Unexpectedly Heated Debate w/ Ex-Atheist

Last night on Destiny
Destiny channel ► / destiny
Bestiny channel ► / bestiny
Twitter ► / theomniliberal
DGG ►www.destiny.gg...
#Destiny
#Politics
#Debate

[@brandonolsen579]

The way she's framing atheism really portrays her religious mindset. As a former atheist, its weird she would criticize atheism for its lack of clear answers when all atheism claims is that nobody actually has the answers and we shouldn't pretend we do.

[@abstractdaddy1384]

Yeah, this falls in line with what I think about so called "former atheists", they were never really atheists.

[@circaen]

No, Atheists say for certain there is no creator when everything around us points to there being one. Really Atheists are willfully ignorant. It's gotten so bad they are trying to prove there are infinite realities as to explain their position given how insanely unlikely it is for our current reality to exist by chance.

[@pepelechad536]

It’s very obvious that she never really understood why she was an atheist (I.e. she was a cultural atheist), and so was very easily swayed by religion.

[@TheSethOlson]

Isn’t that more agnostic rather than atheist? Atheist usually claim that there is a material answer when agnosticism says we just don’t know? That’s at least my understanding

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@abstractdaddy1384 Usually they were just Christians who went through a phase of doubt until something traumatic happened in their lives that led them back into the safety of Christianity… like Lee Strobel.

[@theocho]

I was a hardcore atheist once, but then I thought "Wait... where'd the universe come from?" and now I'm part of the Orthodox church.

[@user-kz6sg3mz5h]

What a novel question. I might have to convert now that I think about it.

[@sergiomendiola4611]

Wow, what a puzzling question. I will now dedicate my life to one out of ten thousand religions and choose one of their ten thousand sects.

[@DietWarlord]

​@@sergiomendiola4611Gigachad

[@Nightknight1992]

and then you roll the 100 sided dice which religion has the correct answer

[@davideventili2881]

​@@Nightknight1992dude you don't get It it's pasqual's wager or something, you gotta believe dude or else you like automatically die lol

[@sarinat3101]

"I used to be a hardcore atheist, but then I heard the most boring level 0 boilerplate apologetics and became a theist." Press X to doubt. Edit: then she brings up Anthony Flew, whose conversion from atheist to theist at the end of his life is widely mischaracterized by apologists. Mega-doubt.

[@Killerkiki313]

I really wish just one time I could hear an atheist-turned-theist give an argument that shows that they understand the majority atheist position. It’s like when these people say they didn’t believe it, they really just mean they were salty at God for a few years. How can she say she was a hardcore atheist and then give the damn prime mover argument?

[@alext.1244]

I notice she didnt NAME the four horsemen either, i know past me would JUMP to either trashing or supporting them by name right away LOL

[@cevan5042]

“Level 0 boilerplate apologetics” ? I’m not online enough to understand what this means lol

[@williamcarr1770]

@@cevan5042 "The most basic level apologetics argument". Apologetics meaning the defense of religion/faith.

[@-47-]

​@@cevan5042 They're unconvincing basic arguments. It's difficult to believe that she became atheist in good faith without considering those questions.

[@chronographer]

Oh wow, she went to some conventions and saw some actions she thought were immoral. Good thing that never happens in any religious communities.

[@CEWIII9873]

I know Warren Jeffs and Josh Duggar are such paragons of virtue

[@hiz24airness]

Right!! When she was describing her experience with atheist it could literally have been describing peoples experiences with religion

[@michaelneufeld4515]

Particularly anarcho-capitalist conventions. You mean a group of people abiding by the most selfish philosophy of them all do suspect things? You don't say!

[@samuelljayy6705]

This was exactly my thought when hearing her say this

[@haruhirogrimgar6047]

17:50 The easiest explanation is that "things good at reproducing will reproduce more than things that don't." The people who commit suicide at a young age aren't the ones having kids.

[@rotoboravtov4354]

... and many years later we will only see those things.

[@KleptomaniacJames]

YIKES

[@whenpigsfly8178]

Yes, that's the selection mechanism - over a long period of time, only those things that produce offspring that are motivated to have more offspring will persist.

[@coachderrick3736]

Literally survivorship bias

[@laurentbergeronmusic]

@@TheLight-vf1bb Every single mutation is either beneficial, neutral, or detrimental to the survival of the lifeform. The lifeforms with beneficial and neutral ones survive while the ones with detrimental ones die off.

[@zak2659]

people like this frustrate me. Its clear why shes an ex-atheist because she is unable to think critically. This is exactly what tiny said at the beginning.

[@ihaveachihuahau]

It's clear she was an atheist at some point, she is unable to think critically. It's funny cause the smartest people in the world are not atheists. They're religious.

[@benny8487]

Yeah, it really shows that being an atheist doesnt mean that youre able to think critically. You can just absorb atheism from parents just as religion, so that at the first question you cant instantly answer they listen to the first person that gives them a half bakes answer, in this case some preacher probably

[@humblehomunculus2722]

Or, hear me out, she was never an atheist. Like she's lying to make her position seem more credible.

[@BrettCradle]

@@humblehomunculus2722I reckon she was just indoctrinated into atheism without critically thinking her way into that position, which is why it was so easy for her to convert

[@KolyaUrtz]

that def isnt a reason why she is ex atheist, many theists think extremely critically

[@tylerbranch7524]

She clearly wasnt ever a strong athiest

[@Nightknight1992]

@@TheLight-vf1bb well theres atheists that believe there cant be a god. but id argue even just real agnostic atheists would need proof that doesnt exist yet today to change their mind.

[@DatHombre]

​​​@@TheLight-vf1bbSomeone who reasoned their self into being an atheist, rather than just being an atheist by default since your parents didn't drill a religion into you. The first would need some hard arguments to become a theist, the second could just need ANY argument.

[@KolyaUrtz]

i was, became religious after years and years of research and debates

[@NavAK_86]

Poor argument - even religious people make this claim about ex-religious people not being 'real Christians' otherwise they wouldn't have left.

[@Nightknight1992]

@@NavAK_86 going from what you were tought as naive kid to claiming nobody can know is a way more reasonable development than going as an adult from nobody can know to exactly this one cult knows.

[@thunder6742]

Over 20 minutes of talking and her entire position boils down to the argument from incredulity, lol.

[@Macluny]

First time?

[@thunder6742]

@@Macluny Hearing this argument from religious people? No. First time hearing her, though.

[@donkeyparadise9276]

You are spiteful

[@L2-L2]

Could say the same for athiesm

[@thunder6742]

@@L2-L2 Nope. And if you honestly believe that, then you 100% have no idea what atheism actually is.

[@LiyoungMartin]

I’ve recently been binging Matt Dillahubty and the four horsemen and was wishing Destiny would do more religion debates. God answered my prayers 🙏🏽

[@kingvegetakinggoku2008]

The four horsemen aren’t good

[@TheMoinomedian]

Hitchen's was the horseman that turned me from religion

[@thepowerofmyth]

Same. Atheism arc is needed now. It's been too long.

[@JohnSmith-bq6nf]

Dude, outside of Daniel Dennett they were pretty bad. Craig destroyed Hitchens in their debate.

[@falseprophet1024]

​@@JohnSmith-bq6nf Lol. No he didnt. Hitchens was by far the best of the group, in my opinion.

[@unclebobboomergames]

I cannot fathom being religious anymore. I lost it at 13 and at 33 that has only strengthened

[@twotestticklez6096]

Hopefully one day that changes

[@unclebobboomergames]

@@twotestticklez6096 i doubt it. Its a subject ive discussed and listened experts weigh in for more than a decade. This is the forefront question on my mind. I dont deny i could change. But i have 2 kids and nothing has changed my views. Only enforced

[@cevan5042]

So brave

[@milosniffer5293]

​@@twotestticklez6096being religious would probably feel easier May you please convince me to buy into your religion

[@TheGrowlingAraknid]

​@@milosniffer5293 Prepare yourself, I'm gonna hit you up with TAG, the Transcendental argument for the existence of God. It's long and it's something I saved for whenever Someone these discussions happen. So keep in mind that I'm not targeting you, it was someone else at that time. f you accept the very possibility that Logics are without grounding (and it doesn't matter if you "don't know" if they are, because your notion of "knowing" itself is grounded on universals you cannot prove empirically, including laws of Logic, so in fact you just "cannot know" anything according to this skeptic paradigm), then you accept that your whole paradigm is without grounding. You are refuted de facto by your own standards. You have no right to use Logic in a debate to defend a worldview where Logic may be without grounding. It's assuming that your paradigm may be without grounding (which is the case, you have no grounding, from a skeptical view, for anything you say, for any "stance" whatsoever). So you need to give a justification, you cannot just say "l don't know, I don't have to". Yes you have to, otherwise there's no debate possible at all, for you cannot justify your use of language grammar, reasoning, value judgment, and so forth. You're stuck. And that's the argument. So you have two options : either you deny grounding for universals, and so you cannot know nor affirm anything meaningful in a debate (your own speech is pure meaninglessness on your own standards, for you have no basis for meaning nor communication of meaning), or you have a justification that is different from the existence of God. What is your justification that proves or attempt to prove that something else than God can be the grounding for all these universals and transcendentals you are using every day as a human person? If you say" I don't know", than you lose the debate (it would be even better to say "l can't know", for a materialist empiricist paradigm prevents you from knowing anything, and destroys all possible scientific methodology). You lose the debate because it is not permitted in a debate to be arbitrary or "ad hoc": if you use universals, you must explain how it is even possible according to your worldview. If you can't, then your worldview is absurd. Accepting to be absurd is losing a debate. The TAG İs not a direct proof of God, we know that (there cannot be a "direct proof" of a transcendent being which surpasses creation itself and is the basis for proving anything), but if you cannot propose another answer to the transcendantal question: what is the grounding for all these universals interlocked together and necessary for knowledge, Maths, Ethics, language, etc.? Then you fail to refute it. If you cannot refute an argument, you can say it does not convince you, but you cannot say it is invalid or a fallacy. How is it a fallacy when you cannot explain how all this can even work without God? You must understand that at this level of questioning, you cannot say " I don't know'. At this metaphysical level of questioning, if you do not accept our justification but don't have any other to refute it, than all falls down. That is the argument, and that is devastating. yes you have a reason to justify X, because you use X all the time. If you do not justify X, then you use X arbitrarily. Plus, you didn't prove that our justification of X is false. In fact, according to your paradigm, you can't prove anything unempirical. You lose the debate from the beginning. any claim which affirms something bears the burden of proof. That is why the burden of proof is on the atheist who affirms that there is no god. So when someone starts out saying that they don't know if god exists, but their conversation reveals that they positively deny that God exists by equating Him with fairies and easter bunnies, then the burden of proof now rests on them. Not knowing is fine. But claiming to know that God is something, namely "like fairies and easter bunnies" means... "Lucy! You got some 'splaining to do!" I am serious about my reasons for believing. You accuse theists of believing in some kinda god of the gaps, and I'm trying to say that whatever may be discovered about the real world does nothing to touch my understanding of God. He is not some kind of "X Factor" He does not exist in the spaces where we lack explanation. Or l should say he doesn't just exist there. Your god is too small. God exists as a foundation for reality, so He is there before we gain the knowledge of a heliocentric model and after. I can thank my God for every scientific discovery. Can you? Like I said, your god is too small. If you understood the biblical concept of God you would stop using pathetic objections like "the god of the gaps" Whatever the justification is or isn't, you still have a "choice"between believing or not, and saying "I dont know,so while waiting for a scientific revelation whichshall never occur, I live as if there were no God", is living as an unbeliever, and choosing to do so. Pragmatically, skeptics/agnostics are atheists, obviously. Or do you pray to a "maybe existing God", or to the "empirically Unjustifiable and probably not existing God"? No, obviously. "probably not existing God"? No, obviously. By the way, proving the Atheist/Skeptic position to be false is here completely sufficient in itself. Between two opposite positions, if one is proven to be false, then the other is right. It's called proof by reductio ad absurdum. And that's the argument. Once you understood that a Transcendantal Being cannot be 'proven" directly by empirical means, you should stop asking or waiting for an impossible justification for it (that neither science nor anything of the sort can give you). If for you justifications necessarily need to be empirical, then there is no justification for God of course, but that's being arbitrary in your presupposition (how do you empirically prove your empiricism to be true?). And the fact that one cannot know anything without immaterial universals or transcendentals is sufficient to show that empiricism is sily (or leads to solipsism and total autism when consistently applied). If you're not an empiricist, than you have no reason to deem the TAG invalid, for it is built logically and without logical flaw. If you literally think that Logic or Maths or Ethics or the scientific method using them are maybe without foundation, then all your paradigm of thought is without foundation. In other words, your whole position is without foundation. That's also part of the argument. By your own assumptions, you reduce your worldview to naught.

[@kopekopekop]

Isn’t organisms innate will to live literally supporting evolution? Because organisms that have the will survive longer than those who don’t leading to them reproducing more and becoming the majority?

[@ihaveachihuahau]

Most organisms don't have any "will" they don't make choices at all. You need to be able to make rational decisions to have a "will". With evolution, it's not a "will to live" it's that organisms who exhibited certain behaviors tended to live and reproduce, and that got passed on. Most of it is luck.

[@domerame5913]

blud thinks organisms have a will to anything

[@thomaswalmsley8959]

It does sorta. Buuut these types in the video conflate the process of the natural selection with the orgins of life itself and move between these two concepts/processes through the entirety of the conversation almost every time. Regardless of how life started, as long as there is life it funtions thru the process of natural selection. The starting point is almost irrelevant to that, it could have come from the formation of amino acids, God, an demon coming on a rock, a unicorn fart. It does little to change the process of natural selection. And once it's started most the questions she asked in particular are answers, that which is "selected" for by the environment goes on to create more of itself. It's really that simple.

[@thepowerofmyth]

I called it months ago. Athiesm arc is coming. Its time steve. Its needed.

[@roberteriksen6434]

I've never understood why did it even went away. The underlying issue for almost every topic is religion thinking that breaks the foundational that a reasonable needs to reach sound beliefs. If that's broken, the only option left is pure fucking luck out of an inifnite amount of possible conclusions.

[@Valdrex]

I swear I don't understand how people can honestly think a god exists.

[@mindlander]

It's called faith. Just like you have in science.

[@kylerBD]

@@mindlander No, science has nothing to do with faith. Science is material, it can be tested, verified, studied. God cannot be studied, he is outside of our existence.

[@WonderfulDeath]

@@mindlander blood really thinks "faith" is a good reason to believe in anything, moron alert!

[@Valdrex]

@@mindlander Science isn't faith based.

[@Laihoistheman]

@@mindlander faith isnt required for science

[@MergatroidS]

I actually believe her about her atheist past. If it's true that her family (especially her dad) were hardcore atheists, I see how someone as uncritical as her could grow up characterizing herself as a "hardcore atheist". But it's not because she thought about any of these things critically. She's obviously incapable of that. She was just indoctrinated, followed the wave, and probably repeated a bunch of arguments she heard against theism. Then, when she found out that the small group of atheists that she personally chose to attach herself to were "icky", she decided to go in the complete opposite direction. Again, not because she thought about it critically. She just has a mind ripe for indoctrination. And now she's repeating other people's arguments in favor of religion. I guess she's like the JustPearlyThings of Jesus.

[@billbob6247]

I’d agree. In the same way evangelical kids are uncritically taught Christian believes, ex soviet kids can absolutely be uncritically be taught atheistic beliefs.

[@jonny-dp2qr]

Most atheists I’ve come across have really shitty or “icky” outlooks on life and what it means to be a human. Take that for what it is, doesn’t mean they’re bad people at all

[@aaronlawrence6350]

I grew up a theist (very hardcore evangelical), and my beliefs lasted less than...two years?...once I went to university and met a lot of new people and learned how to actually think critically about information that was presented to me. All the arguments that I thought were slam dunks for Christianity, I heard the counterarguments and realized those were just better. I'd go back to theism in a heartbeat if sufficient evidence was ever presented to me, but I've looked and looked and never found any. All I heard are stupid arguments like teleology and "prime mover," like this person was presenting.

[@AGenericFool]

"last two years"? Did you start thinking/existing two years before you went to university? I really get your comment otherwise, but that part was hilarious and nonsensical to me. Especially since I have a very christian family and I quit Christianity one week into the preperations into my "Communion" cause as I told everybody, family friends etc. who ostracized me afterward that shit made no sense to me. I was eight years old at the time. Also glad I stayed true to myself, but also wish Id done it later, cause growing up in a very religous town and getting excluded from social events, your own family etc. for years, some still to this day, from 8 years old onwards is some rough shit I wish onto noone. Everything got positives and negatives I guess. Either way have a good one dear reader.

[@ոakedsquirtle]

For me, it was 14 and it took 1 day for me to be a very deep fundamentalist Christian to an atheist. It was a radical transformation in my perception of reality, but I was not "smarter" the day after. I just had the right mindset or critical thinking that I applied to Christianity, but because it was not based on an emotional sentiment towards God, when given counter evidence (with direct bible passages which I thought were noncontradictionary by nature) my belief in God quickly dissolved.

[@firghteningtruth7173]

I mean, to shake things up in this comment thread. I was raised baptist. But then went athiest. Then realized that maybe it isn't actually as simple as yes or no... I believe that there is something. But the bible is nothing but a collection of stories. Same for any other text. However...there is an interconnectedness between us humans. Perhaps that is god. Or, let's say the big bang isn't a theory...it is totally correct. Provable. As many would call into question it's existence as hypothetical. (not me, but let's just make that variable a non-variable) So, have things just always repeated that way? What started it? What made "existence," a thing? Or has everything just always existed...infinitely in both directions on a timeline? Personally, I have found there is a sort of "guiding force." A flow to the world we live on. You can go against it, but things become much harder. Like swimming upstream. You can go with the flow...and things become much easier, and tend to work out. What is THAT thing? You can remove the word god, if you would like, as it has a negative connotation to many. But what is the interconnectedness between us that makes things work out? (or not) Is it karma? (really dharma, right? Because karma would be next lifetime, if I understand those two terms correctly) I dunno. I don't see a point in defining anything in these terms. 🤷‍♂️ Just...existing and trying to find your own personal path and acknowledging that the entire world doesn't revolve around you while still trying to advance your own life path.

[@jonny-dp2qr]

Would love to know the arguments that changed your mind Was it the classic “gods not real bc we have no proof of his existence” Or maybe “What kind of all holy god allows suffering ?” 😂

[@scaryjoker]

The contingency argument sealed the deal for me. The fact that anything exists at all is proof God is real, logically, and by necessity.

[@sugartoothYT]

Be sure to watch out for one of the oldest irrationalities that is still rooted in humans: Not being comfortable with saying "I don't know." You don't need to know the answer to the origin of life, consciousness or the universe any more than the people thousands of years ago when it came to know what lightning was. No, it wasn't Zeus or Thor or Indra etc. and those people should've been humble enough to admit when they didn't know. You are in the same position.

[@gondotheslayer]

So the reasons species want to survive, is because without that drive, the species would not survive in the first place barring some exceptions.

[@Alex-jm3lu]

The claim that purpose had to be there for the world to exist. What Atheism did she believe in beforehand, it sounds like she had a house of cards anyone could just blow over.

[@13enwarner]

She said the desire to sustain and reproduce is an adaptation, this isn't really true. It's the fundamental nature of life, before there were even cells in existence. Probably before even DNA existed. Molecules naturally developed self repeating patterns forming the first RNA because otherwise they just disappear. Life as we know it today is the same. A human being is a certain pattern of protection and defense that DNA molecules developed over time. Reproduction and self sustaining is not an adaptation because it's the very core of what life is. But you don't need a creator or something like that to spark this existence either. It just makes sense intuitively that things that can repeat and sustain will exist more easily than things that cant. This is why life is considered by many to just be an emerging property of the universe.

[@jackooooooooo]

But what created life? How are MOLECULES developing/adapting? My main issue with the origin of life is the idea that inanimate material can somehow adapt. We know that life has this capability because of the directions essentially encoded into them. How the hell is inanimate material doing this? Why would molecules 'care'? Theres no reason for them to adapt and not just dissapear.

[@riffeteddybear7573]

What is most interesting about the first mover argument is Destiny's objections aren't ones that are brought up by serious philosophers. I mean if it's as simple as "maybe the universe is eternal" then why would atheists such as Lawrence Krauss resort to trying to argue the universe created itself or came from nothing by redefining nothing as something? To me it's obvious that they know the argument the universe is eternal doesn't work. Alex Conner went back and forth on this point with William Craig and wasn't able to show the universe could theoretically even be possible.

[@Fjaloeat1]

I used to be an atheist. Then I realized I wanted to groom young girls to become my wive-slaves. So then I 180'd and became an FLDS member.

[@CEWIII9873]

Thank you! That is what I tell all of these bibletards - especially the ones squawking about that stupid Sound of Freedom movie...

[@vikspod]

Going from religious to atheist back to religious is like finding out Santa Claus does not exist then going back to believe in Santa anyway

[@unyieldingmonotony4453]

I think most people just find living without faith to be empty and pointless.

[@vikspod]

@@unyieldingmonotony4453 You're wrong to think that :)

[@ge7563]

@@vikspod You aren't as smart as you think you are.

[@danebeee1]

@@unyieldingmonotony4453you are 100% correct.

[@mr.pluppy8240]

@@unyieldingmonotony4453 which is sad :(

[@TimPortantno]

In her defense, "but then who made god" doesn't disprove anything, that's how all of science works. "If the atom isn't the smallest, what's smaller?" She's just neither empirically correct or even internally consistent...

[@joefission7179]

It pretty much does though. Like, if your belief in God comes from your inability to believe that the universe can exist without a creator then how can God exist without a creator? At some point down the line there has to be a point where something comes out of nonexistence.

[@Uhdksurvhunter]

Oh i know this! Quarks! :D

[@hian]

That's a terrible analogy and shows you missed the point of that particular statement. The existence of something smaller than an atom isn't something you'd infer from the existence of an atom so you wouldn't ask that, and nobody would argue that the existence of the atom necessitate the existence of something smaller. The problem with the god hypothesis relative to the universe, is that apologetics argue specifically that the existence of the universe NECESSITATES a cause, and that's why god exists, but then turn on a dime and reject that god does by the same logic. Why does the universe require a cause if god does not? If god does not require a cause, why must the universe? The argument here isn't about proving that god doesn't exist, it's about demonstrating that the religious person's inference and argument is fallacious. It's not a scientific argument either way. "Who made god?" isn't supposed to disprove god exists. It's supposed get the apologist recognize they're engaged in special pleading.

[@TimPortantno]

@@hian You don't understand your own position, or mine, and yet you write so much thoughtless drivel... You are throwing a wrench into the concept of causality, nothing to do with god. "If X caused Y, then what caused X? Can't explain it? Then nothing must have caused X or X always existed" will never make sense regardless of context. Replacing the word "god" with "universe" solves nothing metaphysically. She's wrong because of her self-contradicting definition of god(and empirically), but not because her definition of god includes creating everything we might use to infer their possible existence. That isn't contradicted by anything, and a fundamental part of actual inference in science.

[@mikoi7472]

@@KoopstaKlicca No you can't. This is called special pleading. Saying that the buck stops at God for no real reason other than it has to for that ideology to make sense doesn't work.

[@meth3rlence]

I actually just finished the Joe Rogan ep with Stephen C Meyer, and he much more succinctly made the arguments "for" God than this chick... but even all his arguments and "evidence" boil down to the same "we can't explain this, therefore God." I don't think I've ever heard any argument that doesn't boil down to that - and it's a TERRIBLY weak argument.

[@jackooooooooo]

I don't see how. God is a fairly decent hypothesis when asking "how did the universe come into formation?". I will say its stupid to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN god exists, but i think its a fairly decent hypothesis.

[@SteakPhilosophy]

"every organism has the will to survive" Her belief is easily explained by survivorship bias. "the logical error of concentrating on entities that passed a selection process while overlooking those that did not." In other words, that we are unaware of all of the organisms that have ever existed that did not have the drive or will to live doesn't mean they didn't exist. And since these organisms have been observed coming into existence and not surviving, we don't have to make up magical god stories to explain the behavior of "surviving" organisms.

[@alexandermccalla5098]

I was raised catholic but by the time of my first communion, I had asked so many questions that I dropped it. Haven’t stepped foot in a church since. For like the next decade my mom would still deny that I was an atheist. I think the worst religious people are converts.

[@MCJustJ420]

You're doing the exact same thing all the atheists in this comment section are pissed about "As a former atheist", whatever questions you were asking at 8 years old, were dumb You didn't even dip your foot into the faith, how are you going to claim you were raised catholic lol?

[@soggymarshmallow]

It wasn't until this convo did I understand the theist assertion that atheism is also a religion based on faith. I expect that the only time theists were able to accept (and filter) information and synthesize their reflections on atheist positions were from philosophical discussions with ex-atheists.

[@Juel92]

I always thought there took a special kind of stupid to be an ex-atheist and this video in no way changed my mind.

[@Alpine_Nightly]

I think the larger question here is why people almost universally feel the need to adopt the completely polar opposite position from the one they held before and found flaws in. Why can't it be, "You know this ideology, philosophy, theology, cosmology, etc has some really interesting concepts that I agree with, and others that I don't. I think I will take the ones that I agree with and apply those." Also, someone should let this lady know that it appears her microphone has been hacked by a very vocal toddler.

[@EyeonthePrize247]

Does the horseshoe theory/concept have anything to do with this?

[@jonathanhenderson9422]

Her whole "material has to come from somewhere" is blatant question begging. The only reason we think material "comes from somewhere" is because of our experience in the natural world where material things come from other material things: but this "coming from" is nothing more than a rearrangement of stuff that was already there. We've never seen material actually be created or destroyed. I've met very few atheists (or physicists/cosmologists) that claim that material reality came from literal, absolute nothingness. At most I've seen the claim that all the material reality of our universe can arise from quantum vacuum fluctuations, which is as close to "nothing" as we can get. We have zero evidence that quantum vacuum energy couldn't have always existed; in fact, that's logically the most likely scenario since there is no "time" in such scenario, as time only becomes a thing when gravity begins interacting locally with mass, and the mass of energy is so low so that gravity either doesn't exist (we still can't quantize gravity) or does so undetectable levels, and thus neither would time (and without time classic causality goes out the window too; all causes must precede effects and that can't happen without time). All you get from the God claim is pushing the "eternally existing" thing a step back, needlessly complicating your ontology without explaining anything (it would still be a mystery of how God can always exist, how immaterial things can exist, how immaterial things can create material things, etc.).

[@mindlander]

0:00:00 "i did a minor"

[@maverick9708]

EDPriest 445

[@kareemramzey8870]

Chill 😅

[@chronicle8080]

What is this title, not once did this conversation get heated.

[@jcnot9712]

First mover type of arguments are how the flying spaghetti monster jokes started.

[@NairuOnLife]

Rocks have a WILL to roll down hills. =)

[@integrallens6045]

My understanding is that we now know that the universe had a beginning. Then you can also observe how time cannot have been infinite because you cannot have infinity plus 1, mathematically it doesn't work.

[@grazzer88]

These are cliché apologetics from 30-50 years ago, there's no way she studied at PhD level, [as an atheist] to debate Christians; and was subsequently converted by the argument that "paranormal activity has explanatory power". She even acknowledges the online atheist renaissance from 25 years ago, yet somehow holds the position that evolution = atheism. 20 minutes in and it's obvious that she just read one book/person that she found profound and was convinced by it. That is not how somebody at university level functions mentally.

[@EdertheJust]

"In 2007, Flew published a book titled There is a God, which was listed as having Roy Abraham Varghese as its co-author. Shortly after the book was released, The New York Times Magazine published an article by historian of religion Mark Oppenheimer, who stated that Varghese had been almost entirely responsible for writing the book, and that Flew was in a serious state of mental decline, having great difficulty remembering key figures, ideas, and events relating to the debate covered in the book"

[@Godrules]

Destiny claims God can't exist because he is immaterial. Yet, string theory tells us we have at least 7 dimensions and we only can observe 4 (length, width, height and time). Destiny, your viewpoint was debunked back in the late 60's. This is why the original concept of Materialism is outdated. Materialism as a paradigm was built on there only being 3 physical dimensions (+time).

[@narcissistichumility1269]

Where does Destiny claim that God can't exist? Please time stamp it.

[@kennytendo7255]

The idea of time not existing is kind of baffling to me. Does the universe have to exist for time to also exist?

[@Rebel8MAC]

She was looking for faith-like properties in the atheism community she was in.

[@darkwitnesslxx]

Her arguments only work towards a strict deist god, and not any particular brand. Even then she'd have to tackle the Problem of Evil to prove her god isn't an evil god. Or a fickle god. Or an absentee god. This woman seems very new to the community of arguing apologetics, and has no idea of the arguments heading her way. Sadly, this lends me to be suspicious to her claims of having ever been raised, or educated within atheist circles.

[@cloudoftime]

An alleged former atheist who remembers "the good ol days" of KZbin atheism, the four horsemen, and she went to school for philosophy of religion, yet she's making these basic fallacious arguments like appeal to want for objective morality to erroneously assert a moral law giver? This is the most rudimentary of flawed religious positions.

[@50_foot_punch99]

People are missing a major part. She was an Atheist because she didn't believe in a god but she did not apply skepticism to religion once she looked at it.

[@atomicgeisha]

I love science, but I am a spiritual person, and that helps me understand the stuff that science can't yet explain. I don't think there is anything wrong with either argument. The truth is that we don't know the truth.

[@DBZM1k3]

Yes, we don't know. But it's absolutely incorrect to think that the earliest forms of life had intent or will to survive. She has a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works. It's not random. It's a progression of events informed by the fundamental laws of the universe. Things that are not suited to the environment die off, and the things that thrive are what pass on it's genetic code.

[@mimilian5826]

how can you be a hardcore atheist, study philosophy and commit so much of yourself to the question of if there is god and not even understand the basic evolutionary argument?

[@milckshakebeans8356]

I think she was not talking about the theory of evolution but about the creation of life itself. It is true that there is still no clear answers to this and there is a lot of theories and they're debated among biologists and chemists.

[@trokolisz3702]

We need a new atheist arc. The shittiest religius arguments are comming back again, and see less and less people adressing them, as most of them got bored of talking about the same shit for decades.

[@jackooooooooo]

Why? It won't change anything. Do you just want destiny to burn his bridges with religious people? We've seen that even during the peak of atheism, it did not deter religious people. it just put atheists on a more equal playing field.

[@jamrollz]

'my argument for god is that a good argument for god exists'

[@ivansmirnoff6987]

As an atheist, I've grown so tired of reddit atheism and religion vs atheism debates. I know it's all so cool and exciting when you're young and first identify as atheist and you can't wait to dunk on the christf*gs with your superior facks and lojick, but once you understand what faith is you realize the whole thing is exhausting and pointless. People who have faith hold a different belief system than you, that's simply all it is. In fact, as an atheist, you have to accept that there are certain things that you also have faith in that you cannot justify with your own facts or logic, that or you're just a completely passive nihilist who only follows the law out of fear of violence.

[@luciddoggo5094]

Get angry at the cringe athiests when your government is importing millions of people who think they should behead you for drawing a picture of muhammad.

[@frostdracohardstyle]

" you're just a completely passive nihilist who only follows the law out of fear of violence" You just described religious law. If you grow tired of something, remove yourself from it. it doesn't change the fact atheist's are one of the most hated groups through no fault of our own. There wouldnt need to be said debates and arguments if religious people would keep this shit to themselves. You know who brings up my atheism the most? My religious family, who wont leave me the fuck alone about it. I almost never mention it because i dont define myself by being an atheist. I simply am one.

[@ghostrecon3834]

Very true. As a Christian I respect atheists such as yourself who are willing to admit that at the end of the day they’re no better than someone who’s religious, you just have different beliefs about how we got here and why we are here. The same way that it’s really cringe to judge someone for being agnostic or atheist, it’s just as cringe to judge someone for being religious or believing in God. Also love that you point out that as an atheist you also rely on faith to a larger extent than most typical reddit atheists are willing to admit. Props

[@bbiggie97]

@@ghostrecon3834he’s not admitting the uncomfortable truth that other atheists are too afraid to confess to. He’s just wrong

[@ghostrecon3834]

⁠@@bbiggie97what’s wrong about what he said? elaborate.

[@HeyMcFlyMusic]

When did it become "heated:

[@mbnall]

It’s so strange to me how any other consideration could trump a lack of evidence. “I know there’s no evidence, but the libertarians were immoral so I decided there has to be an objective law giver.” I don’t care how complicated the argument, or how many books or philosophy degrees you devote to arguing for god, or how many big names agree. Multiply all of that by the evidence for god (zero) and you still get zero.

[@dangallagher6176]

The issue i have with the first mover argument is that you jump from the proposition that something necessary/timeless caused the universe to exist (which is reasonable to believe based on our intuition) to the conclusion that therefore the first mover must be all powerful, all knowing and personal, which is absolutely ridiculous. ESPECIALLY the personal part. As a hardcore atheist, id give the idea of a God much more credit if it was a non-personal creator of the universe.

[@jackooooooooo]

What is a personal creator, if i may exist? I'm a theist/deist myself, and i do grapple with the idea that such a being doesn't necessarily need to meet these criteria. To me i don't think it would necessarily matter. My criteria for a god is an entity superior to ourselves, who created the universe.

[@dangallagher6176]

@@jackooooooooo I'm not sure what your question means, it sounds like it may be rhetorical? Or in the case you're asking what I mean by a personal creator, I'd define it as one who cares about and interacts with humans I think your definition of a God is much more reasonable, and i can entertain that as a legitimate possibility. However, in my opinion we are still applying two unnecessary attributes here - 'superior' and we are also implying intelligence. If we apply these, we need to justify why we think they're likely. Why could the cause of our universe not be the fundamental forces of nature that just 'are'? That seems reasonable to me, and does not require superiority or intelligence. Because I do not know how the universe was caused, I cannot claim anything, but I am convinced that an unintelligent creator is the most likely explanation

[@jackooooooooo]

@@dangallagher6176 So i suppose this is where our views differ. I can't personally wrap my head around a universe coming about through purely chaotic means, which is why i posit this creator must have a form or variation of what we consider intelligence. I also don't know if i could even call what you propose necessarily a 'god', because gods are defined by those two bare minimum characteristics. That said i won't act as if my answers are any better since i'm just some dude on the internet. Its possible my guess on it's wrong lol.

[@Statutum]

If you think single cell organisms (that we know of) can have instincts or a "will to live", you likely haven't thought about how life works in earnest or at any actual depth. There may very well be some sort of theoretical single celled lifeform that through some amazing series of events developed a nervous system capable of such things, but on earth we have not observed anything even close.

[@vesuvius2444]

I don't need answers on the beginning of the universe. I need evidence that god exists. The beginning of the universe doesn't make sense to me and doesn't need to.

[@ubersheizer5398]

Flew had dementia.

[@bw2020]

Destiny is misunderstanding her argument at around 15:00. I don’t have the energy to restate it for her but I got what she is trying to say and it’s a fair argument.

[@bladddeesa]

I don't have the energy to explain it, but I understand why you think it's a fair argument and there are a couple of flaws with your logic that are quite substantive.

[@98danielray]

no flaw in interpretation. claiming these are accidents is stupid

[@bw2020]

@@bladddeesa the problem is that there is nothing that proves that the origin of the universe must be in accordance with human logic.

[@cmp6]

That wasn't all that heated.

[@caca0caca0]

Logical proof that something can come from nothing: 0 = -1+1. Two discrete things (-1 and 1) came from nothing (0). Apply that on a stupidly huge scale and you got the universe, baby. Also, it seemed like there was just a misunderstanding due to the way she phrased the origin of life thing. Her objection was literally just that we don't know how the first proto-rna or self-replicating organism came into existence or what its exact composition was. This is, again, just the god of the gaps argument.

[@farcenter]

"ex-atheist". She probably was just not into the Russian Orthodox Church and once she committed they told her everything before was atheism. Lol or she lied to get on the show. She either forgot the arguments of actual atheist, or never knew them. But personally I don't think she ever was or knew anything about atheism, she got her minor to argue about religion all right, but it was apologetics, and honestly, not very good apologetics. She took the stab here in the earnest hope she'd win a soul or two with Destiny's reach. Can't even knock her for the lie reality, clearly something she believed was for the greater good, it's just that she didn't pull it off. If you're gunna manipulate and lie for what you believe is the good, at least do a good job and do enough research to be capable of it.

[@aaronbarreguin.4211]

10:22 could secular truth be defined as universal truth, and if the universe didn’t create itself but may have had a creator then with this truth and be a description of that creator?

[@drey1407]

The last part is always what’s most important and the sneakiest thing theists do during these debates. EVEN IF you can somehow argue for a god (initial creator or a Spinoza like god is everything and all time) it’s still NEVER EVER even remotely close to justifying any arguments for believing in an abrahamic god.

[@jackooooooooo]

To an extent i agree. Arguing that is entirely seperate. I'm more so a theist/deist in that regard. I believe in the sort of god you describe.

[@mikedebest2385]

accident / nothingness show huge lack of understanding

[@jeremiclement5723]

If the universe came into being from nothing by itself, for no reason. Then I should be living in constant fear that any moment, a hippopotamus might appear from nothing into my bedroom and defecate all over my bed.

[@Tucker_Tries]

Why do people presume something came from nothing? And why do they presume God is immaterial? How about a static material always already existed by default and inevitably automated energy via the ontological necessity of time and hence experience? How about God is this primal material? Its the most logical option.

[@49perfectss]

Flew himself admits his arguments are bad for a god. Why give a source that itself says it's a bad source?

[@yilz123]

I think my biggest issue with any religion is the proclamation that the “holy texts” are in any way holy. The fact that they’re all written by men. I think as any true scientists we can only be humble and say we don’t know anything and only know a tiny bit. It can very well be that there is a god, or multiple gods. we can only be humble in saying that we don’t know. I think the claim anything 100% is hubris

[@CEWIII9873]

agreed religion is poison

[@MCJustJ420]

What do you think "Holy" means in the context of "Holy text" lol?

[@2406west]

Some people try so hard to strengthen their position that they will actually undo any potential progress with unnecessary points. She could have just said: "You can make the same argument against atheism, which asks us to believe that everything just sprang into existence at a point in time somehow and nobody can explain it. That by definition is *faith* ." But she then had to go on babbling about how tadpoles mysteriously developed the desire to eat and survive through natural selection and blah blah blah and just curb stomps the already shaky position she could have held

[@igorpedro8995]

Even then, that's usually not a response to the claim that everything exists because of God, and again, that's a god of the gaps argument What I and a bunch of people mean when we say "atheist" (destiny probably included) is simply someone who sees the affirmation "god exists" and isn't convinced by it Think of a jar full of marbles, you and I are tasked with answering how many there are inside that jar, if just by looking at it I can't say, I'll answer "I don't know", but then you come saying there are 975 I have no obligation to accept that answer just because I don't have one, you need to prove to me that you're correct if you want me to consider your stance as correct

[@2406west]

Im talking about specifically to when they were talking about there having to be a God to create us since nothing cant create something and she was talking about reversing the logic. It would have been a lot better if she had just kept it simple. I know what an atheist is lol.

[@luismurillo5855]

Didn't Destiny debate this person before? She sounds like that drunk 4chan user she debated on Trump a while ago.

[@Filthy_Cubes]

I’m shocked she hasn’t figured out that maybe the early life that didn’t have the “will to live” just immediately died out and didn’t procreate, and the early life that did have it evolved into life as we know it today

[@tek1768]

That’s what I say. The “will to live” is just a byproduct of an imperfect environment. Organisms that cannot adapt well to the environment therefore have trouble procreating and will cease to exist.

[@JayOtter]

Heated??!!??!?!

[@madgodloki]

This idea that materialism has an issue so some random non physical thing they called God fixes it? 🤨 but it doesn't. It fixes the problem as good as pixies that I've defined as existing forever and being able to create matter does.

[@madgodloki]

I really get annoyed when the logic is so bad. A material thing can't create a material thing so it must be an immaterial thing. 😐 thats like saying my dog can't create nuclear reactions, therefore it must be cats.

[@airlesscanvas6425]

What? This debate feels like it is straight out of like 2012, the lady here even making the same religious arguments from back then. (I say this a Christian myself.) Those arguments being outdated and kinda weak, and it sounds like she recently went through a massive change in her life and wanted something to reaffirm her new personal beliefs. Although she sounds like a nice lady.

[@simonallen9251]

Religion is written.All around us was not.

[@sugartoothYT]

I wish I knew more of cultures outside the European roots, because I'd bet that despite not being influenced by Abrahamic religions, they also implemented some fundamental moral laws, probably even better in parts. Even animals act with a sense of right and wrong.

[@integrallens6045]

@17:04 you just skimmed over the biggest mystery of the universe as if we know exactly how life was created. But this is not settled science. How do you explain the transition from non-bioloical matter to biological matter? How do a bunch of non living atoms come together to form living cells?

[@mikemorenilla7444]

A ten-string combo of special pleading into god of the gaps into personal incredulity into appeal to authority (Antony Flew) back into personal incredulity. She is a walking avatar of logical fallacies.

[@jonnysaint5261]

My observation is that man created God and not God created mankind. More people become non believers with every generation. if you aren't taught or born with a religion you're probably a life time non believer. Most people I know that say they believe in God really don't. Most people that identify as believers, with Christians specifically, came to that conclusion because " I celebrate Christmas so I must believe in God". The only time I hear them talk about anything God related is at Christmas, and they certainly don't live christian lifestyles

[@49perfectss]

This person was an atheist only in the way that she never thought of it... And then got fooled by very bad arguments into thinking there is an invisible sky wizard. She counts the same way a baby counts as an atheist lol

[@jamesnnabeze687]

Lady doesn't understand how evolution works

[@kannix386]

how is it that every conversation with a theist is the same? they always rush go through the same arguments that have been debunked on every level.

[@cabudagavin3896]

These arguments always boil down to two arguments the first being the first mover, but basically they are prescribing consciousness to the first cause, this would need to be proven. (I would like to know the fist cause though) zero. so perhaps the second or third cause... and secondly the fine-tuning argument, the universes constants are specific and need to be this exact ratio for a universe that can create life to exist... im no physicist but ill assume this true, the multiverse can explain away these ratios, but doesn't generate a universe generating mechanism, so once again square one, and we would then be prescribing consciousness to this universe generating mechanism. However multiverse is a big claim anyway and would actually need to be proven. The thing about evolution that anti evolutionist argumenters dont understand is that reproduction is the core, all other structure is wrapped around it, not the other way around. IDK though to me the multiverse argument in the first place seems wrong to me (?)... what if consciousness generates non deteministic possibility, and this makes the universe expand until the non determinisity re-collapses? why does this generation occur? because nothing cant exist in local (around conscious entities') spacetime, and cannot exist at the origin either, so basically has an instantaneous creation mechanism between each that generates all of time simultaneously within the logic... This would imply that the thing ends once it can equate itself to its truest number being zero, but perhaps is outperformed by the opposite, and maximizes non determinism, and so consciousness throughout the universe... Idk though, drugs is good man...

[@josephrosenbaum3343]

That wasnt even heated at all. Clickbait asd title

[@Nazzul]

Debate was lukewarm at best.

[@numlockryt]

destinys hardest 2v1 ever

[@LoudWaffle]

Fighting a baby and a newborn.

[@frankmarano1118]

I mean the baby was a better debate partner than the chubby chick from the pro life debate lol

[@Bruhngus420]

​@@frankmarano1118tru

[@grantlauzon5237]

It was going to be a 3v1 but God canceled last minute.

[@frankmarano1118]

@@grantlauzon5237 He tends to be a no show at parties lol. Takes being fashionably late to a whole new level!

[@lourj3883]

This person was atheist in the most passive sense that they didn't have a religion yet. But there was no conviction and or thought behind their position why they went looking for it. This is fundamentally unlike any atheist she's trying to identify with in order to validate her "change."

[@narcissistichumility1269]

Yeah, I don't believe her when she says she joined a class to argue better against theism. She's giving the most basic arguments for religion.

[@DarthLetalis]

So….. now you need “conviction” to be an atheist?!?! 😂 Holy Shit, that’s funny.

[@lourj3883]

@@DarthLetalis you have poor reading comprehension.

[@jonny-dp2qr]

😂 this is fundamentally like every atheist she’s trying to identify with

[@lourj3883]

@@jonny-dp2qr my guess is you're a theist and probably can't differentiate the different types of atheist. Which is probably not all your fault. I don't know that I ever have an upfront conversation with theist anymore. You guys have a narrow perception of the word which make you incapable of actually perceive atheist. So conversations with you if I attempt to be upfront become a circular disagreement which may distort your view of atheists. so you build these ridiculous conceptions in your mind which you believe are true and automatically apply as a stereotype albeit the truth of the stereotype is moreso a funhouse mirror of your minds than the people you apply it to. Kind of like a racists who think every minority is a criminal. The stereotype is a reflection of the racist opposed to anything truthful about minorities in general.

[@allibaba711]

I heard the baby in the background and the comment on the screen at 8:05 perfectly encapsulates my analysis of her trajectory: "gets pregnant> has baby> becomes pro life> becomes religious" It's funny she thinks she had some sort of special path when in reality it was exactly what D described in the beginning about big life events triggering changes

[@buttholewasabi]

gigabased

[@jormundo7765]

dident hear the baby, but yeah, if thats to be the case thats hilarious

[@RanEncounter]

​@@jormundo7765 You can hear the baby @ 5:40 onward.

[@remrahc6396]

3:07 destiny calls her out as he answers her question of what makes people shift views so drastically ofc the baby googoo gaga, 10:13 she mentions her child lol confirmed

[@twodumbgamers9285]

I mean the child was literally just with God and you can feel it when their born. There's quite literally a feeling of being wrapped in light and love

[@arthursboypusshe3613]

I’m gonna go out on a limb and say this person probably wasn’t an atheist and most likely just went through a “questioning” phase

[@pimpnamedslickback7780]

That honestly is atheism tho. Acknowledging that we just don’t know

[@wDoucheCanoe]

@@pimpnamedslickback7780well acknowledging we don’t know is agnosticism. But if you are an agnostic, you thus don’t believe in a God - therefore are an atheist

[@olajuuusso1135]

@@TheIndianTree You believe in talking snakes bro...Don't call atheists ignorant

[@ElPaco69x]

Here is a prime example on why i dont take ppl who say “i use to be an atheist” very seriously. Im not denying that they were atheists, but i do doubt they have asked questions with critical thinking of religion. Her entire “life changing” story was “some atheists do bad” essentially. And that she FELT like there needed to be some moral giver. Any atheist who has really dove into learning would not change their minds based on that alone. Destiny didnt even need to go into the hard questions to see her crumble.

[@fireclaw2]

She was one half baked atheist. She probably just followed the wave. The things she was saying or fighting for are like in the first 10 questions in the atheist route to answer.

[@abdullahx8118]

born into atheism unironically, Stalin induced atheism so not exactly a rational position

[@schmittywerbenjagermanjens2649]

She was never an atheist. Maybe at some point she had some doubts/questions and just called it “atheism”, but there is 0 shot she actually accepted any atheist conclusions or philosophy.

[@willjapheth23789]

​@schmittywerbenjagermanjens2649 non-religious probably though. Boldly claim she was never an atheist is getting close to the no true Scottsman framing.

[@soccerplayer922]

@@willjapheth23789 yeah, I think there are a lot of fragile atheist in the comment section feeling the need to establish a difference between 'real atheists' and 'trenders' lol

[@donkeyparadise9276]

No true scott?

[@jandjcoblentz]

For someone who was an atheist, she does not have even the faintest grasp of what being atheist means. Throwing in abiogenesis is a perfect example of this.

[@meciocio]

Most christians claiming they used to be atheist actually mean is "i didn't go to church or think about god much"

[@mountbrocken]

So all atheists are alike? Atheist just means without a god. There are a variety of views in the spectrum of atheism. No true Scotsman/atheist is fallacious.

[@meciocio]

@@mountbrocken They didn't say all atheist are alike. They said that the girl in the video might be misunderstanding on what "atheist" actually means when she says she used to be one. btw. atheist doesn't mean "without a god"

[@mountbrocken]

@@meciocio if she says she was one who are you to question? And I'm aware of what atheist means.

[@meciocio]

@@mountbrocken if you know what atheist means then why did you say it means "without a god". Are you stupid or something? And yes, I question what people claim they are if it doesn't adhere to the definition.

[@joshhoward4256]

A debate as old as time. “Here’s a reason god exists” “Here’s why that doesn’t make sense” “Here’s a different reason god exists” /repeat until one of you dies

[@donkeyparadise9276]

You can say that about anything

[@Sydafexx7]

@@donkeyparadise9276You can SAY it, sure. You can’t be a reasonable person and say it about anything, and no one gives a shit about some lunatic screaming nonsense.

[@zacharyshort384]

@@donkeyparadise9276 ? I'm pretty sure if it's "Here's a reason my dog exists" instead it wouldn't be a long debate; let alone an endless one ;)

[@jackooooooooo]

I'm a theist and i pretty much agree. Trying to debate if god exists will almost never change the opposing partys position.

[@zacharyshort384]

@@jackooooooooo Yeah, that's the nature of believing in unfalsifiable propositions ;)

[@BanakaiGames]

All her reasons for becoming religious are just wanting to fit in with a group "I became pro life and changed my mind" --> I'm now an outlier in a group I previously identified with "I saw atheist libertarians be bad" --> There are people in a group I identify with I don't want to associate with "Societies today are still very religious / laws are based in religion" --> I feel bad being in a minority group / it would be easier to be in the other group

[@735337707]

"religion is for those who need it'

[@frankmarano1118]

Not only that but her reasons for believing is just filling in the gaps of unknown knowledge with god. She acts like the big bang happening by itself is harder to believe than a silent god who caused it who also programmed cells with the "will to live" & reproduce. I'm agnostic btw, I don't have the answers to life's biggest questions but I also don't pretend like I do when I have no way of truly knowing one way or the other. I'm not so arrogant to assume I have all the right answers just because I was born into a certain religion, especially knowing if I was born in another country I'd be raised to believe in THAT religion. One theory I've heard that's interesting is that the universe is actually the inside of a black hole & that when this black hole opened up it actually WAS the big bang. It also explains the way the universe has expanded constantly & apparently even the hawking radiation numbers confirm this is possible. Imagine if that's why we haven't found life elsewhere yet, because an even bigger universe exists on the other side of the black hole. Mind blowing to think about even if it is just a theory.

[@albinoboi27]

There have been many studies on the sociology of religious conversion since a landmark study by Lofland and Stark in 1965. A lot of the model they proposed for why people convert has been brought into question with recent scholarship. However, there is one thing they contributed that has stood the test of time since then. This observation is that people are converted into a new religion *primarily* by their social networks. There may be other factors that drive a person to be a religious seeker initially but the social networks of a religious seeker will influence which religion they convert to. The parts of this person's conversation that you identified demonstrate this perfectly.

[@thomaswalmsley8959]

@@albinoboi27 ei sneako. As a specific example.

[@MCJustJ420]

@@frankmarano1118 What evidence do you have to support the existence of this other universe? What grounds do you have to call that a theory? What have we tested to support this claim? None of this is theory, and it never will be

[@TheZzpop]

Her issue is that she does not seem to understand anything about either cosmology or biological chemistry

[@g07denslicer]

So she became a theist because other atheists around her were behaving immorally...? Not the sharpest lightbulb in the crayon box.

[@justaname109]

If she’s basing her shift to theism on that, she should look into how many people in prison claim to be Christians or Muslim…it’s alot more that those claiming to be atheists. Aside from the prison argument, you could simply look at very secular countries like Norway, Finland, Sweden, Japan, and look at the much lower crime stats.

[@g07denslicer]

@@justaname109 Right?? so not only is her argument a non sequitur (what the heck does the moral behavior of people on this planet tell us about the existence or nonexistence of God? Nothing.) but it also doesn't support her conclusion even if it _wasn't_ a non sequitur.

[@justaname109]

@@g07denslicer 100%!! Cognitive dissonance makes people say some pretty dumb things

[@champ8605]

Wait till she finds out about the pedophile priests in the Catholic church.

[@Crozzzbonez0]

​@@justaname109the prison thing is probably because people get converted in prison not necessarily that they committed a crime while religious. the secular countries point is good though.

[@twocheezitz9182]

Woman on woman violence

[@Mentesestoicas_]

She clearly believes things cause she likes it not because it’s true.

[@KolyaUrtz]

do you believe humans have free will?

[@Mentesestoicas_]

@@KolyaUrtz no

[@KolyaUrtz]

@@Mentesestoicas_ ok, that just means you live in infinite absurdity. There is no point in arguing about anything with you.

[@Mentesestoicas_]

You just asked me the question because I posted the comment. And if we went back in time with the universe in the exact same position as it was back then, you would do it again. You can't control what you are going to think, desire, or do, and even if you could, you would always be working with the consequences of previous events. Your response, like, dislike, or lack of comment on this comment is purely a consequence of our previous conversation. There's no free will by logic, there's nothing to be argued.

[@KolyaUrtz]

@@Mentesestoicas_ why are you explaining determinism as if I don't know what it is?

[@gablison]

My grandma had dementia 10 years before she dies and she could still do crosswords, sudoku, wordsearches, she wrote notes to her family when she couldn't speak, she could have written a book even with her dementia if she wanted to, she just didn't remember her day to day routine from the day she developed dementia but everything before that was crystal clear.

[@CEWIII9873]

Did you get her to empty her bank account?

[@gallavanting2041]

I do not believe she was an Atheist in the sense of "I reasoned myself into questioning the existence of God", everything she said about her religious journey screams of an individual that moves with the social tide in their life.

[@jessehurxD]

She was 100% one. Dentiny says this all the time, you are what youre parent typically are and some people grow out of it.

[@junkaccount2535]

I would agree if it weren't for the fact that society is vehemently anti-religion and moving more and more progressive every year. She's definitely in the minority if she converted due to being socially convinced.

[@gallavanting2041]

@@junkaccount2535 social tide doesn't care about what is happening at statistical scale, it only cares about your local bubble. If you're in an area that tends religious it doesn't matter if every big city is atheistic.

[@junkaccount2535]

@@gallavanting2041 Depends on how active you are in your social bubble and your greater worldwide consciousness. What you're saying may have been true in 1945, but I doubt that same logic can be used in 2023 when everyone has the "correct opinion" on every topic shoved down their throats through media and the internet 24/7. If that were true way less people would be radicalized.

[@gallavanting2041]

@@junkaccount2535 it 100% can be, it just requires someone to value their in-person interactions more than their online ones. Which I accept is a radical proposition in a DDG comment section.

[@foodsupply5071]

What bothers me with these arguments is that they try to prove the concept of god but they never prove that the Christian god exists specifically. Or at least I haven’t heard any arguments that prove a Christian god. It’s always a general definition This makes me doubt any Christian philosopher because even if I grant that these arguments are valid it still seems to me that they always jump to a specific version of a god that they believe in. It makes sense that they accept divine command theory but why believe the commands of any religion here on earth is true ?

[@ihaveachihuahau]

Why wouldn't you though? If you're wrong about religion you're screwed if it's true. If a religious person is wrong, nothing changes in the end.

[@-47-]

​@@ihaveachihuahau That's not true. If you believe in the christan god, and it turns out that the jews were right, you're still not making it to heaven. As a religious person you're realistically only like .1% more likely to make it into heaven on the basis of belief.

[@foodsupply5071]

@@ihaveachihuahau You could have thrown away your entire life. Personally as a gay person I would have to abstain from any relationships for my entire life basically living only half a life just to have no god. That would cause a lot of harm to my life and to the life of many others. It’s also not just choice like that if I don’t believe in god I don’t believe in him That’s beside the point though because that has little to do with my initial comment

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@ihaveachihuahau Nope, if you are a Christian who thinks that Jesus is God but he isn’t then you are an idolater and the God of the Bible will punish you forever. Or like Newton said: Believing in the Trinity is the worst sin a Christian can commit. Of course it’s also possible that there is a God who never interacted with humans but will punish everyone who believes in false religions and rewards everyone who passed his test and realized that all religions are false. In that case only Atheists will go to heaven. And considering how demonstrably false all religions are this is by far the most likely version of a theistic God.😉

[@GAPIntoTheGame]

@@ihaveachihuahau Pascal’s wager is extremely flawed, trying to invoke it is not a wise. See Pascal’s mugging as to a reason why

[@denzelpfeifer]

Lying about being an ex-atheist is just so unnecessary tbh. Idk why ppl do that

[@RanEncounter]

I don't think she lied about being an ex-atheist. She just did not have the critical thinking skills that an atheists that changes from religion has.

[@sonork6219]

she probably wasn't lying about it. Probably just had bad reasons for being atheist

[@УрошЛукић-н3у]

she has a youtube channel and she was atheist.

[@trololkhil9868]

its possible. if her parent(s) are from form soviet countries...religion was outlawed during communism so people were forced to be atheists and as such people born into those societies did not have strong attachments to being atheists...

[@trokolisz3702]

@@sonork6219 she litteraly said she was an atheist because her father was an atheist. (so yeah, she wasn't the: i have researched my way into being an atheist, but she was an atheist non the less)