Sarah Irving-Stonebraker: How an atheist academic moved towards belief in God • Unapologetic 1/4

Former atheist-turned Christian Associate Professor Sarah Irving-Stonebraker shares how studying some of the founders of modern science challenged her assumption that religion and science were fundamentally opposed. She also highlights the moment she realised her atheism could no longer sustain her moral commitments
• Subscribe to the Unapologetic podcast: pod.link/16221...
• More podcasts, free ebook & newsletter: premierunbelie...
• Watch Unapologetic KZbin playlist: • Unapologetic
• For conference & live events: www.unbelievabl...
• For our apologetics courses: www.premierunb...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsi...
• Support us in the rest of the world: www.premierunb...

[@sygarte1]

It's great to learn about my co-authors (in Coming to Faith through Dawkins) and find out how much we all have in common. Sarah's story is both familiar and inspiring.

[@singlecellorganism13]

Great conversation! The caricature of Christianity and the history / writings of Christianity are very different things indeed.

[@fishdude9102]

Thumbnail: _is there more to life than atheism_ Honestly, it's theist that seem to obsess over this. My lack of belief in a god rarely comes up in my normal life and when it does, it's usually family members, who are still believers, trying to _bring me back to the faith_ otherwise, I live a full and happy life WITHOUT religion.

[@kevinpark1096]

You didn't have to comment on this video then... 🤷‍♂️ This video may be for folks who are interested in whether so called intellectuals can find faith in God compatible with academia and science.

[@fishdude9102]

@@kevinpark1096 Feel better?

[@frosted1030]

@@kevinpark1096 "This video may be for folks who are interested in whether so called intellectuals can find faith in God" Did you bother to measure? At all?

[@tomgreene1843]

I'm happy ....so no God ...therefore no religion well now!

[@FarSeeker8]

@@fishdude9102 Do you feel better now that you've contributed nothing of value to this subject?

[@kevinpark1096]

Thank you for this interview!

[@absofjelly]

Wow, two scientists from hundreds of years ago, steeped in a world were no-one questioned the truth of the Christian God, included their theological musings in their writings. Who could have imagined such a thing?

[@wynlewis5357]

She decides on theism or atheism because she "feels" it's the way to go go ! That's no reason. I managed 4 mins into this video that was enough. Can't believe she went to Oxford and Cambridge.

[@justinshadrach829]

Some advise: Don't start watching any Christian videos or intellectuals who have come to Christ. Because you won't agree with them! 😂😂 Stick to an Echo chamber!

[@wynlewis5357]

@@justinshadrach829 Are all Christians as sarky as you ? One day, you may see the real light and truth and deconvert leaving fantasy behind you. Only then will you realize just how you have submitted to your present gullibility.

[@kenmathis9380]

I'm not at all sure that "rationality" is everything that we think it is. In many cases, rationally is just a fancy way to describe what Colbert called "truthiness". We didn't develop rationally as a tool for finding truth. We developed it as a tool for persuading others (and, unfortunately, ourselves). I'm not saying anything for or against Christianity here. I'm just saying that feelings of certainty are often mistaken for knowledge.

[@gavaniacono]

The will of evolution is not to truth. Truth may hinder survival.

[@Bill_Garthright]

@@gavaniacono There is no "will of evolution." Evolution isn't a thinking agent. It has no will. It's just a natural process. And as far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with any of this.

[@pranavk50]

Alex O'Connor should meet her asap

[@vgrof2315]

This is, undoubtedly, the silliest video I have ever watched.

[@Bill_Garthright]

I know what you mean. It's astonishing, isn't it?

[@Joey34935]

Why do you think that it is silly?

[@josemoody1743]

Astonishing is your masochism!😂

[@Bill_Garthright]

@@josemoody1743 Heh, heh. I don't think you know what "masochism" means!

[@josemoody1743]

@@Bill_Garthright well I'm not master of the English language I'm just using the common usage and look like I said I don't care about the religious crap and much less for an bullshitter atheist don't waste your time

[@kevinmcalpine4521]

The important word in the book title is "Faith". ie, belief without evidence. Weak minded people would rather believe a cosy fantasy than an obvious truth. The message from Dawkins is to not believe anything without good evidence. So I don't believe her story of "faith through Dawkins" , it comes across as an unlikely tale, and religion is full of people who are "lying for Jesus".

[@Mike_Jones281]

She might have been an atheist, but she was never a skeptic!

[@FarSeeker8]

Translation: "She might have been an Atheist, but she she was open-minded."

[@davidjanbaz7728]

You're statement is just an Oxymoron!

[@Whatsisface4]

@@FarSeeker8 Being open minded is a tricky path to get right. Be too open minded and you'll believe anything going, be too close minded and you'll never believe anything. As far as I can see, it's best to be open to possibility but apply appropriate critical scrutiny. I have to say, her standards of evidence are lower than mine.

[@jordancrago5129]

Except that most atheists aren't sceptics. I used to be a Christopher Hitchens-style atheist, and my atheism was rooted, first, in ignorance of academic philosophy, and second, in Dunning Kruger-style intellectual arrogance. Most atheists don't challenge their own beliefs -- and they are beliefs -- and scoff at others' beliefs. Atheists tend to be very dogmatic indeed.

[@FarSeeker8]

@@Whatsisface4 Modern "Skeptics" adhere to Lewontin's Law as if they were super glued to it. They can accept the existence of String Branes and multiverses outside of the natural realm, but Cannot accept the existence of anything outside of the natural realm.

[@richardmorrison3602]

I was expecting something objective. Instead....hogwash

[@whywearehere7517]

a book of sermons? who wrote it?

[@nickrhodes9031]

I still find it a little perplexing when Christians (it the text be taken as truth) state that all humans are of equal worth when their god, once upon a time, drowned all bar eight of them. Where did the equal worth of those dead newborns lay?

[@Bryanerayner]

Equal worth in that we're all unique representations of the image of God. But we're flawed because we decided we could define for ourselves what's true, that's the real sin of the fall The passage says though, "all men were only evil all the time, continually" - all of mankind was evil, all the time, every human being was only thinking evil and violence, continually. In that circumstance, God is not wrong to make a fresh start. Especially when you consider that he uniquely has the power to restore life to the dead, any death of children which occurred during the flood, we have to trust he can reconcile with virtue

[@atalantamountain]

And of all the people who have "inherent value" God was only interested in one small group. And said so very clearly. The neighbours were just a source of slaves and young virgin girls. Where was the special inherent value of them?

[@nickrhodes9031]

@Bryanerayner 'a fresh start' is an interesting euphemism for genocide. And given this omniscient god still required a second bite at the cherry by sending Jesus, a rather pointless exercise to boot.

[@createinmeacleanheartohgod6871]

@nickrhodes...it's now time for you to get on your knees and talk to God if He is real. I did that after being an agnostic for 9 years. Ask God if He is real or not, He will come to you supernaturally. I am a living testimony.

[@nickrhodes9031]

@createinmeacleanheartohgod6871 If god is real, if god is omniscient, omnipotent and truly wishes to have a relationship with me, it would be a trivial matter for god to convince me of its existence, given that it has not I am left with the suspicion that at least one of the aforementioned properties are lacking.

[@kenmathis9380]

So, right off the bat, she was an atheist because it seemed to be the choice of intellectuals? Atheism is not a conclusion you can "choose". Sorry, but it's not. It's something you realize. You don't choose it. It chooses you.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

Only if you've been indoctrinated by irrational thinking that nonintelligence is the answer to What created the Universe.

[@Whatsisface4]

@@davidjanbaz7728 Not really. It's perfectly possible to be an atheist because of the evidence issue, and not know why there is something rather than nothing.

[@Zandman26]

​@@davidjanbaz7728As someone according to yourself who then is not indoctrinated why does it need to be a what? Is that not not just an assumption without a reason?

[@Stowerslemalu]

Question begging if ever I heard it.

[@eliasarches2575]

Oh so you are saying one’s belief in Atheism is ultimately irrational? If you don’t have a choice in the matter, if you just “realise” it, then it’s hard to see it as a belief rooted in rational choice.

[@Bill_Garthright]

_"I felt like I really didn't need God"_ Huh? It's not about what you feel you _need._ Or is shouldn't be, at least. It should be about what you have good reason to think is actually _true._ Is your god real, or just imaginary? Do you have *one piece of good evidence* that your god is real? Just *one,* but specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge if for myself? _"so I studied natural philosophers"_ You studied 17th Century natural philosophers, not modern scientists? Why? You know that this was the same time Thomas Aikenhead (age 20) was executed for _blasphemy,_ right? In Great Britain? And you think that _this_ is the time when you should learn from natural philosophers? More than three centuries ago, in a time before freedom of speech and freedom of religion? Yes, even educated people back then believed in the god they had no choice to believe in (or, at least, couldn't safely say anything else). And we've learned a lot since then, anyway. _"Atheism couldn't sustain my deepest moral commitments"_ That's because atheism isn't _about_ morality. It's just the lack of belief in a god or gods. If you want a belief system to sustain your moral commitments, try secular humanism. And again, you've still said *nothing* about why we should believe that a god is real, rather than just imaginary - _any_ god, let alone your particular one. _"Your atheism wasn't satisfying that search for meaning"_ Heh, heh. Yeah. And not believing in magic leprechauns probably won't satisfy your search for meaning, either! Wow, this is silly! This is just _astonishingly_ silly. Were you really an atheist? You sound like you just prefer to believe in magic. You sound like fantasy is simply what you _want_ to be true. But I care about what really _is_ true. So, again, how about *one piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself,* that your god is real, rather than just imaginary? Alternately, I'd accept *one piece of good evidence* that _any_ of the magical/supernatural stories in the Bible actually happened. Your choice. And I will _give_ you a guy named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans. Evidence is how we distinguish reality from delusion and wishful-thinking. So, do you have _anything_ distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing up your religious beliefs? Apparently, you "moved towards belief in God" just because that sounded more appealing to you, not because you had any good reason to think that your god is real.

[@emiliawisniewski3947]

Your definition of “good evidence” and “evidence” presupposes your belief in it, which is circular reasoning and poor logic. Believing a god does not exist is not the same as proving one does not exist, which is the claim atheism actually proposes. So which piece of “good evidence” would you propose that God does not exist with the same level of evidentiary burden that you’re proposing for theism? Give me, a theist, ONE GOOD piece of evidence to convince me? Do you see the problem here? I hate to break it to you but most people feel they need atheism because it’s a feelings-based belief. They can’t prove God does not exist definitely, but they simply feel he does not. They don’t want God to exist and so He doesn’t. And then they fashion their lives around attacking religious people for their “silly” beliefs as if these “silly beliefs” have some true power. If atheism is true, theism has no actual power and poses no threat to atheism, but yet atheists are obsessed with eliminating it as if it has some actual causal power. I’m really sorry you think theism is “silly” but so is atheism, if you think about it rationally. You’re just too emotionally tied to atheism to think beyond it.

[@Bill_Garthright]

@@emiliawisniewski3947 _"Your definition of “good evidence” and “evidence” presupposes your belief in it, which is circular reasoning and poor logic."_ Heh, heh. Congratulations! That's the silliest thing I've heard on the internet all month! Admittedly, the month is young. But I have confidence in you. After all, what are you even _talking_ about? Clearly, you don't know, huh? I didn't even _define_ those things. So you're being foolish right from the start. But if _you_ defined what "magic leprechauns" means, that would "presuppose" that you believe in magic leprechauns, then? Or unicorns. Or any other fantasy creature? Can't you see how incredibly foolish that is? Finally, while circular reasoning _would_ be poor logic, you don't seem to understand what "circular reasoning" means, either. Altogether, that's just the funniest sentence I've heard in a long time.

[@LamirLakantry]

She's not making any arguments. She's just stating her preference and feelings. The closest she ever got was appealing to the authority of some select religious scientists. Argument from false authority. Very disappointing. And no examination from the interviewer, just soft ball questions.

[@jayseth]

Who wouldve thought, like 7 billion other human beings, she's had subjective convictions

[@LamirLakantry]

@@jayseth Glad you agree with me that she was just stating her opinions without being able to back them up or justify them. I'm sure flat earthers also have personal convictions. Their pseudoscientific points remain just as vapid.

[@RLBays]

Everyone is either an atheist or a former atheist. All religions are taught.

[@whittfamily1]

Your claim is false. We do not begin life as atheists. Babies are not atheists. They are better classified as agnostics.

[@RLBays]

@@whittfamily1 Babies lack belief in a deity so by definition, they are atheists. Everyone is agnostic since no one knows to a certainty if gods are real (since they can't be disproven).

[@emiliawisniewski3947]

Indeed! So is atheism.

[@RLBays]

@@emiliawisniewski3947 it’s actually the default (the null hypothesis).

[@whittfamily1]

@@emiliawisniewski3947 Your claim seems to be that both theism and atheism are taught. This is false. Theism is taught, but atheism is not. Atheism is the stance of not believing in any gods. You don't have to be taught not to believe in something. You automatically don't believe in things until you are taught to believe or decide to believe in them. Similarly, you are not taught to not believe in leprechauns. This nonbelief is the default. You start by not believing in them.

[@kyaxar3609]

Well, good luck!

[@frosted1030]

You were manipulated by logical fallacy, and you think the rest of us should be as well?

[@renatocavalcante8052]

I'm waiting you to show us the fallacies.

[@frosted1030]

@@renatocavalcante8052 "I'm waiting you to show us the fallacies." Why wait? Let's see what data you have. Show and tell time.

[@renatocavalcante8052]

@@frosted1030 you are saying she has been manipulated by fallacies and accuses her with the intention to manipulate us too. So I think at least you should show us which fallacies are you talking about. I will gladly analyse them with honesty here with you.

[@frosted1030]

@@renatocavalcante8052 "you are saying she has been manipulated by fallacies" It's fairly clear. You can start with the misrepresentation of atheism. She discusses some strange morality nonsense. Basically, no. She discusses some odd search for meaning. Again, this has nothing to do with atheism. She is framing a worldview conversation and trying to bend a simple concept out of shape so it resembles the worldview she has chosen. That's sophistry at best. Straight-up lying at worst. Further she discusses (using a circular reasoning fallacy) her reading of some religious poetic crap designed to make people feel better about themselves by telling them that they are special. So what? She wants to feel special, she feels that some worldview nonsense (which has nothing to do with what her new religion states) has a magical objective morality. This is what makes her feel good about herself, rather than actually thinking, or doing. Of course there are lazy people. It's funny, she states that the world is broken, rather telling when so many folks like her are bambozeled into begging their imaginary friend for help instead of doing something about the condition. This is manipulation, lies, and if this is the only way she can feel good about herself, it's sad.

[@emiliawisniewski3947]

@@frosted1030 - your reply doesn’t list fallacies, nor do you present any good arguments. Atheists are interested in the meaning of life and morality. Most atheists would attribute morality to naturalism. The rest of the response is a bit jibberish. If you don’t like the means that she came to theism, then sure, critique that, but I find it hard to understand why her reasons are insufficient. It simply sounds like you don’t like this woman’s understanding and experience of religion. Which isn’t an argument against theism at all, it’s just a dislike.

[@iainrae6159]

Being sceptical of religious priests grand supernatural ' truth' claims seems to me a perfectly reasonal position to take.

[@createinmeacleanheartohgod6871]

Why not the Bible and God Himself supernatural Truth instead of "religious priests"??

[@iainrae6159]

​@@createinmeacleanheartohgod6871 As God hides himself, its left to his priests on earth to explain his wishes. What could possibly go wrong?

[@tonygoodkind7858]

Just seems like someone uninterested in truth, because they aren't basing the belief on strong, logical evidence of a god. It's not her fault the evidence doesn't exist (humanity as a whole just doesn't have any), but it is her fault for recklessly choosing to believe despite no real indication it's true.

[@kevinpark1096]

Evidence does exist, both strong and indeed deeply logical. She mentions a few of them, namely Morality as a clue to human existence and also our yearning for meaning which is inexplicable in a purely naturalistic worldview. If you don't consider this to be "evidence" just because it's not physical "proof", then you have the wrong definition of evidence. This also wasn't the platform to provide details of these evidence based arguments, but she mentioned CS Lewis whose writings such as Mere Christianity is a robust detailing of the evidence. Suggest you give that a read first if you haven't. Its because she was interested in truth that led her to have healthy skepticism of her beliefs, and ultimately to read opposing views with an open mind. I trust that, as someone who is indeed interested in truth, you'll do the same.

[@Zandman26]

@@kevinpark1096 Morality could also be a trait derived from the creatures interactions with the world around it. So a creature that survive by killing other creatures, has a morality that says killing is acceptable. However another species has survived by joining groups of the same species and where killing members of that group leads to exclusion and death because other creatures are stronger one on one. This would lead to this species having a morality where killing members of it's own group is wrong. Also yearning for meaning can also be tied to the same thing. If a member of the species does not contribute to the group that could also lead to exclusion. So both your "evidence" can be used for both theism and naturalism, so it's either evidence for both or neither. And this is often the issue with the theistic "evidences" .

[@tonygoodkind7858]

@@kevinpark1096 Isn't it a red flag to bring up non-god topics when challenged with the lack of evidence of a god? Morality as a topic doesn't indicate a god, and is sufficiently explained by evolution (as a cause for instinctive morals like empathy, and hierarchies where wanting to be told what to do (literally being given _meaning_ ) provides an evolution advantage). "A clue to human existence" feels bizarrely out of place. We have abundant evidence humans exist, so we don't need 'clues'. By contrast we don't seem to have evidence of a god existing at all, and when the topic arises theists often try to smuggle god in by doing things like assuming they're somehow involved with morality. Yeah _that's the tradition,_ but what evidence justifies believing a god is somehow related to morality? Nothing at all. So it's as "strong" an argument as Gary telling you your morality comes from leprechauns as a way of taking an apparently-false idea (leprechauns) and attaching it to something real (moral values) in order to make a dishonest argument for a bad idea.

[@daheikkinen]

The ship of Christianity sailed a long time ago.

[@tonyforeman9502]

Did you miss it?

[@simonskinner1450]

Christ is not coming back to sort out the world, Atheists should know Christ promised to return by AD70. So then the Holy Spirit of God is powerless to operate through believers.

[@jayseth]

spoken like a true militant preterist

[@simonskinner1450]

@@jayseth Praeterist. Militancy probably came from my Atheistic years, as Atheists know either Jesus was s liar of he returned as he promised. Now I have a Ytube video series called 'Myths in so-called Christianity' that exposes the false teachings of Christianity, and the truth of the NT.

[@CaptainFantastic222]

Is there more to life than not believing in leprechauns?

[@josemoody1743]

There's nothing more entertaining than watching the response of atheists to videos such as this one 😂 I mean talk about Masochism! 😮😂 these guys need good old Dr Freud Dr. Freud: sir why do you watch theistic videos when you hate them so much? Mr Atheist: I don't know it's like an invisible force that takes control over me and makes me watch 😂

[@BigIdeaSeeker]

You do realize there’s more to it? First of all, everyone’s permitted to interact on YT (if atheists showed up uninvited at church that would be another thing). Next, the world can only become a better place if we interact with and come to understand those who think differently from us. Further, the conversation of God’s existence, like anything with a little controversy, is far more interesting a discussion to many people than Sunday football. But more to the point, Christians malign or misrepresent atheism on a huge scale (see Romans 1:18ff). Apologists argue exponentially more against atheists than they do about, say televangelists who take poor people’s money in god’s name or priests and churches who shuffle child molesters around from church to church rather than dole out serious consequences. Why ought we not argue (albeit, politely) when Christian leaders are convincing my coworkers and family members that my world view is meaningless or that I suppress belief in order to indulge in sin? Finally, the church (conservative evangelical and baptists in America anyway) teach really bad science among other things. I’m an educator and see Christians “sneaking in” their faith all the time as though it’s a trophy for Jesus to share the gospel on the public dime. So much more to say. But truth is truth and sorting it out is important. Sorry if there are rude atheists, but you would not believe how rude Christians can be (your own comment isn’t too bad, but it’s not productive). Ignore the jerks and interact with those who challenge you and enjoy the conversation.

[@josemoody1743]

@@BigIdeaSeeker look I don't care much for religion evangelicalism and all that free market of ideologies non - theistic religions such as secular Humanism I mean you name it what I'm saying is that I know good entertainment when I see it! look you seemed like a decent person I respect that but I don't care much for atheist apologists as well as the religious crap Dr Freud: sir you have a anal fixation Mr Atheist : omg! I thought I was an atheist

[@alexnorth3393]

Well you would know about invisible forces theist.

[@emiliawisniewski3947]

@@BigIdeaSeeker an atheist can’t show up uninvited to church. Everyone is invited. Plenty of genuine curious atheists go to church. Some of them become Christian. What I sense here is that you know Christian has inherent good in it and this is why you’re intent on questioning its root cause. The challenge with atheism is that is is not a moral framework. As an atheist you have to adopt something as a moral framework and most moral frameworks are just carbon copies of traditional theistic moral beliefs with no underlying supporting structure. So for instance, why are you so concerned about pastors stealing people’s money? Is it because you have an innate sense of justice? Explain where justice comes from in the atheist framework? Via naturalism? Ooff, okay. So it’s basic good luck that we care for the poor and vulnerable. In that case, if it’s basic luck there’s no reason not to push away from that trend like we’ve pushed away from all natural human trends. We can simply stop concerning ourselves with justice. Nothing wrong about that inherently. This is the key issue with atheism. It sits on this house of cards but because atheists are so emotionally bonded to their atheism it’s hard to let go.

[@BigIdeaSeeker]

@@emiliawisniewski3947 *I simply meant that showing up at church and criticizing Xtianity or God w/o one’s atheistic/antitheist pov being asked for. Sure “everyone’s invited” but the conversation that questions Xtian belief is not welcome. Exceptions? Sure, but generally not welcome- even at an apologetics study group or a book study on “The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist” at a Calvary Chapel (personal experience). You sense wrong. I was a Xtian for almost three decades, attended Bible college, did mission work. Ultimately I struggled with the moral position of Xtianity. While Christian’s laud the Bible’s “consistency” while being written by so many authors over so many centuries, the reality is that the character and standards of God-Jesus are wildly inconsistent. The very thought of calling for the burning of daughters as a punishment, regardless of how important it is for God to keep the Levite bloodline pure was too much for Christian me accept as a father. Death by stoning (I get the idea of a just god, but there are more humane means of execution) is absolutely horrific and immoral. Slaughter of infants at the tip of the sword and running down the elderly because your enemies sacrifice children (that apologetic looks more like propaganda than reality when one looks at the historical record) just doesn’t come off as high and moral in my (admittedly mere human) estimation. A society is corrupt (like each and every human), so drown the world? Again, what did the infants and toddlers do? Humans work together (Babel) and god divides them culturally, geographically, and linguistically? Yeah, I get the apologetic- they were prideful etc, but look at the millennia of warfare and strife due to the cultural conflict and miscommunication that has happened since. Taking on all the virgin girls of a society as war booty after slaughtering their parents, brothers and community members? And the implementation of slavery (the apologetics here outrightly lie by conflating enslavement of Israelites with that of foreigners, but you have to read quite extensively to wade through the Christian muck). Women are essentially given a value price for which men who keep them (fathers and husbands) are compensated (again apologetics here are interesting but not convincing, especially when you see similar women-as-possession compensation in other ANE law codes). Not at all moral (and yes, I have read extensively the apologetics in defense of this). There are traces in the biblical record that suggest Judaism was an early offshoot of Canaanite belief systems and included child sacrifice as well. You may reject this, and that’s fine, but I find the textual criticism and architecture interesting as I love ANE history internal. But even without traces of Israelite child sacrifice- Curses, capricious tantrum-like consequences, the threat of wombs being torn open and forcing mothers to eat their children, and so on- these are the actions and words of the God upon whom you say morality is based. *side note- your biblical beliefs may not be particularly impressive and divinely moral (in my mere human estimation), but they are incredibly consistent with the times and culture in which they were written. Even contemporary law codes like that of Hammurabi are comparable and at times more moral than the biblical standards (such as for liberation for slaves).* As a Christian I began reading the apologetics that defend and explain these things so I could feel better about believing them. These apologetics, when fact checked and compared to scholarly work in ANE texts and archaeology just were not convincing to me. I eventually concluded the Yahweh-Jesus religious construct is not true. So I am an overt atheist to your specific (and thus far all other man named gods I know of) belief system. But I am rather agnostic to the idea of some deistic entity out there, though I know of any to believe in. Atheism is a position in one thing- the existence of a god. It is not required to provide a moral framework. That’s altogether another topic and there are libraries of books in the subject of secular morality. See Shelley Kegan’s debate on morality with William Lane Craig, for example. The sit-down q and a section is particularly interesting. But the real point is that your belief system- even with its platitudes and talk of loving neighbor and sacrificial love and so one- is not really moral. You must overlook gross immoral elements to embrace to poster perfect idea of Jesus. So- what if there really is a god, but it’s not Bible god. And that god really is moral and good and loving. Imagine how pissed it may be at humans who accept the inconsistent horrific monster deity that Christians claim to be a moral foundation, when that biblical concept is really just a pale counterfeit to the real unknown god that is real and consistent BEAUTY, GOODNESS and LOVE. Oooo, the Christians are gonna be surprised when they get to the after event! I’m sure there’s something I didn’t address that you mentioned, feel free to ask if you need a response. But I hope you understand why it’s high time Christina stop claiming that atheists just “suppress belief in unrighteousness” because they want to sin (Romans 1:18ff.). Cheers.

[@noahsmith1814]

so many salty atheists in the comments!

[@Bill_Garthright]

Yeah? So what? Note that we were _invited_ here. She put "atheist" in the title of the video. That's just how KZbin works.

[@BigIdeaSeeker]

It’s a big conversation. There are divergent perspectives. Did you just want to live in an echo chamber? You have church for that.

[@jamesanderson1135]

The fact that she was so easily convinced by someone's subjective interpretation of apparently seeing the 'fall of humankind' under a microscope makes me extremely skeptical that she ever was a critical thinker to begin with.

[@alexnorth3393]

She is just what I expected tbh.

[@ikemiracle4841]

The attack here (comment section) is unnecessary and immature. It's like if power is given to you all, you guys would turn every man to atheists. It's a disgusting character

[@Bill_Garthright]

_"The attack here (comment section) is unnecessary and immature."_ Huh? What "attack," exactly? And was _your_ comment also "unnecessary and immature"?

[@BigIdeaSeeker]

lol, you must be new to KZbin. We all get to interact here. If you wish to be safe, stay a close to the donuts at church. Besides, it’s not an attack, it’s a conversation with differing opinions. Further, Christians attack too and can be quite rude. Finally, in my life I don’t bother with theism, but then come across theists “attacking” my non- or dis-belief in your god (see Rom 1:18ff). Oh, and Christian teachers in my school district teach children bunk science (like Adam and several had bionic vision).

[@ikemiracle4841]

@@BigIdeaSeeker I'm not new to KZbin. I decided to make that comment because the number and nature of criticism coming from the comments. I know christians do attack, both sides are guilty of such. And yes there's allot of "stuff" In the genesis account. This is not meant to be taken literally, why? Because, assuming that it was true (because I know you don't believe) that Moses received the history of creation, do you think he had the terms or proper knowledge to fully comprehend the entire process. He of course would put it down in a way comprehensible and knowledgeable to him and the people at that time and era. I see the book of Genesis as a brief summary of creation, it's not false it's a different perspective. It's a hard topic to explain to Christians. My true belief in God is not based on the Bible alone. It arose true the beauty and art of science, and it's overwhelming just for me to think about it.

[@BigIdeaSeeker]

@@ikemiracle4841 Fair enough, but the conversation is still valid and should be had. And there will always be rude commenters just as there are rude drivers. Don’t be surprised, just carry on with the path of productive conversation. You don’t see Genesis as literal, fine. Many do take it literally with vehemence. I don’t even realize that until after I left the faith (former evangelical here). It was becoming an atheist (agnostic toward a general deity) that I allowed myself to read more broadly than my evangelical (“my view is correct”) bubble. Now I enjoy a wide spectrum of theological positions. But you must admit that Christendom makes a mess of science and education (at least here in the US). Would that a god who really existed would sort out what is true among his followers so the rest of us don’t have to get caught in the middle. On beauty etc. sounds much like CS Lewis or Francis Collin’s converting to Xtianity when he say a three-tiered frozen waterfall. I get it. But when you say it’s truth (mobile device, so can’t scroll up to see your exact words), you must realize not all are convinced. I don’t go around using absolutist terms in these matters insisting that others must believe as I do. Rather, I express thought out doubts and reasoning, providing excellent reasons to believe the Judeo-Christian god doesn’t exist. There may be an entity behind the beauty, but Bible god is almost certainly not it from my opinion. The the Christian is say dance on that stage all you want, but don’t assume that i and others like me are in denial because we want to attend orgies, “be our own god”, or some other self-absorbed position. Find the intelligent and thoughtful disbelievers and ask questions, challenge, grow, make friends. Just don’t be an ass in your certainty. Cheers! :)

[@ikemiracle4841]

@@BigIdeaSeeker now this is a more heartwarming comment, you can clearly see that no one is hurt or abused with the way you stated your position. That's what I was trying to say in my first comment. Now when you sincerely read about the heart of Christianity, forcing someone into faith is wrong, (I know allot of you have been trained to have a negative view of Christ) the character of Christ towards sinners or unbelievers was on another level of sincere kindness and love. That's what every Christian should emulate not anger and arrogance. The problem I have about atheism is that there's truly nothing in the theory; it's all an amazing coincidence (when ever I put it this way you guys would always want to shift the goal post). I'm sorry for my simple mindedness but I cannot simply accept that a universe wich is intensively fine tuned not just to maintain itself but to maintain life is a mere coincidence. And it turns out that allot of you guys has gone to soup up supernatural theories to compensate for that, like Laurens Krause with his 3 kinds of nothing. The truth is that science has done nothing but describe how the universe works nothing more nothing less, it doesn't say why it's not any other way, but the very institutions founded by Christians that was meant to teach how science describes the universe has ended up doing something different, which is; pumping out atheists, materialists. Cheers 🥂.

[@MartyMcFly1085]

I’m very sad for her, she used to be intellectual but took a hit of copium. Who gives a shit if the Bible is more compelling than real life? So is lord of the rings, so now that’s true and you need to believe it.

[@jayseth]

The idea that embracing Christianity means "leave your brain at the church door" is highly flawed, and ignorant actually

[@alexnorth3393]

Oh no, perhaps another one of these "If atheist then where do you get your morals". I'll bet she strawmans atheism as well!

[@davidlara993]

Do you realize that an ad-hominem fallacy of that proportion is stupid, even more if you have not even watched an unpublished video so far? Just in case you are so concerned about potential fallacies that you forget to take care of yourself.

[@betsalprince]

@@davidlara993 Bit of a stretch to call that an ad hominem fallacy.

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

​@@davidlara993That wasn't an ad hominem fallacy because it wasn't even an argument! It was just an expectation. A guess if you want.

[@davidlara993]

@@fukpoeslaw3613 It was a baseless, stupid, futile and fallaciously anticipatory attempt to undermine an intellectual position. It is one of the worst Sort of as hominem, even if the formal structure does not resemble to an argument (which obviously doesn't). And, by the way, it is guilty of the very same "guess" the user tries: it is an apriori strawman of her position.

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

Just tell us how you feel about it, don't hold back, don't be shy.