. But then, "separation of church and state" ≠ people of faith (and all people are people of faith) can't bring their faith/values/principles into government. The term was originally intended to protect the church from the State, not to silence the church within the state. Unfortunately, secular humanism has become the state religion. It is what we indoctrinate our children to believe via public education. That is largely why we have so many social ills today...

[@CC-ru4rr]

@@jessebryant9233 I think it's a good principle that we don't legislate simply because a religious book says so. We need secular reasons for it. Also want to ask, why do you think secular humanism is harmful? And why do you consider it a religion

[@jessebryant9233]

@@CC-ru4rr Nobody has suggested that we legislate just because any book says so... However, do we have good reasons for legislating the way we do - or is your notion of morality more akin to simply pragmatic appeals? What are your secular reasons for believing that human life has worth and ought to be protected? Secular humanism is harmful because it is arbitrary for one, and it makes man the measure of all things. But we know that no mere man could be the measure of all things - so it is also irrational. Then there is the track record... I consider it a religion partly because the Supreme Court ruled it so. But even humanists have 'beliefs' regarding the most fundamental questions of human existence, beliefs that are either inconsistent with nature/science or that science simply cannot provide meaningful answers to. I would call that, having faith.

[@ugo9248]

Lying about things is not evidence no matter how good the lie makes you feel

[@sunnydae3914]

👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽BINGO

[@atleelang4050]

Sean was warm and generous, but Hermant did not reciprocate. He kept insisting that Christains are dogmatic and atheists are not. Very disappointing.

[@jollyandwaylo]

When it comes to the question of faith, I think it is a good idea to ask if using that same method can be used to arrive at ridiculous conclusions. So Sean's idea of faith seems to me can also get me to believe in fairies or psychics or Bigfoot, etc. Which shows his method of faith is not a good means to find what is actually true.

[@EmeraldPixelGamingEPG]

What is Sean's idea of faith?

[@georgedoyle2487]

“Bigfoot” “Fairies” This really lowers the tone of this conversation which was actually very respectful and dignified on both sides!! The fact is that attempting to compare the belief in Christ to “Big foot” and “fairies” is nothing more substantive than intellectual blood sports. No intelligent atheist even believes this as intelligent atheists actually admit that everything does appear to be grounded in an objective universal standard and that everything does appear to originate from what is ultimate and personal. Which is why no intelligent atheist claims that “Bigfoot” and “fairies” are believable because the way reality appears to us suggests fairies and Bigfoot might actually exist. This is a straw man argument and a (Fallacy of False Equivalence)! A strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism basically says that the accidental arrangement of the blind, mindless, ultimately purposeless, ultimately meaningless “matter” created everything, accidentally squeezing the whole universe inside something “physically” smaller than this tiny dot [.], even creating Truth and value!! A belief that is synonymous with the belief in magic at worst and at best it’s synonymous with the belief in myths and miracles!! I don’t need your secular myths and secular religion to ground metaphysics, that is ground Truth and value. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that we need your quasi materialistic religion to know what right and wrong is!! I wouldn’t have the arrogance to gaslight or lecture a bereaved mother during a pandemic who’s only consolation is the hope of being reunited with her child in some kind of afterlife. Of course I’m playing devils advocate here lol but do you see how easy it is to lower the tone? It achieves nothing!! Its so easy to mock and demonise both sides of the debate!! It’s an (Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy) a (Fallacy of False Equivalence) and it actually dehumanises and creates intolerance, ignorance and bigotry!! Why not live and let live? I rest my case!!

[@jollyandwaylo]

@@georgedoyle2487 Well, you certainly proved that you can lower the conversation to amazing levels. So give me some good evidence of your god instead of trying to derail my point.

[@georgedoyle2487]

@@jollyandwaylo “Well you certainly proved that you can lower the conversation to amazing levels” Ho the irony is killing me!! Look up (Appeal to Hypocrisy Fallacy)!! Now that’s very ironic and absurd coming from someone who (seriously) used the “Bigfoot” and “fairies” argument in response to such a respectful and dignified debate!! That’s the only point that I was making. That’s very ironic coming from someone who actually believed that the “Bigfoot” and “fairies argument is an high IQ and (edgy) rebuttal for the belief in the fundamental nature of [Mind and consciousness/monotheism/Logos/freewill that is rationality itself/objective morality/the Actual/the One]!! Sorry but monotheism is just a properly basic belief. It’s just a logical observation of the impossibility and absurdity of the contrary. In contrast a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism is nothing more than a culture of death and meaninglessness if you think about it rationally!! Atheism basically says that birth is an accident, life is ultimately meaningless, ultimately purposeless and absurd and death simply ends the absurdity and illusion that birth began!! Just live it out that’s all!! Your world view, your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! I’m not actually debating I’m just saying live it out for a second. But you can’t and your own narcissist need to engage in debate is your own circular refutation!! Just live and let live . But I can guarantee that you can’t!! Equally, this is hilarious because did you even read all my comment. I was actually playing devils advocate so it was a (joke with jab) as us Irish call it. It’s just a (joke with a jab) and I even clearly pointed out that I was playing devils advocate to illustrate how ridiculous your response was!! So cheer up because you can still hold on to your atheism, that is your can still cling faithfully to your fatalism and epistemological nihilism for what it’s worth!! Imagine what I’m like when I’m seriously debating I could keep your attention for days!! “So give me some good evidence” Why (ought) I give evidence for anything under this strictly reductive, causally closed, effectively complete, atheistic nihilistic, ultimately meaningless system? Why would I even condescend to debate someone who thinks that the “Bigfoot” and “fairies” argument is actually an high IQ argument? It wouldn’t be a fair contest and I can guarantee that you will become more triggered and angry than you already are after reading this and will inevitably default to just (trolling mode) if you actually debated me properly!! I rest my case!!

[@georgedoyle2487]

What was your point again exactly?

[@CanadianLoveKnot]

27:30 Bill Cosby should hire Hemant as his lawyer, because 10 witnesses to a crime is not enough evidence in a court of law.

[@ephramwalton]

10 people who witnessed a emperor with no clothes.

[@CanadianLoveKnot]

dee So all the Cosby accusers are lying? interesting theory.

[@delavega4706]

Media: Lying Comey: Lying Obama: Lying Clinton: Lying Stormy: Lying Strozk: Lying Mueller: Lying Judges: Lying 19 Sexual assault accusers: Lying Climate change scientists: Lying 17 Intelligence agencies: Lying Putin: “He means it, I believe him” - Trump

[@AsixA6]

*Witnesses testimony is a claim, not evidence. Those claims can be accepted as true or not, but it's still just a claim. When a person CLAIMS 500 people CLAIMED to have seen a zombie, it wouldn't even be allowed in court because that's called 'hearsay' and claiming a person rose from the dead would definitely NOT be allowed in court.*

[@CanadianLoveKnot]

jwkivy hearsay is when someone testifies about something they heard second hand. It's not hearsay if that persons testifies about what they saw/heard relating to the event.

[@donnaross7531]

I could never debate like this because it stresses me out.

[@Apologia5]

This is the real reason why Hemant doesn't believe in God. He said... "Which God are we talking about that I might want to exist? The one that's going to send me to Hell if I disobey Him? The one that's trying to command every little bit of my life and tell me how to live every single way? I have enough of that with my parents, I DON'T NEED IT supernaturally as well." So it's not that there isn't enough evidence and that he can't believe in God, rather it's that he doesn't want to believe in a God like this, he doesn't need or want all of that stuff from God. He seems to deep down be rejecting God for more emotional reasons. He just doesn't want a God who he has to give up control over every area of his life. He doesn't want to put his trust in a God that is described in the Old Testament. It's not so much an issue of the mind for him but rather an issues of the heart, the will. He is loving his sin more than God and holding onto it. Humility needs to take place and he needs to see his sinful condition, that he is guilty before God and an enemy of God. Until he sees himself in that light, he will never see his need for God.

[@Tastou]

Did you miss the part where he was answering a specific question, the part right before that quote where he contradicted your interpretation AND the part right after where he described a version he finds likable but still not believable?

[@robinl6659]

I appreciate your comments Very Good. It seems the Word Sin and it’s connotation really causes people to reject Believing the message of The Gospel of Christ,It is a heart issue not a law ,do’s and dont’s. Which in general we can always say we are better than.Does this make sense?Again you explained well!👍

[@Apologia5]

@@robinl6659 The word sin does have a negative connotation because it's a very negative thing! If it's not ultimately a sin issues and reason why people reject God then what do you think the real reason is? I agree that it is also a heart issue...but the heart is deceitfully wicked (Jer 17:9). The heart loves sin. And with Christianity there are lots of do's and don'ts. It's not how we earn our salvation but Jesus said if you love me you will keep my commandments.

[@AsixA6]

@@robinl6659 _"It seems the Word Sin and it’s connotation really causes people to reject Believing"_ WTF? No. The complete lack of any evidence supposed "god" things exist causes people to not believe invisible magicians exist.

[@alixa3676]

Hemant says that he wishes that he had a structure the same as what the church has in times of crisis. I pray that he realizes that the church is motivated by God and his Word that's why this structure exists. As an introvert, being a Christian exhausts me whenever I have to listen to people, help out, be generous. But since God calls me to do these things for others, I am motivated and empowered that I am able to and do more for others. Notice that I and the Church is doing this not because they just simply want to. It's because God is our strength in doing these things. Being an atheist, like what he says, is a lonely path. They run on with their convictions and self-strength. I pray that he would get over this and truly finds that friendliest person he can find even if he is a friendly atheist is Jesus.

[@Gokulosestoavirus]

Exodus 21 Fuck your god

[@clareakemi1329]

Amen!! 🙏

[@xavija9349]

The patience of Sean is incredible! i want be like he

[@mruncletheredge]

i would say Hemant was the one exercising patience....

[@bloodborne7018]

Agreed, Hemant barely gives him a chance to speak

[@olsbijack2998]

I'm sorry Sean, but an "earthly father" is not analogous to a heavenly father. Who would help me practice sports to make the team? Who would feed me? Who could I talk to (verbally, come on) when I am in need? I mean seriously every time I hear this heavenly father crap, all I can think about it absence and silence.

[@MovieMakingMan]

Why do people look at god as a father? If god was a human he’d be in prison for child neglect, child abuse and child murder. Look at the accounts of god in the Bible. God is a serial mass murderer. And how can god be a father if he’s absent? If god knows how many hairs that are on the heads of all 7 billion inhabitants on earth then that god also knows babies are starving or in agony from a hideous disease and he does nothing to help. That takes a sadistic psychopath to watch people suffer and do nothing. And that god says he loves everyone! LOLOL. God kills 100% of his children. God is also the biggest abortionist in the world. Spontaneous abortions are god’s way of correcting mistakes. But wait. God is supposed to be perfect so why is he creating so many billions of flawed fetuses. What is ridiculous are all those pro-lifers who worship god when god is the biggest abortionists in history. Why aren’t they protesting their god instead of worshipping him?

[@TomeRodrigo]

Wau, what a comment!! Great! Well done. I fully agree. Missing nurturing from parents or other people mean death to an innocent child. God doesn't give a shit because he doesn't exist. We can see that very clearly in the world.

[@jessebryant9233]

So here's my question to all the atheists out there who say that they are not "convinced" by the evidence or arguments FOR theism (see Mem's statement @ 7:45), okay, so what evidence "convinces" the atheist that naturalism is or even could be true? Who can make a positive case FOR the atheistic/naturalistic position? Maybe just a simple 1-2-3 list of what any reader personally finds "convincing"? _Can you "show me the evidence"?_

[@Джонатан-р8д]

So, what I think you may have not considered is everything we observe and have ever been able to demonstrate exists in nature. Everyone's view on things is based on what we observe. When new information presents itself, we analyze it and either accept or reject it. When an assertion about something outside of nature is presented, and we can't analyze it the same as everything else we've been presented with, it's not reasonable to accept it, as it doesn't demonstrate itself as nature does. We don't have to be "convinced" of nature. Nature simply IS existence, so unless existence is a simulation, nature is necessarily true. Also, even if existence was a simulation, that would be the "natural" in that scenario lol

[@jessebryant9233]

@@Джонатан-р8д Exists in nature? First of all, according to many an eyewitness, that's not true. However, you're skipping the first and single most fundamental question there is, that being the question of origins. Nobody is saying that nature doesn't exist... And folks experiences, known laws of physics, empirical observation, basic math and simple logic lead many to conclude that God must necessarily exist - or nothing that exists would or could exist! But it seems to me that producing a simple 1-2-3 list as per my request, is not something you are prepared to do. Which means that really, you can't meet your own standard, can you? _Or, regarding "new information"... And a few examples of that regarding your own naturalistic position would be... What?_ Your assertion that nature simply IS existence, is not a scientific statement and doesn't answer the question of origins. Again, you seem to be simply skipping the beginning. Instead you go with a non-sequitur! And how do you know that "nature" isn't a simulation? And how could a simulation be "natural"? I think you've abandoned your own philosophy... not that a philosophy is part of nature...

[@jancondron3754]

well done! How encouraging to hear such an authentic intelligent conversation!

[@thehonestchristian492]

When Hemet said the misconception of "your just an atheist because your mad, or in rebellion" insinuating there has been no thought or research, I though of how Christians are told "you just believe because your born into it." It insinuates the same thing.

[@MybridWonderful]

mmm, not true. Studies show 50% of a ALL religious people take on the religion of the parents. That's a fact.

[@thehonestchristian492]

@@MybridWonderful not every atheist is one because something "bad" happened to them so they left the church, and not every Christian was born into it. Besides piggybacking off of your parents faith is not true christianity. But atheist and Christian alike is important to listen and not jump to conclusions like "your just mad at God" (christian to atheust) or "you were just born into it" (atheist to christian).

[@kenhilker2507]

14:00 This is exactly what makes Street Epistemology such a powerful framework. Rather than asserting views, it is a question-based method that encourages open and honest dialog.

[@sujoygupta5264]

@@mackdmara you've really miscast and mischaracterized SE. Using questions to promote a good discussion without it being a debate or about points-getting is thw goal. Whether or not an individual person practicing SE is holding to that is a separate matter. Thoughts?

[@ceb591]

@@mackdmara I think a good discussion about core beliefs makes a better world. If we, as citizens of the world asked more questions I think we may have more peace. Humans will always have different few points from the mundane to the profound but debating is better than destruction. When I was a believer in God, I relished a good debate. Ultimately, my own experience with this non existant God is what made the belief fade away. Every walk of life uses this method - I used in parenting & my sales career. As with any form of discourse it can be used for good or harm. Manipulation is challenged by critical thinking.

[@ceb591]

@@mackdmara this is a typical question that an deconvert gets from a believer. The key word is false - it usually indicates that a believer is about to tell me that if I had only heard their version of God's truth I would still believe. As there are in excess of 1000 different versions of Christianity it would seem the truth is subjective. The number of versions of the bible must be considered too - 66 books? 66+ with Macabees etc? KJV? NIV? NAS? I was a sold out bible believer who loved, served and worshipped god. I belonged to a wonderful, supportive church. Through some life events and a good look at the bible and its history I realized it was unlikely that God existed. After 30 years, it became very clear that I have today to live my life.

[@ceb591]

@@mackdmara I like to have spirited discussions with believers and secularists. Street Epistomolgy appeals because I like to see people stretch their minds. I miss the back and forth of discussions during bible study and such. Nothing happened to me other than regular life experiences. In my search for truth my realization that the bible, the basis of my belief was a very old book but in most ways fiction. When I researched the history of the bible, and other gods before and during the same historical period - the cracks started. As I read and listened to apologists the elaborate explanations seemed hollow. Then I applied the socratic method of questioning to my own life. What did I believe and why. I traced through my years and looked at each situation where I had been sure God had intervened to provide and protect. Why did I think that? Because people prayed and the old book said so. I believed I felt God move. There was also an equal or better chance that it wasn't God but years of conditioning myself to put the god everywhere. Christianity was all in my head not reality. When I started living a life as a secular humanist or atheist I noticed that people were kind and generous without the god belief. I had a good life in the Christian world but an even better life in the world with big thinkers. I love to hear new ideas and old philosophy.

[@ceb591]

@@mackdmara we could compare street epistomology to witnessing. if a Christian witnessing causes a person to feel guilty of sin because of witnessing words - is this not manipulation. By claiming that they must know God or they are lost -is this not manipulation? Creating the need for believers to strive to attain a Christlike nature when failure is assured - manipulation? You may insert here that is the Holy Spirit speaking but that sounds like manipulation too. Each person should be able to think critically about their belief system.

[@darrenashby4189]

@ time 1:00, Sean mentions, he wouldn’t want that god to exist (but what evidence is there that god is good?) then an interesting possibly Freudian slip. That he believes in Jesus’ unbelievable story… It’s like he was acknowledging his belief was in something unbelievable. I’d love to hear him expound on that comment.

[@latavious48]

Listen to him again . Carefully

[@RayKosby]

The "leading atheists all have harsh fathers" causal hypothesis seems strange to me because the sample is composed of people with notoriety. In other words it's not random. Why would that be a representative sample of atheists in general?

[@chrissnyder4439]

Seriously. I have a loving, Christian father that I have a great relationship with...but I'm an atheist.

[@Ataraxia_Atom]

Yeah my father was a great loving Christian man and im an atheist. I know it bothers him, moreso in the past, he accepts my views and is willing to discuss ideas.

[@PongoXBongo]

The whole "leading atheists" thing is bad in general. Atheism doesn't have a pope or prophets, there is no formal structure that says what all atheists should think or say.

[@RayKosby]

@@PongoXBongo I kind of agree with your point. Yet, there are free thought conferences, organizations, call in youtube shows, etc. People do argue why it is a sound position to not have a theistic belief (and some do it much better than others). What phrasing would be better to describe someone with good counter arguments to theism?

[@marielfedri1422]

Sean is so intelligent, so intellectually beyond the best of the best in today's Christian world....and definitely beyond the best of the best of the rest of the so called "intellectuals" of today....Simply put Sean is lead by the Holy Spirit of God...and that, my friends no one can touch...I'm so blessed to be alive listening to you and learning from you to better and better withstand this crazy without God world....thank you...knowing God and living for Him is the answer for this world and they don't want to accept it...but that's the truth...whether they like it or not...I am sorry that people want to be God....but they are not and never will be...

[@rubensdesk]

Evidence is facts (data that is objectively verifiable and maps to reality) that support one position over another. If someone gives testimony (their version of events) without supporting evidence that maps to reality it is not considered credible. This is why spectral evidence is no longer accepted even if given in first person testimony.

[@AsixA6]

*Agreed. Testimony is just a claim. A person claiming 500 people claimed to have seen something is hearsay, which is also not allowed in court.*

[@kristichristian7890]

@@AsixA6 what about history in general? It is all based on someone else’s testimony. None of us were on this earth to see what happened 100-200 years ago but we read and hear about events and claim them as fact. How often do we say we just can’t believe it because we did not witness these events first hand?

[@AsixA6]

@@kristichristian7890 *Accepting claims as true doesn’t magically make the claim into evidence supporting itself. The history we accept as true, also has an empirical basis vs. magic. In other words, accepting a historical person’s CLAIM or “testimony” that they saw a dog is rational because dogs are known to exist and be quite common. Accepting their claim that they saw a zombie, is not rational because zombies are not known to exist at all!*

[@kristichristian7890]

@@AsixA6 I'm quite certain we both know that I was not speaking of animals or zombies ; ). But, instead was speaking of historical events and/or people written about in books. I never witnessed any of them. Alexander the Great, Ferdinand Magellan, George Washington, Billy the Kid .... I've only ever read about them or been told stories about them, but never witnessed anything they did. At some point I'm going to have to accept the testimony of others as evidence, or reject the evidence all together and believe they did not exist because I did not have the first hand experience.

[@AsixA6]

@@kristichristian7890 _"I'm quite certain we both know that I was not speaking of animals or zombies"_ *The thing being claimed or 'testified to' is irrelevant and a person coming back from the dead is known as a 'zombie'.* *We know people exist now that give birth to a next generation so, the idea that a person existed in the past is the same as the person claiming to have seen a dog. It's based in a known: people exist.* *We DON'T know human apes come back from being dead for days so, the idea that a person saw zombie Jesus is the same as the person claiming to have seen, well, a zombie. it's based in the not known.*

[@gardenladyjimenez1257]

Hemant...what kind of evidence? I get the feeling you want the proof of Thomas...feeling the wounds of the crucifixion while eating dinner personally with Jesus on the shores of Galilee. Constricting the definition of evidence is the best way to avoid dealing with the evidence.

[@joedirig4744]

Nice discussion, but it seems like atheist and anti-theist are being conflated. Saying having a "harsh father" leads to atheism is presuming that belief is the default. It's like saying having a harsh mother is why you don't believe in fairies.

[@Lance6338]

Just wanna say as a Christian I find it extremely disturbing how the Christians are speaking in these comments. Being rude and calling names. It’s honestly sad. Guess y’all forgot the part where in 1 Peter 3:15 it says to give your defense in gentleness and respect.

[@PhozMix]

Hemant Mehta really came unstuck on the moral argument, not sure he's quite grasped the full ramifications.

[@AsixA6]

*Sean was the one that came 'unstuck'. Morality is an opinion, get over it.*

[@PhozMix]

If someone decided to murder an innocent family, and then proceed to burn their house to the ground. The immediate feelings experienced by their relatives, family and community would have no bearing on whether it was actually wrong, it would just be that they hadn't the taste for that kind of behaviour; like preferring sweet to salty, or beer over ale. There'd be nothing objectively wrong about it. If it is just an opinion, like a fashion or taste which is just as likely to change like the seasons, then who are you to judge, condemn or complain.

[@AsixA6]

*Define 'actually wrong'.* "then who are you to judge, condemn or complain." *A person that finds the act immoral, that's who.*

[@PhozMix]

You've just demonstrated the issue yourself. As a Christian I have no issue saying what is wrong or right, I have a moral law giver, that which breaks the moral law is what is 'actually wrong' (objectively). You have no way of guiding what is moral or immoral without a higher being which transcends human decisions to ground your moral behaviour in. What are you grounding what is right and wrong in? "A person that finds the act immoral, that's who." By this logic, if I personally thought it to be immoral that you selflessly gave 50% of your income to charity, and spent every weekend caring for the sick, that would make it immoral. Despite it obviously being a charitable, decent thing to do, it would be immoral with your logic.

[@AsixA6]

"As a Christian I have no issue saying what is wrong or right," *Neither do I.* "I have a moral law giver," *No, you have a claim that an invisible 'moral law giver' exists, but no evidence it does. I AM my 'moral law giver'* "that which breaks the moral law is what is 'actually wrong' (objectively)" *You haven't evidenced your supposed 'moral law giver' exists and until you do, it's just your opinion that it's 'actually wrong'.* "You have no way of guiding what is moral or immoral" *Yes, I do. Altruistic reciprocity which has existed as a mantra since long before your fairy tale was penned by other SUBJECTIVE men.* "without a higher being which transcends human decisions to ground your moral behaviour in." *Nor do I need one and until you evidence the existence of this thing you claim exists, you are apparently in the same boat.* "What are you grounding what is right and wrong in?" *Reciprocal altruism.* "if I personally thought it to be immoral that you selflessly gave 50% of your income to charity, and spent every weekend caring for the sick, that would make it immoral." *So? It wouldn't make it immoral in my opinion.* "Despite it obviously being a charitable, decent thing to do, it would be immoral with your logic." *In YOUR subjective opinion.* *You don't seem to understand that I actually have good reasons for not committing murder, that could be stated to anyone across the world and be understood and you have.... "Because this book says so!"* *Seriously, if you and I were to try and convince someone that murder is wrong, which line of reasoning do you think a person is going follow? I could just ask them how they'd feel if someone murdered them. What would you say? "Its wrong because this thing I have no evidence even exists, said so."? Didn't your parents raise you asking, 'How would you feel if someone did that to you?"?* *If someone doesn't believe your fairy tale character exists, they are more likely to be swayed by my reason than yours. This is not rocket science.*

[@Lmattaaron]

Did he just say he doesn't consider 10 independent eye witnesses testimonies as evidence? I hope he's never called to jury duty.

[@RayKosby]

When Sean mentioned Craig Keener's book contained tens of millions of miracles. These books must be really big to contain that many examples. I would have liked to hear a description of two modern day examples that he considers highly compelling.

[@tongasmith910]

Point

[@ericb.1384]

Spontaneous remissions of cancer.

[@RayKosby]

@@ericb.1384 thanks for that suggestion. Was that in the book? I would have to know what we mean by miracle then ask several questions: Did you look up how often it happens? Does it only happen to people of one religion or does it happen to all types of people? Does it happen to pets? How often does it come back? It seems like if it was a miracle of a particular god, it would favor his worshipers and would be extremely rare. It would also make me wonder why just pick and choose a person here and there to save and not a large population dying of famine.

[@hhmaster789]

@@RayKosbyGod has His timing and reason for doing a miracle, He doesn’t follow human’s concept (e.g why not heal a big group…) , it’s up to Him to who He wants to show mercy. I give $100 to a friend in poverty, no one can ask me why don’t I give $100 to every friend in poverty.

[@RayKosby]

@@hhmaster789 If you had an unlimited supply of money that would be a good illustration but you don't. The deity being described is not limited. The argument that a god doesn't follow human's concept is not compelling. It's indistinguishable from no deity at all.

[@buck_maize111]

This was an incredible conversation 👏 well done both parties! 👏

[@the-outsider8458]

Often times the topic of objective moral truth comes up and as an example they provide torturing children for fun as being objectively wrong, everyone knows that. If that were actually true how is it that the thousands of god-fearing, and supposedly god teaching, priests, bishops, even cardinals we're all willing to repeatedly participate in such an activity?

[@NN-wc7dl]

Other animal species are not torturing their children for fun either. Are they living by God's moral will too? Why should people find joy in torturing children? Must there be a divine explanation for them not to? The whole idea is extremely moronic.

[@JesusisGod]

41:51 Two things Hemant Mehta should know about morality/ethics and our laws: 1: "Practical judgments on what ought to be done in a given situation (level 1) are justified by moral rules (level 2), which in turn are justified by general principles (level 3). We finally reach the base level, the ethical theory that underpins and supports the whole hierarchy (level 4) e.g. utilitarianism, virtue ethics, Kantian ethics, natural law theory, divine command theory, etc." (Oxford professor John Lennox) 2. "The mythology of modern liberalism has been that it merely establishes a set of background rules that are themselves somehow devoid of moral content-and morality is the decisions that we make about how to live our own lives against those rules ....Practically all laws, whether they forbid me to take your car, outlaw racial discrimination, or coerce the payment of taxes, impose somebody's morality on somebody else. Every law either prevents me from doing something or forces me to do something. The understandable American tendency is to pretend otherwise, as though laws against car theft are without moral content, whereas laws on abortion are dripping in moral judgement. This tendency assists us in evading moral argument but is, of course, deeply uncivil.” (Yale Law Professor Stephen Carter)

[@AsixA6]

CheesesisDog *Something you should know about morality/ethics. IT'S SUBJECTIVE.*

[@AsixA6]

*Claiming it is objectively wrong does not evidence it as objectively wrong. Feel free to back up your claim.*

[@AsixA6]

+Troll *'Brah', a direct statement is not necessary to know you idiots think morality is objective. Critical thinking, try some.*

[@AsixA6]

+Troll *Also, His response that my second post was in response to and your complaining about, he deleted apparently. His exact wording is as follows:* "It is always objectively wrong(i.e., evil) to kill an innocent child or to rape a person(i.e., regardless of what society says)" *Soooooo, yeah, that's the time he said 'objectively wrong'.*

[@AsixA6]

*The funny part is that your fairy tale says your 'god' thingy ordered the killing of innocent children and gave permission to rape people!! LMMFAO!!!*

[@JakeConrad666]

If it was an objective moral standard to not kill people or that killing people was wrong then obviously we wouldn't be killing each other. Clearly this is a moral standard that is subjective to some even though it seems objective to the majority of us.

[@JoshuaEnsley]

Your conclusion doesn't follow logically from your premise.

[@quicksilver7532]

@@JoshuaEnsley 😂

[@quicksilver7532]

It is objectively wrong to kill .. if it were subjective why would they charge someone for their subjective beliefs?

[@annr3800]

So why didn't Sean mention heaven and hell when asked about death??

[@meagancagle9194]

Define and prove heaven and hell. I don't buy it

[@DAVIDFERNANDEZ-jx4fb]

if there was a God , we would not be having this conversation

[@augustoindi4093]

L😂L!

[@patrickbarnes9874]

Hemant is playing down atheists. He says that most atheists have been on the other side but most Christians haven't. Well, maybe so, but most atheists haven't been on the Christian side being looked down on, having the worst possibly characterizations of your beliefs held up as being normal (the genocidal God, the man in the white robe floating in the sky, etc), having your intelligence constantly questioned, etc. And Dawkins hasn't just sat back and said he's simply unconvinced that God exists, he's said incredibly insulting things about believers. So Hemant is being pretty one-sided here.

[@onedaya_martian1238]

BeLIEvers do some pretty insulting, nasty things in the name of their god. Funny how the previous VP of the US mocked a man who knelt down on a football field yet eulogized with great praise, a man who molested women while getting rich selling books and preaching (Ravi Zacharias). An honest person does not rely on a story about a fictitious guy having to be murdered to "pay the price", so that they can think they are "a saint" and are "righteous". An atheist prayer is that people will grow up one day and reject the final fairytale they have been told.

[@jonathanwinskie9788]

Sean never really responds to Hemant’s first question, he just turns around and asks his own question and then has Hemant defending that response.

[@torontoash45]

But Atheists do the same thing . So Tit for Tat

[@TheDizzleHawke]

@@torontoash45 whataboutism much? Tu Quoque Fallacy alert.

[@torontoash45]

i think you are wrong about that . False equivalence would be a better term especially used by you

[@TheDizzleHawke]

@@torontoash45 Tu Quoque translates as “you too.” It’s literally tit for tat. It’s a fallacy used to justify an action because the opposition performed a similar action. Example: “well, those guys were stealing candy bars, so it’s okay if I do it too.” It’s a deflection that doesn’t address the initial statement’s observation that Sean dodged the first question.

[@torontoash45]

i know what it means and you are misreprsenting Sean. he didn´t dodge any question . Sometimes questions are irrelevant and it is better sometimes to ignore them like your comments

[@benjaminhoffman3848]

The atheist claims that he would believe if he got certain evidence. The evidence is all over creation from the order of the physical laws to the DNA the cell of every living thing ans yet he does not believe because he does not want to. The Bible, however, even says that if Christ did not rise from the dead then we are to be pitied more than any people. If the atheists can prove Jesus did not live, or died without resurrecting then Christianity is finished.

[@johnma8697]

One is arguing to win the argument, another a person.

[@gc1599]

Agreed. Sad, but true.

[@lauraowen8142]

INDEED, John. Hemant comes across as an intellectual elitist. His arrogance is pitiful. Christians aren't allowed to discuss science and DNA. He worships his own intellect above all.

[@tryhardf844]

@@lauraowen8142 Aren't allowed? What are you a parent.

[@AsixA6]

@@lauraowen8142 Oops!! It's spelled "Josh". You're welcome.

[@Joshua-dc4un]

@@lauraowen8142your kind of dishonesty is the problem. He clearly said at a point in the discussion, that there are Christian scientist. The only issue is when you start inserting things that are not true from your religion into science.

[@ThePettiestOfficer_Juan117]

Hemant proved with the moral argument he doesn't even believe himself.

[@danieldelanoche2015]

Hemant and Sean are both very patient here. I think the conversation would've been even better without the host. But man, I gotta say that since I've left religion, the concept of theistic faith is so silly and self-deceptive that I can't ever imagine myself returning to it.

[@zeldamorgan9260]

Couldn't agree more. When you "lose" your faith, you see its all just mythology that needs waaay more dragons.

[@Джонатан-р8д]

I feel this way every single time he moderates. A lot of times he interjects, sometimes with something off topic, and it throws off the flow completely.

[@MajorPayne175]

@@zeldamorgan9260 a few mentions of leviathan not good enough for you huh?

[@zeldamorgan9260]

@@MajorPayne175 nah, I'd like more.

[@FakingANerve]

@@zeldamorgan9260 Right there with you as well, Daniel. I will never forget the "aha moment" in which I immediately felt a little silly wondering why I had never approached "it" that way before.

[@mikeaitken5253]

"The atheist has to account for a universe from nothing, and why it's 'fine tuned'.." um no. That's what physicists are working on, and there's no reason assume it 'came from nothing', nor is there evidence that it is 'fine tuned'.

[@joshuajoachim8016]

There is actually evidence the universe is fine tuned. Clearly your ignorant of what is really necessary for carbon based life to live in our universe. The calculations are insanely precise.

[@mikeaitken5253]

joshua joachim I’ve heard the so called “fine tuning” argument, and it relies upon “what are the chances?” arguments which never show how they arrive at their odds, nor do they seem to convince actual cosmologists. This universe is no more fine tuned for us than it is for anything else.

[@joshuajoachim8016]

@@mikeaitken5253 check out William Crane's video on this argument, very insightful

[@mikeaitken5253]

joshua joachim WLC was on my mind when I replied to the “fine tuning” comment in the first place. Sean Carol utterly dissects WLC in their debate. After that debate, few apologists attempt to pull out the Kalam Cosmological argument any more, and with good reason. It doesn’t hold water.

[@joshuajoachim8016]

@@mikeaitken5253 I would need to see the debate for myself because my opinion could very well disagree with yours but all the precise calculations needed in order for carbon-based life to exist are so precise and unlikely that it makes the existence of God far more rational than not

[@tylersimmons6524]

With objective moral truth, if there is an objective moral truth from a higher being, which one is it? There are different views on morals across all religions and different sects of religions. Would Sean then say being gay or transgender is objectively morally wrong? If not, how can he condone the limitations of their rights of there is nothing wrong with what they are doing, morally speaking?

[@Jack-hy1hb]

From what I have learnt, although little, I find that the question of which high being is important and I will answer to the best of my abilities as a high school student. From all the religions around the world : Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Christianity and all the Polytheism religions, all of them have this connection , The Quran, The Bible and The Jewish books( I don't know the name), of same ideas. And to those who don't, they have been converted, take Rome for example, they were the biggest empire in the world and they believed in multiple gods, but they were converted into Christianity, it is was the same for Vikings. I don't about you, but I see a clear connection. But I am not really sure how to explain it. I just think that out of every religion, Christianity makes the most sense, and this can be seen throughout History, for Rome and Scandinavia and many more. Regarding the gay and transgender question, I don't know really, I am still trying to learn about it.

[@tylersimmons6524]

@@Jack-hy1hb So, if I'm understanding you, your position is: because the Romans and Scandinavian clans converted to Christianity, Christianity has the objective moral truth? Which sect of Christianity? Evangelicals? Catholics? Protestants? LDS? Because what Catholics believe is morally correct differs from what an Evangelical believes. (And beliefs differ from one church to another within those sects)

[@MT-ns9jq]

Hemant is unfortunately like most atheist not genuine. The host exposed him with “what IS evidence to you?” And he replied with personal experience.

[@thehaberdash]

What is evidence to you?

[@MT-ns9jq]

@@thehaberdash if I reject something because of lack of evidence and assume that science is the exact opposite of that something, then evidence is to me anything but “a personal experience”. But I don’t hold that belief so I do not need to go to bizarre and irrational lengths to defend my views

[@christopher7725]

And then he states he’d be skeptical of his experience 30:53

[@frmrchristian303]

~The plural of anecdote is not data.

[@krispando9705]

Everything we humans create and bring into existence was designed, so how can everything else not be designed? Just as we design to create, creation itself as well was designed. No matter what you believe a body at some point had to be fully created, for the body needs it’s organs, brain, and blood to function properly. The body can’t come together one piece at a time, try doing that today, it will not live. So in the beginning there had to be a life giver for life does not come from non life, which is God.

[@AlanLow]

Your Incredulity Fallacy simply shows a spectacular lack of understanding of the evolutionary process. No one but a thiest would suggest anything can come into being complete. You need to put down your book of myths and pick up a science book .

[@TheG7thcapo]

@ Kris Pando i agree with what you say. I work at the construction industry. A badly or poorly designed structure is a catastrophe. Every product with lack of planning and careful construction does not do well or will not even work at all. How much more to life which is more complicated than any piece of structure or electronics?

[@songsbyangie6624]

These are such good conversations

[@fvalenzuela34]

“Jacob He loved and Esau He hated” simple as that. The veil must be removed they’re eyes.

[@veganatheistandmore]

Well my thumbs up is for Hemant Mehta. 👍 Great job, my friend!

[@mistressofstones]

The great thing about Sean is that he is expressive and genuine. So when he is talking about same sex marriage, something he and I don't really agree on (I watched a very long video of his on this), I FEEL his frustration. And it's not frustration at wanting to impose himself on the other, it's just frustration at not being able to get through to the other side and be truly heard. And I FEEL for him as I know (as we all do) what it is like to have that experience on something truly important to you. I think he has the power to break through to lots of people on the overall topic of Christianity because he is very sympathetic and not patronising in his demenour, which is a problem for lots of apologists who maybe have a more combative kind of style that appear more to "preach to the choir".

[@loverlover1302]

This is telling of McDowells biblical foundation vs his scholastic training. The bible provides no room for neutrality or religious freedom. That's conformity to the spirit of the age and not a Godly biblical perspective.

[@sidarthur8706]

surely an eternal and omniscient god might have designed his scriptures to self correct with changing attitudes? one way he might have done this is through prophets and other religious authorities adding to and deleting from scripture over time. another way might be through scripture being variously interpreted. that aside the point is that if god set himself an impossible job such as making a book that in a post babel world could only be interpreted one way then that god isn't as bright as me and is a failure, he must be on our criteria. therefore he should be worshipping me, not the other way around

[@eyeamchangegaming5412]

I'm sure most people believe sexually abusing children is wrong. But most pedophile believe that they are not sexually abusing a child. They believe that the child wanted the act just as much as them. So child abuse is not an objective truth. It's subjective to the people who believe it is wrong.

[@iconifyme]

With regards to religion and science to me it comes down to the fact that every mystery we have solved has turned out to be "not god". Not a single scientific or natural phenomena that we have figured out has turned out to be supernatural or "god did it". Not one.

[@tylersimmons6524]

Sean saying 10 people corroborating that they all saw a person in a place doing a thing is evidence is only part of the story. If 10 people said they saw a person who WAS KNOWN TO BE DEAD do something, would THAT be considered good evidence in court? Or would they then have to bring other evidence to prove that man was able to reanimate in some way?

[@jasonhoseney3313]

More than 10 people have claimed to see Elvis alive after his death. Claims require verifiable evidence. If it’s an extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary evidence - supposed eyewitness claims thousands of years ago doesn’t cut it

[@quad9363]

Haha, first question was whether or not Friendly Atheist was open to theism, then, by 30 minutes in he admits to going so far as not believing his own personal experience. His position is most certainly just as dogmatic as the theists.

[@AsixA6]

*What a ridiculous comment. Being open to changing his mind is not negated by his honest response of admitting his fallibility.*

[@Daz19]

Because in that scenario Hamat recognises his own fallibility. It's a matter of what's more likely, being mistaken or it was a divine/supernatural experience. As for being mistaken, we have overwhelming evidence that people very regularly make mistakes when interpreting/attributing experiences they have, from the mundane to supernatural claims (as Christians often believe is the case with mistaken members of other religions). However no one has provided the same standard of evidence for the supernatural as they have for human fallibility (being mistaken). So in this scenario not trusting and being unconvinced by a personal experience is the most reasonable choice.

[@quad9363]

Good, responses, perhaps I can clarify my point. Despite stating that he's open to theism, there is no possible way that he could consider his position being changed. When Dawkins and Dillahunty were asked the same question during their conversation they said something similar. Any piece of evidence they could consider as being proof of a God they'd just assume was technology hyper advanced from an alien species or a halucination. I understand their dogmatic stance, that their position is unfalsifiable, what I don't like is how they constantly say their open to their minds being changed, when in fact they are not.

[@Daz19]

+Quad9363 I understand where you're coming from, it sounds as if the atheists in question have blocked them self to any means of being convinced of God. Now I cant speak for them, but i imagine some of them share a similar view to myself. Basically, we're dealing with the methods and test at hand via which to be convinced. What would convince me is being presented with a reliable method that has and can independently, repeatably, detect, confirm and demonstrate the existence of the supernatural (a non-physical realm), the existence of a God and their causal connection. I stipulate such a method, as this same method we use in science so far has demonstrated it self to be the most reliable method for a arriving at robust conclusions about our physical reality. As of yet i'm unaware of any reliable means for doing so when attempting to demonstrate the supernatural, i.e detect a non physical if there is such a thing. I don't know what the test or means for detection would be, but my own personal experience is far to unreliable for reasons previously mentioned.

[@menglin7432]

Im pretty sure he meant that experience is open to interpretation, so he won’t believe simply because of experience

[@Unknown-hi2dr]

I had no bad experience with any religious person, I'm still an atheist. Because the 'existence of some god' doesn't have any believable evidence.

[@dennisheffy3220]

Religion exists, gods do not.

[@haggismcbaggis9485]

Hahaha good one. We can trace where religions come from like Scientology or Mormonism. It is difficult to do that with actual gods.

[@123JustBecause]

Hemant and Sean-excellent conversation. My background is Christian-Deconverted-to Atheist-with serious soul searching research and now Christian. I literally see each side and each argument. My impression though is Hemant got a little heated and side-stepped several points that he did not answer but stuck stubbornly to his point of view and THAT is where-in my experience and my opinion-is when one should stop and reevaluate their position because it is about being RIGHT and missing the collaboration. I feel like Hemant was blocked and shut down to any conversation particularly where objective truth was explored. Sean though was humble and admitted where he was wrong or maybe didn’t have an answer. Sean is just a model for humanity on how to talk to someone Christian or otherwise.

[@JP-JustSayin]

At around the 35 min mark Sean mark almost comes out and says "we need a balance between religion and secularism in government" ... he stops him self which is good, because that sentiment is self detonating. Secularism is the separation of church and state and nothing more ... that is the literal definition of the word. So to advocate some hybrid of secularism is to advocate just a small fusion of church and state, which of course, definitionally means zero secularism. Paradoxically the way to maximize religious pluralism is to have an entirely secular government. Since government showing any favoritism to one religion necessarily disadvantages all the others. In practice what many Christians think of as religious liberty is actually the right to make their religion Supreme... free to be Supreme... that is the religious freedom that they want. To those that have been in privilege equality can feel like opression.

[@MichaelAChristian1]

You only have freedom in Christian nations. Wake up! Jesus loves you! Jesus Christ is the Only One who can make you free.

[@JP-JustSayin]

@@MichaelAChristian1 i think that what you think of as "free Christian nations" are actually secular. Just because Christianity might be the last religion that was eliminated from their governments that doesn't make them Christian... and Christianity can't get credit for what secularism delivers after its departure. Jesus staying out of government is what makes me free. Thankfully he himself does that with no effort ... its his followers that keep trying to drag him in and create advantages for themselves in his name. No thanks. None for me. I take my secularism neat.

[@MichaelAChristian1]

@@JP-JustSayin You gotta be kidding. A country of over 90 percent Christians at founding and you think they wanted "atheist" government? THere wouldn't be all these "freedom from religions" organizations if that was true. It isn't. You can't cite God given rights in "secular" government. You are trying to take credit for what God has given this nation as founders noted. You can go to atheistic china and see how free you feel. You should know better. Believe in Jesus Christ and you shall have everlasting life! Get a king james bible and believe. Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be SAVED! Read Deuteronomy 28,30. Read Matthew. Read 1 John 4.

[@tacticalfilmfightingacadem9200]

Todays church has the wrong outlook on the 21st century society. We do not belong here. As christians (followers of Jesus Christ) our citizenship is in heaven, we are foreigners, we are ambassadors of God's Kingdom that is not of this world. We are to proclaim the Gospel, the bad news and good news to this dying world. The church is too stuck on community than the Person of Jesus Christ. REVIVAL !

[@sjhoneywell6235]

Wow. And you guys say atheists are the arrogant ones.

[@NeverAgain12292]

I was thoroughly impressed with the way Hemant handled this conversation/debate. Sean was mostly all over the place and defensive with every question posed. All I learned from him was how to enrage a Christian by asking basic questions. At the end of the day it is HIS faith which does not ring truth universally. So to each his own.

[@The-Dyland]

I’m pretty sure he was “enraged” by the constant interruptions and snarky remarks, not his faith being questioned.

[@FREDAFMK]

who said 2 + 2 = 4. why is it called 2. Why do we call A A ? where did we get that from.

[@Daz19]

As an atheist I was a little disappoint by Hamant's performance, mostly in the areas that would fall under epistemology, especially when addressing the supernatural. He's a great spokesman, but maybe not the best debater?

[@Daz19]

@Trolltician because of the shared issues faced by those whome do not accept that something as true.

[@Daz19]

lol

[@PrinceSolomon82]

Zadda Reen which atheist do you consider being the best debater? and Why?

[@Daz19]

@@PrinceSolomon82 Depends on the topic. Overall in my opinion I'd say Matt Dillahunty and Sam Harris. Partly as they are skilled at picking up on fallacies. Doing so keeps the debate consise and arguments on track.

[@debravewolf]

Both belief systems.. no!! Atheism is not a belief system! And why are we here is a bad question, how are we here is the question to ask..

[@stacysharena]

I’m sorry this atheist is not ready for this conversation.

[@robinl6659]

stacysharena true

[@nunyabiznaz4057]

Based upon what exactly?

[@kasekeksdeluxe6529]

I'm sorry. But he is

[@ooelectronoo]

If a man were convinced by another man about God's existence than the devil can persuade him to the contrary. I cannot convince someone with my words, that is God's job. My job is to plant the seed, it is God's job to bring people to him.

[@salliechilders6284]

I’m hoping they’ll bring the pride of man into the conversation. “I think ok know. Show me more”

[@steverational8615]

While I think we need these discussions between Christians and atheists but I find that Hemant’s claims superficial, driven in part by an almost ideological dogma and comes across as rather arrogant in attitude.

[@raymk]

31:00 I have no idea how to change this guy's mind...

[@mackdmara]

He doesn't either.

[@darinb.3273]

Well you heard him say "I would doubt my own near death experience" the Bible says there are two paths one narrow and few find it, the other wide and many will find it. God asked us to plant the seed, he didn't say a thing about making it grow. As sad as it will be for said many finding the wide path it isn't like they never knew how to find the narrow path. God doesn't force himself on anyone (don't cast your pearls to swine) ONLY that person is in charge of how they direct their lives. I'm also reminded of Thomas didn't believe Jesus returned until he stuck his fingers in the scars caused by his crucifixion. Even when Jesse was here there were doubters EVEN of the ones who knew him. Nothing as believers we can do if such individuals elect to have the thoughts they do. At least we won't be sad in Heaven because God will take it away.

[@BrianThomas]

@@darinb.3273 All great points from scripture. Even Gideon have doubts and tested God. TBH the entire thing about special revelation and natural revelation is a mystery to me. How 2 people can see and hear the same thing and walk away with the opposite of what took place. The nature of our reality is setup to point to God and also say that there is no God. If he wants all to know. Why make it so challenging. To me this is the mystery.

[@darinb.3273]

@@BrianThomas Hello Brian perhaps a little insight for you here. Let's say there was NO DOUBT of God's existence. Everything EVERYTHING was real and clearly visible. Would there be a choice anymore? I mean would ANY sane person shout LOUDLY I want to spend eternity in the lake of fire? God made our choice to believe by faith because any other reality would NOT be real. Love would not be possible, would it? Even better God KNEW we couldn't do it alone, so he established his church (the people) who are in the same belief system as the other members. Check out what that intels it is not a quick study either.

[@nunyabiznaz4057]

@mackdmara it’s not his job to know. Not knowing exactly what would convince you doesn’t in any way take away from the legitimate reasons he isn’t convinced.

[@luke31ish]

Sean's definition of faith is different than the apostles Paul's definition in Hebrews 11. Sean says that his faith is not blind but base on evidence, while Paul's is "confidence of things hoped for, assurance about things we do not see", which sounds like blind faith, not based on evidence.

[@mistiehall3440]

Paul actually knew Jesus, the man. He talked to him, ate with him, walked with him, saw him die, saw him resurrect. Paul has blind faith in things hoped for, things jesus promised that he knows are true. I think it's ok to seek evidence. God said whoever seeks me with all their heart, and soul he will reveal himself

[@luke31ish]

@@mistiehall3440 From what I remember "Saul from Tarsus" comes on the biblical scene when persecuting Christians after the events of crucifixion. Later he has a supernatural vision where Jesus appeared to him. But he wasn't one of the apostles that was in Jesus's circle before the crucifixion.

[@guym1234]

I wonder if Sean can explain the "weaknesses" of evolution.

[@Roedygr]

If you had 10 people testify they saw something with their own eyes, that would be valid evidence in court.

[@deniss2623]

Yes, we need to open our eyes. There is none so blind as he who WILL not see.

[@doradonovan885]

I've only listened to 11 minutes so far and I like this for two reasons. 1) It proves that faith is a gift and not arrived at purely by reason alone, and it is given to anyone who wants it. God will never overpower your reason, faith will always be simultaneously necessary, a choice, and a gift. 2) And faith is a relationship with a person not an idea. So a Christian couldn't stop believing even if an athiest thinks he is giving unarguable evidence that God doesn't exist because his heart is involved not just his head. It's comparing apples and orange. As in you could maybe prove to me that my mother isn't my biological mother but she raised me my whole life so she will always be my mother. It will always be impossible to disprove the existence of God. He is above science and yet utterly reasonable. Faith and science will always complimentary, and never truly deny each other since they both have the same Author.

[@chikkipop]

Sorry, but this is all nonsense.

[@mattdonnelly1972]

Sean is maybe my favorite Christian apologist because he's not afraid to say he doesn't know or that some typical Christian arguments are bad. He's got that laid back California surfer dude vibe that helps too. Oh, and I'm a religious skeptic saying this.

[@choma82]

What a Great and atypical conversation for this topic! The atheist has less doubts about his default believe, what an honesty!

[@justinb2374]

Good discussion. Wish Hemant gave what evidence he'd need to be convinced. Seems like there is nothing that will ever convince or allow him to be convinced. I think Sean gave a solid answer that if they found Jesus's body, then he would have to change his faith.

[@cv1864]

Great civil discussion. and good question. What evidence that a magical god exists as described in a particular book? it would have to be huge. eg. what would convince you that the the god Zeus, Shiva or Ra was actually real? Hopefully a lot lot lot more than an old book, tradition and other peoples experiences. Even if I saw a magical 'miracle' I could not explain. I could not go from that to this is the work of a particular god theory. We currently have hundreds of people who are convinced they were abducted by aliens that you can interview today and whose accounts all line up. Lots of video and photo evidence and even the military saying that there are ufo's. I dont thinks thats enough to believe aliens are flying around and abducting people..

[@tdtyyuf]

Hi Justin I was thinking you should consider maybe having a Hindu or even a Buddhist debate with a Christian and their beliefs and what not And the fundamental differences

[@trabiesso99]

Ditto this. I was watching some Hindu scolar videos a few weeks ago. That would be amazing.

[@jawojnicki]

From 1:05:15 to about 1:15:00, I think the greatest weakness of atheism is exposed. If you are short on time, please just watch those 10 minutes.

[@lamaar8252]

Hemant helped me get out of the atheist closet. May he live for a long, long time.

[@maxrophage8384]

Just a quick question: if all that exists is matter, energy and the non-rational laws of physics, then all of your thoughts are products of the interactions of the given chemicals of your mind, all of which you have no control over meaning you have no control over your thoughts. This means you have no reason to believe your own thoughts including those about atheism correct?

[@lamaar8252]

@@maxrophage8384 Almost.. you're very close.

[@maxrophage8384]

Eddie TheAtheist I posed a question. How can you trust your own thoughts if they are products of chemical reactions governed by the laws of physics none of which you have control over? Moreover how is it that one is able to recognize that their own faculties are merely the product of non-rational chemical reactions of which they have no control over without transcending to a higher consciousness state to realize it?

[@lamaar8252]

@@maxrophage8384- Trial and Error. Self Practice and reflection. Reviewing previous experience and comparing them to reality. I think those are some quick answers I could think of. Now, they all could be wrong.. but I doubt it. I am 99% sure it does not come from any Divine or Arcane Magics.

[@maxrophage8384]

Eddie TheAtheist but again, you would not control any of the conclusions you arrive at as your reasoning processes would be fixed in the given chemical state of your brain. As such you have no reason to believe that you are reasoning to the truth as reason is not possible without free will. Free will is impossible within the materialistic worldview thus destroying reason. Science presupposes that we have the ability to freely reason to the truth based on evidence. If we cannot freely reason to the truth, then we have no reason and thus no reason to believe anything including scientific conclusions, trial and error, others thoughts including any of the thoughts that arrive you at atheism... additionally the given chemical state of your brain is changeable, in constant flux, again something you have no control over. So if you have no control over the exact chemical environment which determines your thought processes you have no control of your thoughts. Materialism reduces man to a meat machine incapable of free will. No one is responsible for their own thoughts or actions, everything you think is predetermined and thus you have no reason to think you are ever reasoning to the truth

[@Wordoffakes]

Stories and claims are not evidence. Ten people can be mislead. Go ask a Benny Hinn crowd about his miracles.