An Open Letter to Atheists from a Priest
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- If you are an atheist, I have a quick question for you.
SOCIAL MEDIA:
Blog: goo.gl/QuB4ra
Facebook: goo.gl/UoeKWy
Twitter: goo.gl/oQs6ck
Instagram: goo.gl/ShMbhH
Podcast: goo.gl/xqkssG
INTERESTED IN BECOMING A FRIAR?
Holy Name Province: goo.gl/MXKb2R
Find your Vocation Director: goo.gl/2Jc52z
SUPPORT THE MISSION
Order my books: amzn.to/386QDpR
Donate Monthly: goo.gl/UrrwNC
One-time gifts: goo.gl/eKnFJN
MUSIC
Epidemicsound.com
Would you like to talk to me about this on my channel?
Uh-oh, this is gonna be good.
Funny, that while watching this video, I was thinking that AronRa would be the best to answer you. Specially that part where you claim moral ground. Aron would explain you that in religion it doesn’t matter how good you are, if you can’t make yourself believe, and doesn’t matter how bad you are, because all the sins can be forgiven. except the one : non believe. In Christianity you are not judged on morality but on gullibility.
@@pavolluzny3424 "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe..."
You are not judged strictly on your belief. Their were many people in the gospels that struggled with belief but Christ did not condemn them but comforted them in their unbelief. God will judge everyone by what is in their heart
The AronRa - BASED
@@pavolluzny3424 that’s not what Catholics believe. Salvation is by works as well as faith.
Will there be any response to the numerous reaction videos?
No rules for atheists? So wrong. There are a ton of rules! Pay tax, don't steal, don't be a bully, think and act in ways to stop bad climate shifts, be polite, give up your buss seat to someone elderly/disabled/very pregnant, give to charity, sort the garbage to recycle, adopt instead of shop a kitten, make sure the elders in the family have what care they need... There are so many rules. A secular society is not the same thing as a lawless society. First time I've heard Fr. Casey slip up.
There is no reason that one has to follow any of these things. Are you suggesting that the government is a god that requires obedience? Of course not. I’m a bit surprised by your comment because it’s kind of silly: laws are the works of fallible men and women that only exist because we give them authority. They hold no cosmic or ontological weight and can be changed at will. So, no, there are no ultimate, unchanging rules for atheists-they must decide for themselves how to live.
@@BreakingInTheHabit ah, you show your hand. You don't know much about atheism. Catholicism today doesn't look much like the Catholicism of the 5th century. Or the 12th. Or the 16th, or even early 20th. Morality rules shift and change with the centuries. They always have, and they should.
For example, 15th-century Catholic Popes okayed African slavery. And a 20th century Pope looked the other way when a certain German leader began slaughtering people. And countless Popes and Cardinals have shielded predatory priests -- or preyed on people themselves. They found reasons within their supposedly Objective Morality to do these things.
BTW: I notice you like to capitalize big claims asserted without evidence. Do you think the capital letters are a substitute for valid evidence? They're not. They're just like a blinking turn signal announcing false claims.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Please consider your comment from the perspective of an atheist. Or at least an atheist that does not hold other supernatural beliefs.
"There is no reason that one has to follow any of these things"...except for the very real consequences, both legal and social, that can occur if one doesn't.
"Are you suggesting that the government is a god that requires obedience?"...surely you must recognize that people and institutions can influence how we live our lives even though they are not gods. Furthermore, it seems a silly thing to suggest that an atheist thinks that something is a god when, by definition, the atheist does not think that anything is a god.
"Laws are the works of fallible men and women"...yes, but that doesn't stop them from being laws. If enforced, they must be followed to avoid the consequences of not following them.
"They hold no cosmic or ontological weight"...sure, but nothing carries such weight, so this is normal.
"So, no, there are no ultimate, unchanging rules for atheists-they must decide for themselves how to live."...this we agree on. But I would argue that it's the same for the theist.
Have you read through the history in it's entirety? Religious beliefs changes kind of the way fashion does. Fashion can be a clear statement of chosen identity - or a tool for suppression. It's seldom you see anyone in Egypt wearing the clothes of the Middle Kingdom. Also, on the bright side - not so many today have their heart ripped out while it's still beating, in order to please a deity. That's nice.
But trying to unlock tomorrow with an ancient key is tricky. It requires either tomorrow or the key to be changed.
By the way... I like my freedom of choices - and the responsibility that follows.
In answer to your question, I strive hard to be a good person. I make my decisions based on a desire to minimise harm to, and promote the wellbeing of myself, and others. I try to recognise my mistakes, make amends for them, and not make them again.
As for being a good "atheist", my reason for describing myself as an atheist is simply I am yet to discover any persuasive evidence for belief in a god or gods. I remain open-minded to consider any and all arguments.
My question to you in return is, "Are you being a GOOD theist"?
Morals are created from instinct. Like the instinct to run from a wolf to survive, you develop morals to appease your elders(leaders) to keep you in their good graces to support your survival.
Doing what's right without expecting any reward such as going to heaven is one of the best feelings as an atheist.
Why is it a good feeling? You did what you favoured, and there's nothing else than your opinion to say that it was the right thing
Good thing religious people, especially Catholics, aren't doing it just for the reward then.
@@Toreadorification "there's nothing else than your opinion to say that it was the right thing"
If I help someone, it is just my opinion telling that it was the right thing? If I comfort someone it is just my opinion telling it was the right thing? If I pick up litter from the ground it is just my opinion telling it was the right thing? If I put up a feeder for birds during winter season to help them survive, it is just my opinion telling it was the right thing? If I stand up for someone who can't defend themselves, it is just my opinion telling it was the right thing? If I do my best to be respectful and kind to others, it is just my opinion telling it is the right thing? Yeah, ok.
I do not expect a reward, in fact most of the time there is no recognition let alone a reward. I do what the Lord commands.
@@jamiehensley2728 So if the Lord doesn't command you to do something people generally concider good, you won't do it? Or if Lord commands you to do something people generally concider bad, you will do it?
I don't mean to sound insulting, but I don't know how else to put it. I think a good person doesn't need a super-structure to help others. Personal feelings of empathy and a general sense of humanity, I think is all that's necessary to want to do good acts.
Empathy sure beats a lot of advice that can be found in the bible.
"Good men don't need rules" -Eleventh Doctor
not according to the christian god, youre going to hell for all eternity. the only thing that matters is if you accept him or not. some career criminal who repents on his death bed will be rewarded over you.
Where do you get your personal feelings of empathy? In a lot of ways, we learn empathy from our interactions with others. People raised in terrible circumstances often inflict terrible behaviors on others, such as victims of abuse becoming abusers themselves. A superstructure is simply a philosophy that exists outside of your own personal frame of reference, that might cause you to measure your behavior against an external standard. The average person living in stable, prosperous societies might not need such a superstructure, because these societies tend to promote positive behaviors (which is why the society is stable and prosperous). But, even in good societies, people aren't so lucky. At the very least, a superstructure can inform your epistemology, because it's always good to think about the reasons why you think they way that you do. Which I think was the entire point of this video.
@@dukebanerjee4710 If that was the point of the video it shouldn't matter if the viewers are theists or atheists. I think your conclusion is much more inclusive and humble than the video. The conclusion I got from the loving priest is that I wasn't good enough for him or for calling myself an atheist.
You don't need religion to have morals. If you can't determine right from wrong, then you lack empathy, not religion.
💯
And you determine right from wrong based on what? I hope you don't answer "science", as none of it was made for being a moral compass, nor it has any substance to function like a moral compass.
As Dostoievsky once said: "If there is no God, everything is allowed". See, I'm not saying that atheists cannot be good. I'm saying that atheists goodness has religion (particularly Christianity, in the west), ultimately, as its foundation
Ok, now determine right and wrong with regards to abortion.
@@fabiozatarafrom empathy, from fear. from our brains that can experience good things and bad things wich are products of natural selection.
We get right and wrong from religion atheism didn't spread the moral law it was religion.
I can't think of a better response than Rationality Rule's
Ibidem....
@@knowsomething9384, most likely "Rules'"as it's a name that ends in "s." So showing possession has an apostrophe but no extra "s."
True, though AronRas was on point too, albeit a bit harsher in tone.
@@Funaru Can you sum up Ra's response?
_Rationality Rules, Rule's, Rules', Rules's..._
I'd play safe and say Stephen Woodford's.
So an atheist has to constantly read and research thousands of hours of literature to justify their position and to be deemed a "good atheist" by you.
Do you hold Christians to the same standard? A Christian is only a good Christian if he has read and understood the works of the greatest Jewish and Islamic scholars?
Let's be real here, the average Christian hasn't read the bible.
Let's be real here, the average christian doesn't even know the name of their god
Let's be real here, blood for the Blood God and skulls for the Skull Throne.
Well said.
The average Christian is not a good Christian. Nearly every Catholic massive attended has had the church ask, implore, and sometimes outright begged people to read the good book. The church wants them to, so I'm guessing that's the standard.
@@s.s.a8741 Probably because God doesn't have a name and has never revealed a name. Yahweh is more of a sacred title than an actual name, it's the substitute for an actual answer
I am not convinced that a god exists. That is atheism. Nothing more or less.
If you do not like that, tough.
But are you convinced that a god doesn’t exist?
@@dominiquem1869
Read my comment again.
@@dominiquem1869 No one can be, other than for specific god claims that are illogical and self defeating. The Christian god is one such...
However, Atheism is NOT a claim that NO god exists, it is not accepting the claim that a god does exist. Those are two very different things.
are you convinced a god DOES exist?
@@anneanonymous4202 No, sorry, wrong on both points.
Atheism is "not believing the claim that a god exists - not ACCEPTING THE CLAIM". That is NOT the same as saying there is NO god, I can explain it further if you don't immediately see the truth of those statements. But to put it simply, rejecting a claim is not the same statement as claiming the opposite from the claim. Atheism is about BELIEFS: We do not believe that the god claim has met its burden of proof.
Agnosticism is about KNOWLEDGE; truly KNOWING whether there is a god, or not. It is not claiming it is "impossible to know", it is either claiming they DO KNOW THERE IS, or DO KNOW THAT THERE ISN'T a god.
Knowledge is a SUBSET OF BELIEFS (in a Venn diagram, Knowledge would be a small circle within the large circle of Beliefs). So one can Believe there is a god, but not Know there actually is. However, you cannot claim to Know there is a god without also Believing it. Make sense?
And between the two, Knowing is the less important claim. Due to the problem of hard solipsism, we can't truly Know anything other than we seem to exist (brain in a vat, etc.). And of course, no one could Know there is NO god. For how could one Know that the god is sitting on a planet half way across the universe ignoring us?
But, there are god claims that are logically inconsistent. Christianity as portrayed in the bible is one. No god could truly be "all loving" yet condemn anyone to an eternity in any hell, right? As well, substitutionary atonement is illogical and immoral: is there a right to punish YOU for a crime committed by your great-great-grandfather? Of course not. Yet that is what original sin purports to do. How can anyone born generations later, with no knowledge even about the ancestor's life, be punished rightly for anything they did? That's ludicrous. And as a third example, Exodus 21 is very clear about buying, selling, and beating human beings as property; clearly enabling slavery. In fact, during the Civil War, many in the South quoted this scripture in support of their desires. Lastly, of course, Evolution being the cornerstone of modern biology has proven that we arose from lower life forms, and have a common ancestor with apes: all of which DISPROVES any Garden of Eden and "rib stealing" to make a woman...
So, to me, I don't care about Knowledge of any god. No one to date has ever been able to prove the existence of any god and again it's impossible to prove NO god exists. So what truly matters is BELIEF. Why? Because in the absence of Knowledge, Beliefs STILL INFORM OUR ACTIONS. They're with us in the voting booth. And when you boil down all the claims for Believing, and sift through the statements and scrape away the logical fallacies, all that has ever been left are two things;
1. Personal Anecdotes ("god told me to change jobs", "god told me to forgive my husband", "god saved my from that car accident" etc.)
2. Faith
So why should anyone consider personal anecdotes as PROOF of the god claim?
To address that, we need to understand the impact of any claim. If I claim to own a cat (I have 2), you can willingly accept that and go about you life. We know that cats exist, that people "own" them, and that nothing about your worldview would have to change if you accept that claim as true.
That is NOT THE CASE with any god claim. First off, the claims include MIRACLES and claims about the origin of the Universe that CONFLICT WITH SCIENCE. And, were you to accept the claim, then it WOULD IMPACT YOUR LIFE, as you should then perhaps be attending church, giving thanks and offering prayers, etc. etc. etc.
So here's the POINT: Extraordinary claims (as CERTAINLY any god claim qualifies) require EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE. It is simply not rational to take the word of a person as truth, and even if you WANTED TO, how could you pick? The word of a Scientologist, Muslim, Buddhist or Christian, just to name a few???
So while I accept that personal anecdotes can SEEM TO BE COMPELLING to the person that experienced them, I also know that we have institutions full of people who's minds are telling THEM things about the world that we know to not be true. I also know that I dream almost nightly and 99.9% of the time have ZERO IDEA I am dreaming at the time: it seems 100% REAL. So I know the POWER OF THE MIND TO DECEIVE ITSELF.
Of course, many people want to point to the MYRIAD NUMBER of personal anecdotes, and see THEM TOGETHER as evidence, by shear numbers. But the plural of anecdote is NOT DATA. And the number of people that believe a thing is irrelevant, as quickly remembering that basically the entire population of the earth once thought the Sun revolved around it...
That leaves us Faith. Yet can not ANY CLAIM be made on the basis OF FAITH? Do not Scientologists take it on Faith that they will inherit a Planet in the afterlife? That Muslims take it on Faith that they will inherit 72 virgins in the afterlife? That Christians take it on Faith that they will be reunited with family members in the afterlife? In fact, there are simply HUNDREDS of Faith-based claims in the world. And many of them are in DIRECT CONFLICT, so CANNOT BOTH BE TRUE.
So, simply put; FAITH IS NOT A PATHWAY TO TRUTH. We have to have SOMETHING OTHER THAN FAITH TO DETERMINE TRUTH.
To date, the single most reliable "other thing" is Science.
In the history of civilization, Science has given us every technological advance, every medicine, every bit of knowledge about our bodies, this planet, and the Universe. Science has corrected the mistaken claims from Religion MYRIAD TIMES, and yet at the same time, never ONCE has Religion corrected the mistaken claims of Science: it was MORE SCIENCE that corrected them.
So as the famous philosopher Hume said: "The Wise Man apportions his beliefs to the evidence at hand."
And THAT MEASURE, religion has FAILED MISERABLY.
Hope this helps.
@@dominiquem1869 I'm convinced a god doesn't exist based on the evidence presented to me so far. Honey, the burden of proof is on you whether you like it or not!
"There is no superstructure making this demand on your life." Bruh I literally live under a government that has laws...
Dude, that take gave me cramp.
Not breaking laws isn't the same thing as being a good person though
That's right. Even though I'm an atheist, I am subject to the laws of the land and the censure of society. So there IS a superstructure making demands on my life.
"Humble message"
Yeah right. Sorry but the condescension and holier-than-thou attitude exudes from every word you speak.
Yeah the level of condescension was nauseating. I was thinking to myself this video has to qualify as a deadly sin.
to be fair, he probably does think that he is holier than atheists.
To be fair, you don't really have a point.
For being "an open letter to atheists" I see a disturbing lack of replies and engagement with the atheists that responded.
You'd think, if he really wanted this to be a letter to atheists rather than some insult filled rant for other Christians to giggle at, he'd be interested in what atheists had to say about it.
Typical.
The common response to challenges to the teachings of their faith is to reassure themselves rather than to actually reach out to others, almost as if they're not even fully convinced of their own beliefs, and the challenge made them feel the need to reconfirm their own beliefs to themselves.
Maybe he's preparing a video response? It's been only a month.
I wouldn't assume ill-intentions, but I might be mistaken.
@@erin1569 he can prepare a video response, but he shouldn't be requiring atheists to prop up his channel. He should be replying to them right here.
If you think his calm demeanor means he had good intent, them I've got some ocean front property I can sell you for a get price, if you don't mind moving to Nebraska.
@@erin1569 His "holier than thou" and condescending attitude while getting so much, so wrong is what lead me to assume that his video too atheists isn't actually for atheists, instead it seems to be a way to prop up his "flock" by subtilty attacking atheism.
Frankly, rather than an attempt to start a dialogue or get an answer to an honest question, it comes off more as a long attempt to poison the well.
His complete lack of response only supports the initial impression.
That's because, as he is obliged as a Christian, he lied. The video was targeted as an apologetics tool for Christians to use against those they hate, atheists in this case. Hence he strawmanned atheists, lied about his religion and the atrocities of it commits and about where morality comes from and the depravity of Christian morals. This video had nothing to do with addressing atheists.
Of course, there are a million ways for a non-believer to ask, "are you a good Christian?" Because I will make the observation that there are many more Christians using their religion to justify bad behavior than there are atheists using non-belief to justify bad behavior. And by "more" I mean both raw numbers and relative numbers.
ehh. So Protestants Cherry pick the bible, the same cannot be said about those with apostolic succession.
I just come to find many problems with atheist as a whole except for the more academic type.
It the main reason I moved away from atheism.
"I don't want to waste your time" says the priest who opened the video with 8 seconds of silence as he sat and dusted off his robes.
With 86,653 views on this video, that amounts to 693,224 seconds (481 full days) of our collective time wasted. You literally wasted over a year of our collective time in a video where you said you didn't want to waste our time.
Rhino facts. Best facts.
And that's only the first 8 second of a full video that was entirely a waste of our time! This man has taken YEARS! Haha
You wasted your own time writing this comment, in which you accused someone who asked a straightforward question of wasting your time. The irony.
You have added to that wastage of time with this comment
@@ghostapostle7225 Its easy math...
This whole thing just feels really performative rather than earnest.
What tipped you off? The "humble" priest preening his robes, the smug smile, the condescending attitude...or the disingenuous plea for atheists to do lots more reading/learning/reasoning while theists sit back and wait to be "asked questions we never thought to answer"? If this guy was earnest, he would put the same burden of intellectual rigor on everyone.
@@EyeMixMusic:Adjusts clothing: Eyemix, let's talk. Just you and I. I can help you learn of God's plan for you and the great potential within you. He loves you and wants you to be happy, but you have to reach out to him. If you expect to be a flying spaghetti monster in the next life you had better accept him, before it's too late.
@@1georgekitchen ^^^ I literally can't tell if this is satire 😂😂
'Read more about christianity and become a better person' will seem like a very earnest concept for a Christian preacher. From an atheist's prespective it may appear like religious conceit, an underhanded conversion method, quite possibly patronizing and disrespectful too.
Performative rather than earnest. That's religion.
Although expressed with sincerity and goodwill, there is an underlying opinion here that atheists must necessarily have a shallow understanding - if only we would read more, we would come around to your way of thinking. In my experience the reverse is true - atheists tend to be well-read and have thought through the issues in depth.
Like yeah homie, I read the book I thought it sucked.
I don't think there's as much goodwill as you assume. Don't let his smiles and calm presentation hide the profound dishonesty of his presentation.
I have met 2 kinds of atheists. The first is the one who deconverted. This usually comes after careful introspection on the Bible and the ideologies of the church as well as their own personal beliefs and internal struggles. As a result these atheists have first hand experience and tend to be knowledgeable about all of the things the average theist believes in addition to at least a basic understanding of the arguments against and the impossibilities of said religion. This puts them ahead of the average theist, and unconvinced by the “advanced theist” who has the same finite list of long debunked arguments. These atheists are not as shallow-minded as the video suggests and I’m glad to see the comments reflect that. Both AronRa and Rationality Rules made phenomenal response videos for anyone interested in seeing those.
The second kind of atheist is one who simply did not grow up religious. As a member of the first group it’s hard to get them to understand that I took the Bible as seriously as a child takes Santa Claus until I was 20 years old. While these people tend to be less knowledgeable about religion, more specifically it’s arguments for its validation, it is not because they are uneducated rather that they simply never had to re-educate themselves with accurate information. They may not have interest in religious debate because they have no need for it.
What was expressed with sincerity and goodwill?
@@timeshark8727 I've dealt with plenty of racists who'd talk to you like that, then go around saying, "WHAT? What did I say wrong?", while playing to the gallery.
Rationality Rules channel debunked this video in such an amazing way...
Very true!
@Tom Broome i agree. It wasn't a debunked. It was a wonderful logical refutation
@Tom Broome A response in which he debunked
I was about to watch RR's video but I decided to watch it for myself first. Honestly idk what you're talking about; there's nothing here to debunk. The priest guy raised nothing but a question.
@@00i0ii0 He asked a pretty nonsensical question. His question relates to morality, not Atheism. So you can point out that he is asking the wrong question. You can debunk the validity of the question. which is not necessarily a debunk of the moral argument.
The irony of a Catholic priest lecturing me about intellectualism and morality...
Nice bad faith argument. Also, your Kalam refutation didn't really work. One, you accuse William Lane Craig of being dishonest, and accused Christians of perverting philosophy on your channel. What actual evidence do you have of this? Second, "everything which begins to exist has a cause" is still a valid point. The distinction between creation ex materia and ex nihilo is arbitrary. On a sidenote, God wouldn't need to be caused, since God is beyond space and time. Being supernatural, God doesn't need to obey the rules of nature. This also means God can create the initial universe ex nihilo.
@@jamesparson It's not special pleading. Trying to force God to conform to the laws of nature would be as silly as subjecting LucasArts to the rules of LEGO Indiana Jones.
@@promethium-145 Pointing out an irony is not even an argument, dude, so I have no idea what you're babbling about.
*One, you accuse William Lane Craig of being dishonest, and accused Christians of perverting philosophy on your channel. What actual evidence do you have of this?*
If you actually bothered watching my videos, you would see that I spend a great deal of time and effort justifying those claims. Maybe go back and watch them, please?
@@AntiCitizenX I saw parts of your videos about WLC, but I don't think it would be fair to call him dishonest, even if he turns out being wrong.
@@promethium-145WLC is the picture boy of dishonesty. He makes a good living at it to.
All you you need to do is watch Rationality Rules response to this.
All you need to do is educate yourself instead because Rat Rules misinforms his followers regularly and makes them stupid
@@paradisecityX0 Well I am a proud anti-deist and have read extensively on the subject and am fully informed on all matters relating to someone's imagined god. Just give me one piece of evidence that would stand up in a criminal court and that you would be happy to convict someone of murder. Spoiler alert you can't. What process do you normally use to determine what is imagined in your mind and what is real. Don't call me stupid.
@@pwillis1589 Evidently you're not.
Ok, I'll point to Five Proofs For The Existence of God by Ed Feser, Inspiring Philosophy's "Quantum God" playlist, or a vid on my channel titled "The Futility of Debating Anti-theists".
Idk bud, you sound pretty stupid.
@@paradisecityX0 So in both replies you resort to personal abuse, fine. Ed Feser Five proofs has been widely debunked, and somewhat ironically for exactly the point I made previously. How do you determine what is your imagination and what is real. Ed Feser puts forward his imagined ideas or models in his mind put fails completely to show how these relate or match to reality. I'm not saying there isn't a god, I'm saying there is no reason to believe there is a god based on the available evidence. I am happy for you to have faith in an imagined god as long as you don't hurt anyone. It appears to cloud your judgment somewhat but as long as you can function successfully in my secular society alls good.
@@pwillis1589 It's been responded to by a few but never Debunked (tm). Feser articulates the complexities of the Five Proofs so the average person can understand them. He succeeds wildly in showing how they relate and match with reality. Not his fault that you're not equipped to understand them -- especially if you're relying on Rat Rules' butchering of the subject (Elephant Philosophy exposed that dishonest dirtbag's sophistry several times). I'm not saying you're not capable of rational thought, I'm saying there is no reason to believe you're capable of rational thought based on the available evidence. I don't have faith in a god. Your secular society wouldn't exist at all if not for the faith you hate the most.
I think the simplest way to explain my thought process is that I don't need a celestial or extraterrestrial being to hold me accountable for being a bad person. I do good things and treat people in a positive manner because that is who I want to be. Society benefits more from helping one another and working together in a positive manner than tearing one another down.
The more interesting view of this thought is that does he need big G god? But step back my fellow non-believer, if the true goal is to position them and you, as in and out, why define that line. You don't believe in bad and good like they do, so don't argue in and out like them.
For your sake you better be right about what you believe and what or who you don’t.
@@Stormchoirs Appeal to Consequences Fallacy won't convince anyone of anything.
@@grantcarpenter6685 it's interesting how religion changed and things like hell got just stuck on or angels
@@JP-dl5rt *in a Spock voice* Fascinating.
I was expecting a comment section full of “amen”s and “praised be his name”s from theist subscribers. So proud of my fellow critical thinkers right now 🥲
@basicass user
Deus est mortuus.
@basicass user 😂
@basicass user not sarcasm, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t intend to anger some apologists 😅
Right on man. I think RUclips is being conquered by people with brains.
@@erinwhipple4666 how immature of u
Richard Dawkins only provides soundbites? Are you serious? The guy is one of the most famous biologists in history and has contributed vast amounts of scientific progress to humanities collective knowledge. But because he wrote a book questioning your belief you strawman him as just providing sound bites.
And then have the gall to accuse atheists of not having read the bible. Maybe YOU should read some Richard Dawkinss actual work before making yourself look like a fool.
No, Dawkins has not contributed vast amounts of scientific progress. He has been an effective and inspiring science communicator focusing on biology. He is the adult version of Mr. Wizard, or Bill Nye. Much of his famous book the selfish gene is scientifically, not good. The anti science religious nuts, make fallacious arguments against it because they don't know better, and scientists don't point out the valid criticisms and mistakes because they understand that the purpose wasn't to be scientifically accurate, but to communicate scientific ideas to laypeople. It is also very old and much of his reasoning in the book has been refuted by subsequent science. Dawkins is an inspiration, a celebrity, and good science communicator, but he is not a great philosopher and debunker of religious apologetics, he is not a great scientist and contributor of scientific knowledge.
"Simply declaring yourself an atheist and going about your life isn't enough." Only it is. I don't need to rationalize my lack of faith in god(s). Only believers have challenged me to explain my lack of faith. That's not a flaw of my character. Being a "good" atheist I would never challenge a believer to explain his or her faith.
Exactly my thoughts
Perhaps I am not a "good" atheist, because I DO frequently ask people to justify their irrational religious positions when they publicly declare them.
As a compassionate and honest person, I consider it _my duty_ to call out such evil and dishonesty.
Only one of the two has a burden of proof and it's the theist. There is nothing wrong with asking someone to justify their claims, ideally they will have some evidence. I've asked for evidence and none yet that rises to the claim has been presented.
@@humbleevidenceaccepter7712 When I deconverted from JW, I became a Satanist for a while on my journey to atheism. And I still have that habit of mocking christian believers. I'm a nasty atheist xD
Yeah we are born atheists, the religious folks are the ones who need to justify their belief not the other way around.
Apologise to no man for your beliefs. Hurt no man because of your beliefs.
This, as an atheist, is how I get through life
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Perfectly worded!
Sir if more atheists were like you we wouldn't have the issues we have. Unfortunately 95% of you are not (at least from my fairly broad experiences)
@Daniel Bouhadana the fact of that most(again I say most) of the atheist I've ever met or have seen cannot give you a coherent argument as to why they're atheist. And they seem to also check off all the p.c. boxes as well,they use it as a means of bourgeois social conformity and status seeking validation. They,like vegans use it as a crutch, it's not enough to be vegan,or atheist to them, they have to denigrate and mock and inveigh against people's beliefs with all the fervor of a jihadi imam. It is a religion to these people. I know on a l personal level only a few atheists but have met many, and I may have other friends and acquaintances who are.but I and most of the people I know dont ask people about religion, politics, or sexual orientation. And it's not a conscious thing.....it just doesn't come up
@@tommcguire6472 I think the video made the point you referred to asking atheists to be good atheists by having an explanation for why they believe the way they do. While the commenter that we are replying to here heard what I first heard in the video, asking atheists to be good morally.
"That is my humble message to you".
You're not too good at being humble, but you're so good at being condescending that I almost barfed..
It's called unction (in the second true sense of the word) and sometimes it's extreme.
I'll see myself out.
He's hardly being condescending. He was pretty polite in the video. But I guess if a Theist asks these questions, or suggest the opposition do further research, then it's dishonest or condescending.
@@promethium-145 This research demand is oriented to the works of theologians. It's a circular reasoning just like the bible is often used at its own proof. The condescending part is the dismissing of the valid works of people that just don't suit his point of view, with a veneer of fake humbleness.
But I will be magnanimous : show us where is the proof that god exists in the works of these theologians.
Unction might be seen as a quality by believers but it's a cardinal sin (pun intended) to atheists.
@@chucku00 The research he meant was atheist intellectuals from the 19th century, people who really got to the implications of Atheism, should it be true. I don't think suggesting people read those is condescending. On the other hand, reading from theologians would shed light on the religious beliefs held by the early Christians.
@@promethium-145 Nope, I clearly heard the name of Joseph Ratzinger. Benedict XVIth isn't a XIXth century person.
Please be more precise about these XIXth century people, give us their name and the detail of the implications of atheism (no need to capitalize the "a", atheism is not a religion and every atheist has his own version of it).
And prove us too that this friar wasn't condescending since your previous comment was everything but convincing.
These theologians aren't in the heads of early Christians, they can only speculate on their beliefs. Every early Christians din't write a book to describe their beliefs, and there are very few who did. And since the old French adage "It's better to engage to God than his saints", it's better to read directly Saint Augustine than theologians who put their own twist on his writings.
As a Christian, I have to say, this is the most insincere and performative appeal I've ever seen. This does so much more damage than it does good.
We can definitely agree on that. It is such dishonesty and hypocrisy.
I suspect his intentions are good but he has no idea how clueless and arrogant it is. Forgive him, he knows not what he is doing.
@@ScottSavageTechnoScavenger I would totally agree. Thanks for bringing it up.
@@ScottSavageTechnoScavenger You can't disagree that it's the most insincere and performative appeal I've ever seen. It is. Maybe it's not the most insincere and performative appeal YOU'VE ever seen, but that's you, not me.
I agree-as an atheist.
Be kind. Without witness, without reward.
yes, heaven and hell are choices not results.
"Virtue is only virtue in extremis" I've tried to live by these words too :)
That’s doctor Who, not Jesus
@@TheJulioToboso Exactly. To a person who doesn't believe in God, this "creed" makes more sense
There's always a witness, though, me :)
Lets say no one is watching, but I dont want to watch myself doing bad things :)
Are you a good non-reincarnationist? Have you read the great minds on reincarnation?
Come to India, you will find good scholars of Christianity on reincarnation. If interested explore the works of Indian theologians.
The point here is you have to learn about your opponent's point of view to even consider rejecting his view. In the west the main debate is between Christianity and Atheism and neither party holds reincarnation as a fundamental tenet. But it is an important topic in discussion between Hindus and members of other faith or even atheists.
@@akhiljames3435 Yeah. Thanks for speaking some actual sense to the anti theists who have flooded this comment section in droves, repeating their "lack of belief" drivel and asserting that it's the same as atheism.
@@promethium-145 Atheists, not anti-theiests, those are two different groups. Also how much research needs to be done for someone to not believe in the stories you tell? The point is there are thousands of religions and somehow atheists have to research each and every one in detail to not accept it. Why do you think theism is the starting position that should be disproven? We aren't born theiests we are born atheists, and must be convinced of theism.
How about this: I read the bible, front to back, while there are some nice sentiments it is full of factual inaccuracies, and immoral behavior on behalf of the claimed God, I don't need to read 20 essays from apologists on why God is allowed to drown children, or kill innocents, advocate for slavery, or say that homosexuals should be stoned to death. I don't need to read books on religious theory to know that there was never any worldwide flood, that you can't fit every land animal in the world on one boat, that there is no proof of miracles that were claimed in the bible, only the bible itself.
The point is atheists are expected to have a perfect understanding of every religion before we are allowed to say we are not convinced, yet the church is fine with Christians believing without ever reading the bible through themselves ever. Double standards.
@@RoseInTheWeeds I don't use the lack of belief definition. And I'm more than aware that they're different. I very often try to distinguish between the two.
@@promethium-145 What is your argument? Athiests are those that do not belive in a god, this is different than believing there are no gods. You can be both an athiest AND someone who believes there are no gods.
As an atheist I knew exactly what you were going to say before the video started it's the same thing every true Christian has said to me, the warning at the beginning was funny though!
Okay, I think what he was trying to get across was misunderstood. Could you explain what they issue is?
The way I took it was telling atheists to be good, both morally and intellectually. Not to be one of the pop, militant anti-theists that are common on RUclips.
I could ne wrong but I genuinely didn't see an issue with the video. Could you help understand your POV on this video?
Thank you, God bless
@@CedanyTheAlaskan
It’s called atheists tend to refuse to respect others beliefs. I can’t tell you how often i’ve been utterly unwarrantedly mocked for believing in “fairytales” and praising “a sky daddy.” The only reason they could have a problem with this video is because they want to
@@fanamatakecick97 Yeah. The comments are surprisingly bitter. I can't stand anti theism. I kept trying to explain to some atheists in this comments section that atheism should be defined as the belief that there are no gods, since that's an actual position. Defining it as lack of belief is silly, because you can't debate a lack of belief. They keep telling me I'm wrong, but my definition is far more specific and sensible.
Also, anti theists accuse religious people of mockery and intolerance, yet they've done that to a nearly unbelievable degree during their time on the internet. I've personally found their tones to be far more bitter than how they describe religious extremists' tones.
@@promethium-145
I remember i was compared to a literal Nazi because the Nazi party was apparently primarily christian. When i called that “friend” out, i got blocked
It baffles me how feckless people are with their arguments and responses. It’s like they think it’s only okay for them to be rude and condescending.
@@fanamatakecick97 Yeah, it's exhausting. Also, I'm pretty sure the Nazis had to renounce their Catholicism before becoming members (or specifically members of the SS). Some Atheists bring up the Nazis' belts saying "God With Us". But those belts might've been created as early as in Prussia during the 1700s. So it's not Nazi related in nature.
Mate, this video shows that you have never seriously talked with an atheist
I was just thinking the same thing. The Catholic Church harbors so many incorrect assumptions about atheists. It would be a good idea for the RUclipsr to reach out to a freethinkers group or some other such concentration of atheists.
He is just so condescending
Alex3976, you are absolutely right.
No offense, I don’t think you realize how condescending you sound. You have a specific belief about atheists or likely non-Christians in general and made this video about them. Have you actually talked to atheists? Because I have talked to Catholics. My fiancé’s “grandfather” (not actually related) but family friend for over 60 years until his untimely death. He was never this condescending or rude to people who didn’t believe or believed differently. My MIL married a Mormon and he loved my FIL, he didn’t freak out at me and my partner not being Catholic or believers, only that he was sad he couldn’t marry us. He would have been happy when I found faith again (though it was in Judaism and not Christianity). Father was one of the best people I have ever known, and the Church did him dirty and that is something I could never forgive. He got hurt protecting an innocent person and the church “retired” him and washed their hands of him. But they were all super excited to speak at his funeral about how much they did for him and downplaying his chosen family who actually DID care for him.
I am sure you didn’t mean to be like this, but you were. You asked the same old questions atheists are asked all the time about morality and belief. When many atheists are former believers. Many are former Christians. Do you think they didn’t cry out to G-d when they lost their faith? Don’t you think they suffered in their fears of hell even though they were having trouble believing in G-d the way they thought they should? I know as a child I thought I was deficient in my inability to understand Jesus as the messiah, and not hearing G-d speak to me like the adults around me heard. I feared I was headed for hell, I was broken and that was why G-d didn’t answer my prayers for my father to stop abusing me and my siblings. Don’t you think ex-believers tried? They read every apologist. Many, including myself, read the early church fathers (bothered me there were no church mothers as a kid) and the more I read on early Christianity, the more I realized those dudes didn’t know either. They didn’t have their stories straight so to speak. If the earliest christianities couldn’t get it right, why should it be expected for any others to today? If so much of your theology like the “trinity” is a “mystery” then what value does it have as a moral system?
Many former believers tried every flavor of Christianity they could. Trying to find the one that made them feel like they were told they were supposed to. I know I did. Protestant, Unitarian, Catholic, Orthodox, heck I tried other religions to find the voice of G-d that refused to speak to child me. Shinto, pagan, flirted with Islam for a short time, Buddhism, the list goes on. I felt G-d in Shinto but not able to really practice here in the US, but I kept searching. I gave up for a time and a joke from my boss put me on the path to Judaism where I did finally find what I was looking for.
No offense. With the Church’s background in “morality,” you might want to be careful about throwing stones there buddy. It took your Church over 1500 years to apologize for how you treated Jews, you condemned “witches” to the fire, tortured “heretics,” discriminated against conversos, kidnapped Jewish babies and baptized them so you could have them raised Christian, your church helped Nazis escape justice (what little justice any Nazi faced anyway), and that doesn’t get into the issues of child molestation and moving priests around and shifting money from dioceses so they don’t have to pay victims. Your Church’s hands are far from clean and you claim G-d gives you your morality. If they did, why was it so easy for your Church to mistreat others and kill them? To turn your back on suffering in this world and call it beautiful because the world to come was our true home?
This isn’t an attack though, I hoped you would see that atheists are not some edge lord children who don’t want to go to church. Most of them are ex-believers who struggled with the faith as much as they did becoming a non-believer. This isn’t usually an easy decision. A blogger I read put it best, faith is like a well, and things happen that can lower and raise the water levels. Injustice, lies, and other issues can easily pull from the well no matter how much we tried to add to it with prayer and belief. Eventually the water table is tapped out. Believe what you want but please don’t act like “atheists” or non believers in Jesus haven’t thought about their beliefs and thoughts. Your question about reading “true theologians” sounds like apologetics. “If you read the right book, your faith won’t disappear.” We have all heard it before.
I'm not very good with words and I have a hard time looking deeply into things, so thank you for helping to express how I feel.
He wasnt rude... also as an atheist. Why being rude or condescending is bad? I think if you are a good atheist you would know that essentialy good and evil are not a thing..
I am more preoccupied with being a good person than a good atheist. I have considered myself to be non-religious for some 50 years now but have always tried to be kind, generous and open-minded. I have probably studied more religions than most believers. I feel no need to promote my views on life beyond encouraging folks to be kind and respectful of others.
These are the basic and greatest commandment of Christ.
1. Love God with all your heart, soul and mind.
2. Love one another as thyself.
If you truly wish to be good, love, for love is perfect and has no flaws. You may not believe in God but every time you're loving you're worshipping God knowingly or unknowingly. May the peace of christ be with you 🙏🏿
@@christismylordandgod I realize you think this is a nice, positive comment, but how would you like it if someone of a different religions said the same to you? I mean, it’s not going to ruin my day or anything but it gets so annoying. Christians have a tendency to say things like this and it’s disrespectful and presumptuous. Again, I’m sure you wrote it with good intentions, but that doesn’t make it okay. I hope you give it some thought. Stay safe my friend.
@@ivyrose779 please enlighten me on how my comment was disrespectful?
I would say disrespectful if tad too far. But I am guessing what meant was if someone would write to you something along lines: every time you are loving you are praising Odin you might find it offensive since according to Christians they are false gods and shall not be praised.
@@markst7161 All the evidence points to YHWH being the true God. He's lived among us as the person Jesus Christ. If you believe you hold the truth and that your defeated pagan gods are the truth bring the evidence. The fact is these deities were all defeated at the cross. Furthermore, you're on a Christian channel and should expect these types of comments. My goal was not to annoy or disrespect you but merely shed light on how true love is indeed perfect and is of God for God is love. Have a blessed day 😊
My grandfather died for his church, as an orthodox priest he was killed by Soviet Union, I do not take religious service lightly. But sorry, your points are beyond ridiculous. How well have you studied Buddhism, since you are not a Buddhist, how sophisticated are your arguments against it? How well are you informed about Hinduism to be able to be a good non-Hinduist? How well have you studied Tengrism to be able to be a good non-Tengrist? How well have you explored the depth of arguments against Jainism? Since you don't believe in these religions, according to your logic, you should know a lot about it to be able to argue and be a good non-something. Otherwise, bad, bad non-Tengrist. Or are you so superior to anyone else that it's only people who are not members of your religion who need to have elaborate explanation, otherwise they're failures? My grandfather was a good priest, because he knew about humility, he helped Catholics and Jews and atheists, he was not so smug to put himself above others. A lack of belief does not require further study, it's just that - a lack of belief. Atheists don't owe you anything. It's the people who work in church who should have a better explanation for their religion than being born into it.
Well you are assuming that there aren't people who have explored all religions. There are many such people throughout history, many who change their religions because they explored deeper and found something more peaceful and true in other religions. And it has happened from Christianity to Hinduism and vice versa in India.
To reject all the major religions in the world needs even more intellectual courage and pride than choosing to follow the religion of your parents. So it is expected that an atheist is well read in all that he is choosing to reject. I like well read atheists but they are very few. Very few explore beyond Hitchens and Dawkins. And yes same can be said of religious people as well, very few explore deeply but the stalwarts of catholicism have always been intellectuals be it be Augustine, Aquinas, Joseph Ratzinger, John Henry Newman , Blaise Pascal to name some. I know more catholics who have read Dawkins and Hitchens than I know atheists who have read Aquinas or Pascal or Ratzinger
@@akhiljames3435Addressing: 'It is expected an atheist is well read in all that he is choosing to reject.'
While there is something to be said about greater introspection, an atheist isn't necessarily someone that actively rejects all religion. Non-belief is passive. People from all professions be they priests, doctors, economists or government officials make factual claims I have no interest in investigating. The knowledge of how a 1% increase in inflation would impact unemployment rate is useful but not important for me to possess. I have limited time on this earth and cannot spend hours investigating every claim. I am personally interested in history and religion plays a major role. But before such interest, knowing the theology, rituals and practices of religions was of no relevance to my life and thus investigating the claims of the religious did not merit energy or effort.
@@akhiljames3435 "the stalwarts of catholicism have always been intellectuals be it be Augustine, Aquinas, Joseph Ratzinger, John Henry Newman , Blaise Pascal to name some." There are experts on BATMAN too. But BATMAN also isn´t true. So why should I read that?
@@akhiljames3435 So I hope you know the intricacies of darksouls lore because it is my religion
@@akhiljames3435 The problem is, life is short. My wife is dying. Do we really have to spend decades working our way through the library of religious superminds to be absolutely sure we have the 'right belief?' Or 'right non-belief?' It's utter nonsense, because it's not practical. What if we don't have decades? What if all we have is days and maybe only weeks? WTF. It's basically a con, trying to get the doubter to waste years of their precious life flooding their mind with all the religious gaslighting of the ages. I think it's more honest to the uncertainty and brevity of life to say, Put up or shut up. Show me this invisible friend of yours, or let me live my life in peace, and let me occupy my mind and my days how I choose, not how you choose.
It always strikes me as odd that to become a Christian, no one asks if you've read scores and scores of apologetics and counter-opinions. No Christian goes "have you read the Quran? How do you really know you're a Christian if you haven't spent the time studying it." But tell someone you're an Atheist, especially people deep into it like our Priest here and it's "have you read the Philosophers, have you read the Theologians? Have you really spent the time and consider all the arguments out there?" It's a form of intellectual gaslighting, to question a person's beliefs as if they just haven't found the right argument to sway them to an opinion you hold. It's also strange that the Priest here wants to gatekeep Atheism. You're not a *good* Atheist if you haven't done that. As if he's the arbiter of what makes a good Atheist. Add on to that the sneer at the end to compound this. The idea that rural pastors of "anti-intellectual churches" is the reason you don't agree with the Priest here. If you just heard the right arguments, you wouldn't be so silly as to disagree. Telling us what isn't enough isn't just a challenge, it's condescending.
UMMMM. yes they do ask those things.
as someone who was an atheist for 14 years and I like to add I was also anti-church I can tell you, your regular common atheist stop their pursuit of knowledge and simply go by a narrow-minded views when our understanding of subjects relating to religion and god has increased.
@@11bsavage64 And your regular common theist stop their pursuit of knowledge and simply goes by a narrow minded view when our understanding of many things and subjects has increased. You think Ken Ham's crew have read any kind of astrophysics books? How about the flat earther Christians? Do you think the local Pentacostal congregation has read a single biology text book or evolutionary science paper? No. Soak your head, touch grass and repent on the almighty Rain Spirit.
@@830toAwesome it really sounds like your anti-theist attitude doesn’t allow you to think things through because everything you mention can be easily rebutted. The majority of people on this planet are theist and we haven’t stop conducting research. I will say what “things” and subject knowledge has increased?
The people you also argue are protestants who are on the fringe groups.
Reading the church fathers, Thomas aquainus and many other authors are on a different level.
@@11bsavage64 Appealing to the popularity of theism is a fallacy, just like the Priest said atheists shouldn't fall into using. So here you are, falling into using them. Normally I don't point that sort of thing out but it's really amusing that you're doing exactly what the video is asking non-theists to take care not to do. The number of people who believe something doesn't mean it's true. If it did, you should be Muslim, they're the largest religion now. If you wanted to go by the numbers, non-theists outweigh theists in every field of science. But that doesn't mean anything, numbers don't mean anything. That isn't rebutted at all.
It's also insanely disingenuous to try to lump all theists together, like you're all one big group when you're a ton of different groups who don't even agree on the sort of god that exists. Non-theists have also not stopped conducting research. I've already given examples of the sorts of things a lot of religious people have thrown away. How about 50% of the US population, the most religious developed nation and eagerly touted as a god fearing country with over 80% of people claiming a religion, don't believe in evolution, a topic we know more about than gravity? How about moon landing deniers, when we've demonstrably been there? You can even test it for yourself with the lens that's up there. Almost exclusively religious.
How about those who hate homosexuals? Almost exclusively religious and do so on religious grounds even though homosexuality is a thing in 70ish% of all mammal species. How about climate change deniers? Almost exclusively religious, even though we've got mountains of evidence from sea level changes to ice caps melting to the steady increase of annaul temp across the globe to increases in violent weather, earlier than normal and historic droughts all over the wold.
Anti-abortionists? Almost exclusively religious except we know that women with control of their reproductive rights lowers crime rates across the board. We've known that since the 80s with The Silent Generation. How about medicine in general? Ever heard of the Christian Scientist movement, which won't even let their children take medication or Jehovah's witnesses who won't get life saving blood transfusions? How about flat earthers, almost exclusively religious and many who use the Bible as evidence of the flat earth and a dome across the planet. Or young earth creationists who are exclusively religious who outright deny any kind of scientific dating we've got to say the Earth is 6,000 years old.
You then do exactly what the priest does. "Well, *those* religious people don't count." Just another fallacy, no True Scotsman. You don't get to say they don't count just because they make your argument look as transparently poor as it is. Especially not when you want to also try to say that my argument is easy to rebut because there are more theists. That's playing both sides of the coin and they're both fallacious sides to start with. Either you take them all, and Appeal to Popularity which...is a fallacy or you say that only the people that you define as well read theists count and you're commiting a No True Scotsman fallacy. F - on all accounts.
My point stands. Even if we just want to go with Catholics. How many Catholics, run of the mill, every day Catholics, have read any of Richard Dawkin's works on Evolutionary Biology? I'm guessing the vast majority of the 1.3 billion Catholics haven't. How many of them have read Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time? I'm guessing a vast majority of the 1.3 billion Catholics haven't. How many Catholics have read any non-theistic Philosophers? How many Catholics have read the Qu'ran? Or the Book of Mormon? Or any of the vast collections of Buddhist works? How many of these things have you read?
If you haven't read all of those, are you really a good Catholic?
@@830toAwesome bro chill. I cannot rebut and stay on topic when you give me like 1000 paragraphs to dissect. My first rebut was simply that you reference your run of the mill theist.
Theism doesn’t mean you reject science is your issue.
It seem more like your making this into a science vs religion issue.
I can also see the anti-theism dripping off you. Serious question, How long have you been an atheist and how old are you?
Look, I'm an Atheist, and I'm a good person. I'm 60 years old. There's nothing new I can discuss, or discover about religion. I'm not going to waste my time trying to be a "good Atheist". I'm too busy, being a good person.
i hope this is a joke, no human on earth is a quote, good person.
@@haleyl.248 WTF are you talking about? Eternal sin or some nonsense like that?
@@johaquila No. Everyone has fallen short and everyone will die because of sin. We have all lied, stole, hurt and damaged others and ourselves. Humans are terrible. But God still wants to redeem Humanity and already has if you Accept Christ. Sin was defeated when he died for our sins, innocent and never commited sin. But we have to make the choice to accept Jesus.
@@haleyl.248 My posts keep disappearing for no valid reason. No honest debate is possible in this forum.
@@johaquila More likely your youtube needs to be updated cause mines arent posting either.
"Are you a good atheist?" "Are you a good non stamp collector?
If Atheism is really just a lack of belief, then you wouldn't be forming radio shows and rallies. Who's going to tune in to a radio show or rally to talk about lack of belief? There's nothing to talk about. If anything, the phrase seems like a convenient way to avoid providing a counter argument to opponents. This is why I use the term "Atheism" to refer to the belief that there are no gods; it's a position, and that's what I'm interested in.
@@promethium-145 What you define as Atheism is totally irrelevant as there already is an established definition. If you want to talk about people who believe there is no god, then why don't you just use a different term? Maybe antitheist? Or gnostic atheist?
@@phill234 I sometimes do. But I use the definition for Atheism that the Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy does. I think it's more specific. If I wanted to refer to someone who just lacks belief, I would probably say "Lacktheist".
You're just afraid of the thing that made the things for which there is no known maker! 🤘
@@iremembersomethings What's your argument?
"Good atheist?" Atheist aren't the ones with the bad reputation, pal...We need more good priests with better moral codes.
Plenty of atheists with bad raps.
@@Stormchoirs Sure, there are atheist that are bad rappers. But atheist don't cover for atheist who commit atrocities.
@@charlesfernandez1314 are you sure about that? Go back and research that further. You will see you are sadly mistaken.
@@Stormchoirs Well, atheist aren't currently running a pea-do ring
@@Stormchoirs Don't you love it when someone is too lazy to give an example and just says 'do research bro'? It's so incredibly lazy and helpful at the same time.
So atheists are actually better people because they live as good people without expecting a reward in the after life for doing so? I never thought I would hear that from a priest.
Also, a word of advice priest guy. Your cadence and attempt at speaking in a "fatherly" tone only works on your "flock." If you want to have an honest conversation about atheism, you need to talk to them like adults, and drop the dismissive attitude towards questions you can't answer.
Stay safe.
agree his tone comes across as condescending, even if that isn't his intent
@@scambammer6102 He relies on a lot of loaded questions and a lot of poorly based assumptions. Also his requirements to be in his eyes a "good atheist" have some pretty terrible requirements. Imagine if to be a Christian I required you to read all Christian texts and also all christian philisophers literature and texts ? It's dumb.
Science may not Bite Religion per se,
but Logic sure does.
It sure does - hence why Atheist-Channel have more and more very-valid Criticism for Christianity and Religion overall.
I implore you all, dear comment-readers,
to inform yourself a lot, even though it’s admittedly time-consuming,
but Religion and Atheism are Big Chunks of this World,
so they deserve your time, I’d argue.
Valid Questions are asked all the time by people like ‚Genetically Modified Sceptic’ and ‚Believe it or not’ and the harshest aka most direct of them all: ‚Viced Rhino’.
And Forrest Valkai literally asks Religious Scientists directly in his longest-yet Video: Why do you ‚suspend your Disbelieve’ and make ‚Exceptions’ for Religion like you do for literally Nothing else? Why do you accept things you wouldnt accept elsewhere, he asks with great arguments.
Honestly, I don't know too many Catholics that think they're going to heaven. I mean one hopes so but purgatory would be fine too or if hell is decided so be it as one can't argue their case; what I have noticed between 23 years as an Atheist and my conversion is that a lot of Atheists say, "I don't believe in God but I'm a good person so if there is a heaven I'm definitely going". Too much Ego.
@@jazzycup9274 You are missing the last part...
"I don't believe in God but I'm a good person so if there is a heaven I'm definitely going.... as long as God is Just and Fair. If God is not Just and Fair, I don't want to be in Heaven because it's ruled by a moral thug."
3:40 Richard Dawkins was very influential to the public perception of modern evolutionary biology, so he has contributed way more than you seem to know. An unfortunate and nasty characterization of Dawkins here.
Really, he isn't, this is like a laymans view of Dawkins. His selfish gene book was rife with errors, granted it was written when these were not known. But what he did was communicate evolution fairly well to the layman. He was a "science communicator" and an effective one. I don't think he has contributed actual squat to evolutionary science itself.
@@Uhlbelk Even so, communicating effectively important ideas to the layman is still a contribution worth mentioning. This priest sums Dawkins up as petty soundbite arguing against God.
@@SchlimmShadySmash Yea, the priest was condescending, and completely absurd. RR doesn't help by going too far the other direction.
@@Uhlbelk What did RR say that makes you think it went too far? Just curious. Didn't get that impression of RR at all, myself. I felt he was being civil and kept it respectful.
@@SchlimmShadySmash RR in defending dawkins made positive statements that are not really valid. Yes RR was being civil and respectful toward the priest, but making invalid claims to counter invalid claims don't actually make for a convincing counter argument.
"I might insult you, makes you feel bad, or wasting your time."
Dude, that is what me family do everyday.
Force to you.
Get a new family. Seriously.
Then move out
@@paradisecityX0 I hope that's a joke?
@@Speykious Why would it be? If his family treats him like crap, they're not acting as families should. Why's he staying there?
There is no good or bad atheist. One just does not believe in gods.
Being a Christian does not make you moral. If you are a moral person that in spite of being a Christian. You have come above your belief system .
Faith is an excuse to believe without evidence. If you don’t have evidence your claim fails.
Ask questions but do it through science.
Richard Dawkins is a marvellous advocate of good thinking and science.
Science is just like religion. Neither can guarantee total truth. You think the table of elements is, as they say, by gospel? Whose to say it’s not really, say gold, or that we think H2O is actually water except how we as humans declared it to be. Science is just another way for us to understand our world the best we can. Religion does the same thing. Big bang theory vs genesis. Think about it.
@Rosary Outdoors science tells us how we evolved the social structures and moral behaviours. Religion destroys moral mind sets.
@Rosary Outdoors no science is tool or process for finding truth. It obviously works.
Religion is just accepting any old story as true with no evidence. Religion is immoral nonsense. It’s evil incarnate
@Rosary Outdoors we have science despite the Catholic Church. The only reason you link the two is that the Catholics had to educate their clergy so poor peoples only way to get educated was by being part of the church. Also science did not pay so being in the church left you time to undertake studies.
Once science started to show how the churches teachings were wrong and public education emerged the church became the enemy of science and public education. If course Christianity has Kent’s if schools as it’s profitable.
@Rosary Outdoors how wrong can one short statement be. Science is based on observation and testing. It’s been shown to be reliable, which is the opposite of religion. Religion is masking up a story then claiming it’s true.
The comment on weaponising scientism is bizarre.
why should i need to justify my non belief? why should i need to read other non believers works? not doing something requires nothing. i have nothing to prove. how do you not underdstand this? who are you to require all these from others?
Nobody said you need to prove anything or that you require anything, where did you even hear this? You misunderstood the video
"Are you a good atheist?" To me this question shows that this person really has no idea what an atheist is. He seems to think it's some kind of code of conduct or something. If you want a meaningful discussion you need to first understand the topic.
As an atheist that was also my first reaction. I had two questions instantly. "Define good" and "Define good atheist" He actually goes on to address both of those exact things in the video and I truly believe he was being genuine. Over the years I've realized that we as atheists need to stop viewing things that religious people do through the lens of an atheist. that's not right. I sincerely believe he was being truly genuine here and that these are questions he actually wants to ask. I also think he has an overall good point in that we need to be able to challenge each other. Both sides benefit from challenging each other in a healthy way. The more we learn that can question their beliefs brings about stronger faith within their belief system and sometimes even full on change within their belief system. I think discourses like these are necessary for the betterment of humanity as a whole. The more we try to understand each other and accept our differences, the more we can thrive as a species. Religious or Atheist I think anyone can agree with that. Disagreements on serious matters should not be divisive. They should be learning experiences. They should be beautiful, not ugly.
@@TheHyugafan You are probably right. I admit to my prejudice.
Yeah when he said that I just said well I don't believe God exists so yes that makes me a good Atheist. Lol
@@bkpickell What he means by a good Atheist is are you are moral Atheist. And if you are a Moral Atheist to look into your morality and ask questions
He's asking you what your mortality is if you are a Moral/Good Atheist. Ask questions about why you have morality, ask questions about what is your mortality. I will pray for you
"I think even if god existed I would live like he didn't exist" Albert Camur, the plague
Camus *
With so many man-made gods, following just one would be quite the risk.
@@Iamwrongbut Camel *
@@saiormalik3211 Cameo*
Me, a cow : _Camoo*_
WOW dude, in the dictionary under "Disingenuous" they have a link to your vid!
I’m Catholic and I have to say we’re not going to win anyone over by being condescending. I’m sure you mean well but apologetics has to be done with charity.
You're also not gonna win anyone over moving child sexing priests from parish to parish eh.
That's right. Most atheists were believers--I was. we don't fall for pretend piety.
It should not be done at all, it ends up being embarrassing and full of fallacies.
@@stultusvenator3233 Fallacies?
"Two quotes from Einstein describe my thoughts on this topic better then I can word it.
“If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.” -Albert Einstein
“A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” - Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930"
- A comment below this one
I don’t need religion to help me understand the pain others around me may feel from my actions. You can be kind with or without religion, just as you can be cruel. I’m kind because I want to be, not because some one or something is telling me I should be.
Your ego is telling
@@Cr7Micto ego is to believe that only the ones who believe what you believe have access to sympathy. "You can be kind with or without religion" is a fact.
Ah, but where did you learn empathy? Child soldiers in the Congo certainly don't feel the same kind of empathy that you do. The point of this video isn't about religion, but epistemology. Have you thought about why you think the way that you do? What about your life experience makes you think differently than a child soldier in the Congo?
@@dukebanerjee4710 yeah I think it’s strange to think there is a man in the sky
@@christophervazquez9649 That's nice, but that's not what I was asking.
Someday this kid is going to be badly embarrassed by this video - if he's lucky.
this is a pr stunt, he is virtue signaling to his fellow theists, regurgitating what they want to hear.
@@Setep2k Sure bud, says you
if he's lucky GOOD ONE!!
@@l.t.1305 only that it's true
Yeah, I saw some responses by some atheists. Let's just say, some criticized him negatively. But there were some who thought the letter was ok.
it felt passive agressive and patronizing
Why is this video giving the vibe of an adult talking to a 3-year-old? An adult who, honestly speaking, doesn't seem to know much of anything about the people he claims he's speaking to.
That's why he made the video: to learn.
What is there to understand about atheists? They believe there is no god and their belief system is whatever the hell is convenient for them. Its not like this is complicated deep thinking. Believe in whatever makes life easier.
Feels is little like watching a hostage extol the virtues of his captor.
If you're a smoothbrain with no interest in steelmanning your intellectual opponents' opposition, sure.
@@glof2553 Who was the OP referring to? The guy in the video? If so, his comment was quite idiotic, not even mentioning the stroke inducing grammar.
@@glof2553 ad hominem
@@promethium-145 I think he just typed 'is' instead of 'a'.
Now the grammar is fine.
@@nicolab2075 Ah
I read Dawkins. There are two possibilities: You are lying deliberately about his reasoning or you haven't read his work thoroughly and honestly. Either way you are giving here a false witness, wich is a sin, if I remember the teachings I got as a christian and my semesters studying theology correctly.
@Ojibwe T But I did. Theology, mathematics and music to be a teacher, then changed to music alone as a musician, arranger, composer and conducter. Worked as such for more than 25 years and then changed back to public school where I teach music, german, history and geographics for three years now.
@Ojibwe T I don't take Dawkins too seriously either. He's an eloquent speaker and writer though. Atheists like Neitzsche actually wrote compelling work.
@Ojibwe T Yeah, I suppose.
@Ojibwe T I studied theology in Hannover, Germany, along mathematics and music to become a teacher in that fields. Now I'm teaching music, history, german language, politics and geography in Lower Saxonia from the fifth to tenth grade.
Your "argument" is: "Some authority made a mistake, I say, and I don't believe your personal history, bwahaha!" That's not sufficient.
Now to that what could be the core of your claim: "Metaphysical deduction" is a tactic to allow religion to say anything, to make your claim immune against falsification and in this protecting your worldview from scientific scrutiny and therefore helps shielding the cognitiv dissonance. That is one of the go-to-tactics of religion. (Next time try sufficient arguments instead of bluntly trying to discredit your opponent. Or Nietzsche for this matter.)
@@promethium-145 Why? Because he wrote something you like?
First time commenting. This video is brilliant. As a 3rd generation atheist(that’s what 70 years of communism does to a country(Russia)) i never questioned the “infallible” truth of magic sky man not existing. Until about couple years ago when as a part of philosophy course we read Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas and many others. This got me interested in Christian theology, which brought with it an avalanche of questions. I am still an atheist. Reading thinkers like Augustine and watching videos like this makes for a great challenge to atheist dogma I was raised with. Thank you, sir! I would consider myself to be a semi-good atheist. Also videos like this prove to many hardline atheists (like I was) that religious people are not mindless zombies, they are perfectly reasonable(most of them) and secure in their faith to debate about it. Sorry for rambling
Very Interesting reply sir
May i ask you a question because im from simular background as you..not ateist now but former ateist because of communisam?
Very nice, sir
Russia has ancient christian Orthodox christianity. Dosteovsky was a devout Orthodox christian.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker but the state actively surpresses religion. Or they did in the Soviet era. Today the CCP, N Korea do the same. Brutally.
More than one question really, so here is more than one response:
"Good people will do good thing, bad people will do bad thing, but it takes religion to make good people do bad things." (Steven Weinberg)
First, name one evil act or immoral statement that can only be done by a religious person. Second, name one good thing or moral statement that can only be uttered by a religious person. (Christopher Hitchens)
I have yet to find a religion that's morally superior to the average or typical world view prevalent in our culture. The Bible in particular teaches horrible things, the biblical God gives horrible commands, and the central dogma of a human sacrifice is tasteless at best. Most good moral teachings of modern Christian churches are taken from humanist world views since the Enlightenment.
Also, please kindly refrain from recommending literature from someone busy protecting child-abusers.
I listened to a lot of Christians, both among my friends and online. I considered a lot of their arguments, and found them all unconvincing. However, that does not make me a "good atheist": There is no such a requirement. Anyone not interested in religion, and thus unconvinced by default is as justified in her nonbelief as I am. Just being an atheist is enough.
Any charismatic leader can influence good people to do bad things, their cause need not be religious.
One bad thing that can only be done by a religious person is murdering innocents in the name of their god. One good thing that can only be done by a religious person is praying and doing penance for someone.
Saying all Catholic priests defend child molesters is like saying all Muslim imams defend terrorists. Please reconsider before making such hateful and ignorant comments.
@@dogfight2018 The charismatic leaders that are most often mentioned are more similar to religions than to secular governments. But you are of course correct, and please don't understand a quote as my complete position.
I don't consider praying to be a good thing (because it's meaningless and could distract you from finding solutions). There are advantages, but they can be achieved by meditating. Penance can be done without a believe in a god.
I never made that statement, I was talking about the authors he mentioned. One of them is Joseph Ratzinger.
To answer just one of your questions: Even as a very young child I had problems "believing" in this invisible "father" figure. I stopped going to church, for one reason being that I actually felt embarrassed anytime we had to bow our heads in prayer to this invisible being. I just felt stupid and asked myself, "why are we doing this"? To put it bluntly, I felt like a jerk. I was born an atheist and never wavered, even though I was made to go to church, but only up to a point of perhaps 10 years old or not even10 years old. Even to this day I don't go into churches, except perhaps to view architecture, etc. I came to realize very early on that belief in god or an afterlife is just wishful thinking. Also, I have a personal story that has stayed with me all my life: As a child of around 7 or 8, when I was home I was bored and picked up a bible and just started to read from the beginning. I did not make it many verses into Genesis when I again said to myself, "this makes no sense". It's very simple. Show us sufficient proof commensurate with the claims of a god and we will take it more seriously.
Sure Max for a believer no proof is required and for an unbeliever no amount of proof is enough....I invite you child for Eucharistic adoration with Divine Retreat Centre Uk and LogosvoicetTv on RUclips attend a few and decide it for urself.
@@vb3474 to a believer, no amount of inconsistency is going to persuade them away from their belief when it only needs good proof, a positive one, to sway a good nonbeliever.
@@carlomagnoiroritasorita5564 Child i invite you for Eucharistic adoration with Divine Retreat Centre Uk on RUclips.
@@vb3474 1) it's a shame that anyone can say that no proof is required, esp. for something like this. 2) You make a blanket statement that no amount of proof is enough for an unbeliever. Absolutely not true. Ask any non believer what it would take and they will tell you what would be required at least to get them thinking that, hey, there could be something to this. But, I will tell you this, the proof would have to be mighty compelling indeed.
@Dank Farrik May God Bless you and heal all inner wounds ...i am at a age where you will surely be a child for me...next...the RUclips channel doesn't belong to me....it was to solve your doubts...not mine...🙏🏽
Tbh, as a Catholic, this is a tad patronising and I don't think it will serve to draw many Atheists to the Church. An Atheist could just as easily make this video in response and say "Have you asked these questions, read these books, etc. etc.". Your assumption seems to be that Atheists aren't intellectually sincere. I don't think that's true.
Atheists aren't the target audience of this video.
@@stephanweinberger So true!!
not true i am an atheist and i do agree with some of the other comments that include protecting some evil people but i do like father c and father p take on things they try and be open father p gave a response to a question on religion when it comes to science when there is conflicting information he did not want to discredit science and did not want to discredit religion so when there is conflicting information just have faith brother, and yes you could say that is a weak way to say god exist when science says one thing but at the end of the day but at the end of the day you would need faith regardless, as a atheist i do believe the church and religion can have merit but only when it used right father c and father p are trying to teach on how to be a better person and how to love one another rather than judging and shunning people unlike most church people i have met, and when these church people judge shun and say such horrible things we wonder as atheist is the church sincere in its hatred for there fellow man,father c and father p kindness and openness to talk and to love allows me to listen to them because in them i dont see that hatred
The wonderful thing about RUclips that with one finger (literally or metaphorically) you can silence condescending patronising superstition mongers.
I am also very good at not believing in unicorns or zombies.
But have you read every book written by believers in unicorns and zombies? Do you really think you are giving serious consideration to the matter if you have not?
The sheer lack of comprehension towards theism in this comment thread is amusing. You're implying that unicorns are comparable in manuscript to all those written by theologians, workers, and members of the Roman Empire, and many more? If you're going to make such an obvious category error, there's no point in pretending to be a skeptic.
@@promethium-145 The amount of actual, physical evidence for a deity and unicorns is roughly the same, and this comes from someone who spent 2 years studying philosophy and theology at a Jesuit university before deciding to pursue other avenues in life. It doesn't matter how much was written by theologians, etc. That, the volume of material, in itself, does not constitute evidence of a deity. It just indicates a lot of people believed in something for which there was no physical evidence. There is some, although a very small amount of, evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus, certainly not enough to be definitive. But there is NO physical evidence for a deity along the Abrahamic God lines.
Father Casey's comprehension of atheism is practically NIL. The original comment is calling him out on that in a way that suitably mocks his lack of insight.
@@jamesparson I'd argue that, due to how difficult it was to write on parchment back then, how expensive the materials were, how uncomfortable it was for people to not have a table to write on, it seems unlikely that people would be bothered just making this stuff up. This may seem like a trivial reason (it is a small one, admittedly), but I think details like that are important to catch.
For reliability, I'd argue that the dates of the manuscripts being written is an indicator. Since the Christian manuscripts were written less than a century after the crucifixion of Christ, they're considered reliable. I've heard some people say the opposite, but I've also heard some academics claim that the time window is unimportant when it's shorter than a century.
@@fepeerreview3150 To be fair, I think he could've acted more relatable, and tried to level with people watching the video.
I find it interesting that he offers a reading list for the Atheists but gods word didn’t make the cut... instead we get a list of guys who can tell you what the Bible means to say. 🤔
I hope you don't have a heart attack when you find out that the Bible is a compilation of what people witnessed and their feelings about certain things. The intellectual dishonesty kills me ps: God's.
@@eddiy335 exactly how was I dishonest?... point it out for me.
The Bible is archaic and contradictory. It's actually a very bad argument for Christianity, and I think it's legitimate for you to read theologians before you make a decision about Christianity. However, theologians who were around before the Enlightenment back when the Church of Rome decided if you could be published or not are probably not an accurate source for information about the discussion of Christianity applicable to you.
That was what the Catholic Church was doing before Reformation: "You should not read the Bible, we do read it and tell you what it says".
Reading the Bible is a foregone conclusion, so it didn't need to be mentioned...it is the Greatest Story Ever Told :-)
be blessed, my brother in Christ :-)
Hi father Casey, I'm a 19 old that, from the exact moment that left catechism (I was ten at the time), decided not to believe anymore. This is because I had so many questions and doubts about religion (like why there's evil in the world, the Trinity, and so many more), and the answer to those questions always was "don't ask, just believe it". For me it was impossibile, I needed to understand as best as I could to believe. I was told to take the Bible literally, that you just have to blindly believe everything. Than, nine years later, I discovered you: you changed me. You answered most of those questions, the ones that were so complicated and difficult that made me hopeless, to the point that I didn't believe anymore. You helped me to understand that faith is so much more, and that doubt is not a bad thing, because you can learn from it. Because of this covid situation (and some health problems) I can't to church, but I will, and I have to thank you. I still have a loooong road to go through, but I won't be alone. Thank you for all that you do, may God bless you soul.❤️
Yes, doubt makes our faith stronger because then we look for the truth of why. Make sure when you're a parent you know lots of the bible and the meaning of things so your kids don't get lost, god bless!
"You don't have to understand, just believe it!" LOL. There's also, "It's one of the mysteries of faith" or the ever enraging "I'll pray for you".
It's always sad to hear about someone that left the faith because they had awful teachers that didn't want to answer difficult questions.
This is soo beautiful 💕hope u will have a wonderful life of faith
Fellow 19 yo! Will be praying for you
You're not a religious guy who devoted his life to god we don't believe in. You're a religious guy who devoted his life to a god that doesn't exist. I mean ... it is so effing obvious that man created theistic gods rather than the other way around. And note that I am not asserting that NO god exists. The versions of the Abrahamic god, though, are obviously fictional.
Proof?
@@mlgfrog2470 Proof? Okay, the genesis accounts don't jive with the findings acquired through the scientific method. Heck, they contradict each other as well.
Need I go on?
@@The1980Philip The bible isn't a scientific theory and should not be categorized as such.
Bible has metaphorical and objective truths (the ones you don't believe in) that Christians believe. We'd say that Jesus's life was objectively true and most would say that God creating the Earth in seven days is a metaphorical truth.
So I don't think it's fair to put the entire bible into the same basket. It's important to discern between different types of truths, that's why we have theologians who study the Bible and think real hard of what it all means inside the context.
@@mlgfrog2470 As expected, you start coming up with excuses to shift the goal posts when it is convenient.
@@The1980Philip And as expected, an atheist starts ad hominem attacks instead of actually giving a logical response to my comment.
Came here after seeing the response from Rationality Rules, hope you watch his response
Going to show this to my friends. I also hope I get accepted to the Capuchin. Will reply again when results are out.
Best luck!
Bon chance mon ami!!
Prayers!!
God speed!
Do attend adoration with Divine Retreat Centre Uk on RUclips for great guidance.May God be with you.🙏🏽
You seem like such a nice person. What a pity this video is so patronising.
It's beyond patronising. This "open letter" is condescending.
@@frcluc he's a Nice fellow, please give him à chance ☹
They all look warm and charming until your deep into the book and realise its disgusting.
@@monopolybillionaire5027 100%
@@frederickjalbert3298 He's "nice" as all those "nice guys" we see in media. They're "nice" only to get what they want, but if they encounter any barriers, they immediately become angry and condescending.
"I'm a religious guy who's devoted his life to a god--"
My condolences.
You're still young, you have time to admit that you've wasted your life so far and still actually make something of your life.
@@fred_derf lol triggered
@@oldboy9267 You were? What are you triggered about?
@@fred_derf deflection detected XD XD
@@oldboy9267, writes _"deflection detected"_
Yah, I noticed you did that too… but I wasn't going to say anything about it.
That one atheist subscriber back at it again!
1. I believe I am a good person, though of course I am flawed and, thanks to the lack of moral framework you mentioned, I'm always trying to look at different moral theories and update my understanding of the world.
2. As you can guess by the fact that km a subscriber, I'm very much a fan of exploring other perspectives, and I greatly admire your humility and self awareness, it makes me excited when I see a new video because I know you're not going to preach, you're going to give me something to think about.
Ps most of us hate Dawkins too, even when he manages to make a good point, it's so buried under his smug superiority that's its just flat out annoying.
We appreciate your comment my dude
I'm with you, brother! I am a long-time atheist, and I absolutely loathe Dawkins, and many other pop atheists. For people who claim to be rooted in "facts and reality" and leading a life of "research" are surprisingly frugal with their research into religion. They make all of us look bad.
@@Kaiser86 dawkins is awful. I believe in the right to chose. But he thinks it is moral to automatically abort if a foetus has downs syndrome. Thats genocide. People have a right to choose but he basically thinks all disabled lives should be prevented and thats messed up.
@@101spacemonkey I completely agree! I think that the issue is rooted, partially, in a series of myths about "being smart". There is a societal predisposition to assume that "highly educated" = being smart, and that science is the realm of the highly gifted (perhaps because the abstraction of mathematics and science, in general, is seen as particularly out of reach for the majority). The problem is that there is an assumption that if you are smart, then you are knowledgeable about verything, whereas those of us who do have an advanced education acknowledge that the more you study, the less you know. Dawkins is great if you want to learn about evolutionary biology but that tells me nothing about his ability to understand religion enough to deconstruct it. It's also a classic case of a scientist with the arrogance to assume that the humanities are below them, and can lecture those of us who study the humanitites, although we know that their knowledge and sophistication of the matter is pitiful, to say the least.
Agree on Dawkins - he makes atheism look bad and the average atheist does NOT appreciate it.
As an atheist, I'd be happy to answer your question.
Am I a good atheist? By what standard do you ask this?
By a biblical standard, probably not. I don't for example, think that woman's place is to be silent in churches or that women can't hold authority over a man. I also don't think that a woman's place is to be subservient to her husband or that the head of every wife is her husband (and not vice versa). Also, I don't think there's anything wrong with homosexuality.
As an atheist viewer of yours, this video really pointed out the fact that there's no point in useless arguments and to simply just be a good person. So thank you for making this video
I totally agree regarding being the best person we can be and doing good work whenever possible. Imho and just a thought though, as long as folks can respectfully agree to disagree, discussions, debate, and even friendly banter is always a positive thing; we can learn from others' perspectives, too.🤔🤔
Stay blessed and safe!✌❤💯
Religion wise, that's not the case. That's pelagianism
Goodness comes from God. Just want to share my thoughts
@@jamesparson how do you demonstrate what good is? What are the parameters?
@Perceus Us it's like you didn't even watch or pay attention to the video about being good to one another and loving
I feel bad for my fellow Atheists who couldn't see through his condescending bullshit.
Father Casey, I'm going to assume you don't realize how condescending you sound by saying you need 'good' atheists. We also need good believers. The world needs good people, period. And I hope you are trying to build bridges, for a better world. Statistically the worst have been believers, just because they've had the numbers, Whether or not they were 'true' believers is a matter of some debate. But we've not really seen a society truly founded on secular humanism. Though knowing what we now about how the brain works and animal suffering, both physical and mental is much closer to ours, as is empathy, I would like to find a better term for humanism. Personally, I feel a 'true believer' is more dangerous than the average casual believers. They feel more 'driven' and become extremists, regardless of ideology. I noticed some of your commenters seem to equate communism and some other ideologies with atheism. True communism , as an ideal is more along the lines of what most 'holy texts' taught. Everyone sharing communal goods and labors. But, as with many endeavors, it was used instead in evil ways. As have religions been. Atheism itself has no dogma, no tenets, no beliefs. It only answers the question of belief. As gnosticism deals with knowledge. Your average believers have never read their 'holy texts ' from cover to cover. If they do, it often deconverts them. As for places like USSR, stalin, who'd trained at seminary, ran his version of communism just like religion. China did it by trying to destroy the intellectuals, a forced equality. Hitler was catholic, as his writings and first treaties, like Mussolini's, show. Though his troops were Lutheran., hence the 'god is with us' on their belts. The Khmer rouge brought back a form of paganism, from their past. And North Korea is extremely religious, but the supreme leader is the god. Actually, it is somewhat of a theocracy, with reincarnation. Or, as Hitchens also said, a necrocracy! Anyway, I responded more to your commenters, than to you, as Aron Ra did that, quite well. Atheist Edge is a channel, also, that, like Aron, tries to build bridges between theists, though with less arguing, lol, too. 👍🥰✌😷🎃💫
"open letter"
Doesn't allow posting links that answer you.
Irony.
If you are sincere about your question, then you may be open to a response and dialogue from any public atheist.
Bit o' advice Casey, me lad: drop the condescension, couldja, ol' Trout? This being talked down to by some kid in a robe isn't gonna cut it for who you're going after, Sporty. So drop the belittling, holier-than-thou 'tude and attempt some actual straight talk, mmm-kay? What's insulting isn't what you said, it's how you said it, Padre.
This is my favorite
E-I-E-I-O
; )
This guy is so disingenuous that I think I can almost somehow _smell_ it through the monitor.
How?
@@simppolice1450 Science may not Bite Religion per se,
but Logic sure does.
It sure does - hence why Atheist-Channel have more and more very-valid Criticism for Christianity and Religion overall.
I implore you all, dear comment-readers,
to inform yourself a lot, even though it’s admittedly time-consuming,
but Religion and Atheism are Big Chunks of this World,
so they deserve your time, I’d argue.
Valid Questions are asked all the time by people like ‚Genetically Modified Sceptic’ and ‚Believe it or not’ and the harshest aka most direct of them all: ‚Viced Rhino’.
And Forrest Valkai literally asks Religious Scientists directly in his longest-yet Video: Why do you ‚suspend your Disbelieve’ and make ‚Exceptions’ for Religion like you do for literally Nothing else? Why do you accept things you wouldnt accept elsewhere, he asks with great arguments.
I’m no speech-maker, but i hope i convinced you to inform yourself and really check said Channels ‚throughoutly’, so to see where all the Criticism is coming from.
"Are you a good Atheist?"
Yea, I guess I'm pretty good at being an Atheist.
Lol
Yup! There's a lot of questions that seem deep but are somewhat whimsical when you stop to think about them.
I particularly dislike the double standard towards the end when he's wondering how well read we are and how many books we've read while a theist, christian or catholic, only has to read one book to believe.
@@wax99 If you refer to the Bible, its a collection of dozen of books ;)
@@fabriziocaragiulo4812 yup, yup! Although the amount depends on your denomination. As an ex catholic we used to include the apocryphal too.
@@wax99 He's not talking about belief, but epistemology. He mentioned the works of a several Catholic theologians, and I think he very much means that you are supposed to read those too, if you want to be a good Catholic/Christian. Having some understanding of the Bible is the bare minimum to be considered to be Christian at all, but from what I understand of what he's saying, just reading the Bible is not enough to be a good Christian. Reading works of theology are necessary to understand your faith and how to think about it.
"My humble message" - you are one of the least humble people I have ever seen.
The ignorance is strong with this one.
Are you a good non-buddhist ? Atheist is a response to a claim, to be a 'good' Atheist make's no sense whatsoever. You are 'good' if you prioritize doing 'good' things and you are bad if you do the antithesis of this.
Like Sam Harris said Atheist is devoid of meaning. It's like being a non-astrologer. It only exists because religious people want a convenient label to apply to people to place them in a easy box to attack.
I don't have to know anything about your religion, it's irrelevant to my life or anyone else's. Just because in your opinion its relevant doesn't mean that it actually is.
Also, saying your humble doesn't make you humble. You think you have answers we don't and you also think we are wrong without any evidence. All the while preaching at people on youtube because you think you have it all worked out and we are all mislead or making fallacies left and right (Ironic because your video is full of them. Like the Black Swan fallacy for example. Or No True Scotsman)
It has been demonstrated that a good majority of the claims made in the book you think is the truth are false. And yet you cling to it regardless, that is an admission of willful ignorance.
Your not humble, your mistaken.
Aron Ra and Rationality Rules absolutely crushed this video with amazing responses 🤠
I don't take RR too seriously. His understanding of theology and history are quite poor. Also, Aron has many of the same problems that RR does (poor historian and theologian), but he's more abrasive and hostile. At least RR tries to appear reasonably open.
@@promethium-145 His response to this video doesn't even go deep into theology or history. In this case these two topics hardly matter at all, so maybe give his video a shot rather than just disqualifying his content from the beginning?
@@phill234 I've seen some of both channels. I think RR has better presentation and sharper quality. When it comes to Aron, I prefer his older videos to the newer ones. So I wouldn't view myself as being dismissive of them.
@@promethium-145 Sorry for that assumption then, but you said you didn't take RR seriously and I think that's still a mistake. Especially his response video to this is really atrong in my opinion.
@@phill234 I said that because I found him a bit pretentious. His attempt to debunk the Kalam Cosmological Argument was pretty poor imo. I might look at his new response. However, I do have to admire him for having discussions with people about the Kalam, even recently. I prefer him over Aron, who has a bitter and abrasive manner.
I'm an atheist. So let's answer point-by-point.
Starting with your disclaimer that I might be insulted. I've learned to live with it, and so I don't mind so much. But, since you asked... I do think your overall tone is a bit pejorative. You seem to be under the impression that most atheists haven't thought a lot about their religion or don't have good reasons. Let me just say that atheists think about being atheists.... like a lot. We know what we're on about.
Are you a good atheist (Part 1, The moral code). Yes, I am a good atheist. That was easy. You bring up the catholic code of conduct and then immediately admit that it is often transgressed. Eh, I guess that's beside the point. Atheists can and usually do have a moral code. How do we figure it out? Well, the same way you do I would wager. Most Christians do not actually use the bible as their moral code, as there are many things in the Bible that many Christians find abhorrent. I think if you asked most Christians if they would really actually be willing to kill their child if they believed God asked them to that they would be at least a little squeamish. I think most Christians would agree that the various genocides and enslavements done by the Israelites were at best, morally questionable. I think most Christians would say that Lot offering his two daughters up to be raped in the place of his guests is actually NOT the most moral possible course of action. I think most christians would think that God's turning Lot's wife into salt just for a trifle disobedience was probably a bit excessive. I think most Christians would probably not think that a 12-14 year old girl marrying a much older man was acceptable.... not if it was their daughter (Mary and Joseph). I think most christians think it's probably okay to eat shellfish. I think most christians think it's probably alright to mix fabrics. I could go on but I won't. But I could. The point is, Christians may say they get their values from the Bible and their religion... but they actually get their morality from their society, their culture, and often times their parents. Atheists are the same way.
Are you a good atheist (Part 2, being an atheist). Yes, I am a good atheist. To be honest, very few people ever ask me why I am an atheist, partly because very few people know. I don't hide it, but I don't advertise it either. Those that do know... don't ask. So most of the time I don't articulate why I'm an atheist. It doesn't typically come up. But that doesn't mean I haven't thought about it. This is the section I felt you were underselling atheists a bit. Yes, we have good reasons. Atheists have thought about this, again, a lot. When it comes to fallacious argumentation, anybody can use them... but I tend to see them more often coming from the side of the believer than I do coming from atheists. You quip that maybe atheists just don't "want to go to church, so this will do." I promise you no atheist has ever thought "Shoot, Sunday morning I'm supposed to be in church, but I have a Tee time for 9 am. .... Well... I guess I'm an atheist now." I promise you that isn't how it works.
Regarding great thinkers: Yes, I have read them. I majored in religion and philosophy in college. I have read the works of great atheists of history and great theologians both. I do know what I'm talking about. Still.... I can't help but feel this point is asking a bit much. Do you ask your congregation at mass to read Aquinas and to get through Niezche and Heidigger? I seriously doubt it. Why is it ok for a Christian to be a Christian because they listened to their priest or their pastor, but it isn't ok for an atheist to be an atheist because they liked what Richard Dawkins had to say? I think you've created two sets of standards; one set for Christians and one set for atheists, and you're insisting that atheists meet a MUCH higher standard. I don't think that is fair.
As you were wrapping up you said "As crazy as it sounds, I would much rather you be a good atheist..." (pause for effect) "... than just an atheist." Wait a minute, why does that sound crazy? Well, I'll tell you, for a minute there I thought you were about to say something legitimately profound. I thought you were about to say "I would rather you be a good atheist than a bad Christian." Now.... THAT would have been an interesting, and surprising statement. Too bad you stopped short.
I have to wonder.... Would you rather I be a good atheist or a bad christian?
Well put. It's also important to consider the terms and condition of the moral conduct in question. Under most theist perspectives, and certainly the Catholic perspective, non-believers do not achieve salvation no matter how good they were in their life. Assuming a person followed every Catholic rule but explicitly rejected a creator, that person would not go to heaven even though their actions were a model for Catholics. In this example, this might be the 'best' atheist according to this video's logic and yet they still go to hell or maybe purgatory if they're lucky. If a lack of faith is only detrimental for the lack of moral framework faith provides, then why wouldn't this atheist go to heaven? It all comes down to the two-sided nature of theistic compassion.
Through earthly interactions, the ethos of this video rings true for Christians. It is true that non-believers can still be good people. But after death is a different story, as those who do not believe are almost certainly bound for hell regardless of the quality of their life. How can an atheist communicating with a Christian feel comfortable knowing that the Christian believes that they aren't just going to hell, but that they deserve it? While I don't believe this video was created in bad faith whatsoever, the self-righteous sentiment that Christians have the authority to assert that some atheists are 'good' and some are 'bad' doesn't sit well with me. I
I agreed with all of your points except
"You seem to be under the impression that most atheists haven't thought a lot about their religion or don't have good reasons. Let me just say that atheists think about being atheists.... like a lot. We know what we're on about. "
The issue is framing. There is no content in atheism, it is all about theological claims, which I grant that we do talk about a lot when we get together in groups.
I actually asked an atheist at a meetup would they rather have a good christian as a neighbor or a bad atheist as a neighbor given the tone (over the top) that they had presented - they stuttered. To which I pointed out that the goal was to have decent people to the extent that we could have them, since it was the indecency and falsehoods that even had us meeting up in the first place.
@@MyContext You disagree that atheists have thought about being atheists a lot? Of everything I said I'm surprised that this would be a point you'd object to.
@@adampogatshnik6833
Why? What content is there in atheism or the term atheist is there to think about? Or more specifically to you - what does thinking about being an atheist mean to you?
@@MyContext I mean we (atheists) think about the reasons why we are atheists instead of Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.
Man, that was surprisingly ignorant AND condescending. Don't know how you did that at the same time great job.
The absolute tragedy of this video is that this man seems to be putting forth a genuine effort to be open and welcoming, not realizing at all how it will be received by the other side. I wonder if meaningful communication is even possible, when he believes my eternal torture is somehow justified.
@@jamesparson He can't. The hell idea serves its purposes too well. An inescapable fear if he believes it, and an irresistible tool if he doesn't.
@@jamesparson I don't have experience in church past early childhood so you tell me if this sounds right. No it isn't, rather the threat isn't limited to atheists.
Like most religious works its vague and flexible such that it can mean essentially whatever you want it to, while encouraging a particular theme. In this case the theme is "christians vs everyone else" and we see this theme repeated using both explicit and implicit reference to violence throughout every denomination of christianity.
I heard him say, be a good atheist. 👍
@@barbarachrvenak8231 Yet he shows no ability to make that assessment, as if it's his job anyway. He should be a good christian, and ignore most of the bible.
The fire isn’t what makes hell so bad. It’s the absence of God and of all hope. People tend to focus on the fire part, but really it’s the latter half that makes it the worst place possible. If there is a good, then there must be a bad. If theres an injustice, there must be justice. If there’s love, then love cannot be forced upon someone. If God hated us, he would require that everyone join him or leave him without our consent. My suggestion is that you reevaluate what love actually is. If a God is all just and all loving, then he cannot force you to be with him, nor ignore your offenses against him. God wasn’t made for you, you were made for God. Maybe you can disagree with it, but that still doesn’t change the fact that it isn’t about you. It’s also not about me. Everything we do as christians should be about God. Everything we do as people should be about God. How deserving am I to make my terms and apply it to God if he is indeed true, and I have offended him? I extend nothing but love and gratitude to you and all who respond to or read this.
I am an atheist, and I think I am a good one. I actively seek out other perspectives and viewpoints to challenge myself to think through my atheism and make sure I'm one for good reasons - that's one of the reasons I think this channel is so valuable for people like me, it keeps me thinking even if it doesn't change my opinion!
Thanks for sharing Elaena! I still love to talk to atheists and various agnostics, even though I'm Catholic now. I often find they're very articulate and thoughtful when it comes to philosophical, social, and even religious issues.
May your search for truth lead you to the inexhaustible Truth!
In just a short reply you referenced yourself 10 times! Find God through humility and self abandonment. Also God exists apart from and despite of your last word (again, connected with self)- “opinion”.
We will still be praying for you though. The fact you watch this shows that you are open to it.
The fact that you are watching this channel means you're responding to an invitation from God himself to know Him better. Know that God loves you Elaena Shipp. I will keep you in my prayers.
Elaena Shipp, really appreciate your response. I have some issues with this video but I think you responded to the question that was posed and reflected on it. And then some people responded by judging how you responded and claiming they know why you watch these videos.
I am Jewish, I am not an Atheist. I love learning and questioning. I also firmly believe in people believing what is right for them.
Thank you father Casey as a former atheist turned catholic this means a lot
@@jamesparsonwell my brother I respect your input and I just wish you live your life the best you can. Hopefully you return to the faith but God gave you free will and I nor Father Casey here can change that.
@@jamesparson I have many atheist friends I don’t look down at them at all Christians are supposed love thy neighbour I view them as brothers even if they’re misguided I still love them and I’m sure God does too. :)
@@jamesparson
If there are communities like that, I'm sorry, but some of them who really strive to closely follow Christ could give off the perception of looking down upon.
We want you to convert, to come to a fullness of understanding of God and to love God.
What you perceive as "looking down" is more a sorrow for the decision you've made.
@@Bashcutter Your pathetic condescension is noted and discarded.
@@douglasthomashayden2566
Okay then, I'll continue to let people look down on atheists like probably you. Thanks for letting me know it's discarded. Please never complain about your issues again.
This is a brilliant challenge to every one of us, not just to atheists. We definitely need to be better at our faith. Thank you!
Amen 💖
GOD bless you Fr Casey.Thankyou for this channel.
Let me ask you same question then. As (I'm assuming) a Christian, are you a good Christian?
Do better at your faith?
You mean to follow the bible better? Have you even read the bible? Most things that bible think are good is despicable behaviour in modern society.
Or do you mean that you need to believe harder in supernatural and deny the evidence and science that can be shown to be true and real?
Just wondering what you mean by doing better at your faith?
@@takoja507 Neither. I mean that we need to be better at loving God, and learning to let him love us.
Doing what is right in this futile world, without expecting any rewards, And understanding that there is no reward, is the way of genuine GOOD HUMAN.
@@rp2235RP Who is the Judge? and what is procedure of knowing the genuinely good character?
@@vargheseantonyv.b.2265
How about a conscience?
You're sneaking in the assumption that religious people need to be compelled with rewards to do any good at all, which isn't true. More still, I've been borderline agnostic before, and I can tell you from anecdote that I've done far more good when I'm more engaged by religion then I ever could be when I wasn't engaging with it
Also, by what standard is the 'right thing' or the definition of a 'GOOD HUMAN'? Without objective morality, there is none. If history continues to progress, nothing will stop a future society from deeming you a villain because you went with the status quo when you should have been working against something they believe to be an evil. You have no means to be a good human
As Christopher Hitchens once said, "I hate to say it, but you strike me as the kind of person who has never read a book contrary to your position." These questions are answered over and over again in youtube videos, Facebook discussions and debates. I think the more pressing question is, why does a god who allegedly is all powerful, fail to provide convincing evidence of his existence?
What would that evidence look like?
@@charmendro convincing
@@charmendro i don't know. But if god was real, he would know.
Hey Aaron, I'm a 38 yr old hospital/hospice catholic chaplain and I decided to try to respond to some comments. I don't agree with the way this video was presented, but if you are interested, I can share with you some parts of Christianity which have changed my life if you are interested (if not, that's okay too! no pressure) :-)...I would suggest researching something called the Divine Mercy of Jesus...a series of revelations that Jesus gave to St. Faustina...this actually changed my life forever, and is one of the reasons I became a chaplain, I hope and pray that maybe it will change your life too one day :-); St. Padre Pio's 50 year stigmata that non-believing scientists/doctors were unable to explain; St. Bernadette's incorruptible body which you can still view in France (Padre Pio is an incorruptible as well btw!); Mother Teresa's "call within a call," ALL of the Marian apparitions including Our Lady of Fatima where 20,000 people, believers and non-believers alike witnessed the "miracle of the sun," Our Lady of Lourdes (countless miraculous healings) and our Lady of Medjugorje, where many unexplained miracles have happened as well as countless conversions of atheists; the Eucharistic Miracles (check out a book I just read recently- Eucharistic Miracles by Jean Carroll Cruz!); the exorcisms done by priests that doctors/scientists have witnessed and can't explain (there are lots of books on exorcism- the most famous Catholic exorcist priest was Gabriel Amorth, the leading exorcist in the Vatican for many years, although he sadly died in 2016). I could name some other stuff, but this message is getting REALLY long, so I will stop there haha :-).
Yes, I have read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, I watched Rationality Rules response to this video and I'm interested in reading/learning more about the atheist position, because I genuinely care and want to know what other people are thinking and feeling :-), so thank you for your challenge! (meant sincerely)
Blessings to you, my new friend
"You are precious in My Eyes...and I love you..." ~Isaiah 43:4
Being told I’m a bad person for not believing in a mass murderer? Or being told I’m a sinner from birth? Yeah, nah
Mass murderer??
@@tonypawlak2444 may I point you to the video ‘how many people did god kill in the bible?’
That's all well and good. Has this priest ever tried to prove any other religion wrong? Has he ever tried to prove his own religion wrong? I appreciate demanding atheists be "good atheists" - but that's really easy - demanding others to have good reasons for their conclusions. The hard part, is demanding it of yourself.
I'm just waiting for the "good Roman Catholic Church" to appear. He seemed to forget to say if he wanted people to be ",good Christians" too. Doesn't that involve bring honest and giving up criminals in your ranks to the legal authorities, instead of hiding assorted criminals?
It's a perfect example of the callowness of youth...and the shallowness of religious doctrine.
@@petermirtitsch1235 What makes you think he isn't in favor of giving up criminals in the ranks of the Catholic Church to the authorities?
@@multismashify still waiting for any sign of one of the largest criminal organisations on the planet doing anything yet. You can't refer to "good Christians" in good conscience if you don't openly and routinely condemn their organisations. Btw, it's not just the RCC, so no excuses.
@@petermirtitsch1235 I don't think you answered my question. Even still, more than $3 billion dollars in payment to abuse victims is nothing? The multiple priests found credibly accused being defrocked and given over to the authorities is nothing? If you don't think it's enough, fine, but it's not nothing.
I understand it's not just the RCC, though I myself happen to be Catholic and I tend to hear about abuse in the Catholic Church the most. But apply the same principal to all Christian denominations, and I still find myself wondering why people are so quick to hold the entirety of the church accountable for the wrongdoings of a few church officials. Priests guilty of molestation? Horrible, and they should be brought to justice, but that's still just a certain percentage of priests. Higher ups in the church hierarchy knew about the abuse and try to cover it up? Again, horrible, but that means it's just a particular group of church officials who are corrupt, not the whole church. The pope himself knew? Very sad, but the pope is not the church.
Again, those church officials who are guilty should be brought to justice. And, indeed, as stated above, action has been taken to try to weed out as best as humanly possibly the wrongs of old. But holding the entirety of the church responsible for the actions of a corrupt few seems grossly unjust.
If a good atheist is one with no beliefs in deities, and a bad atheist is one that kind of believes in something, fear nor good friar. I am a good atheist.
Quick question, which of those amazing and wonderful virtues were demonstrated in the canadian residential schools?
In my country, in the name of religion so many atrocities are happening. In our context, this message fits exactly well. Thanks for the wonderful explanation Fr.
@@jamesparson Centuries and still does today.
This video is oddly self-defeating, as any person possessing the intellectual honesty you supposedly extol, will find you "argument" entirely unconvincing, your misrepresentation quite transparent and your arrogance off-putting.
It's actually highly effective in what it aims to do. Atheists are much more likely to evaluate their morality and question if they're doing the right thing than theists are. Emphasizing the certainty of dogma over the uncertainty of morality is a really good tool for recruiting.
@@michaelwolf8690 For him to be successful in that front he would have to give any evidence that his dogma is a better tool of morality then the ever changing morality of the times. And so far historically I would say Christianity is a huge fail. What with the manifest destiny, slave owning, witch burnings and crusades. Clearly we've also had non theist's do terrible things to so to me its a wash. You cant easily see that one or the other gives a more morally upstanding citizen and doesn't seem like a compelling reason any atheist would join a church.
@@whatthehellzgoingon He's not selling moral superiority. He's selling moral absolvance. So his sales pitch is not just effective, it's honest. He's marketing an escape from moral responsibility.
@@michaelwolf8690, writes _"It's actually highly effective in what it aims to do."_
Make theists feel morally superior for no good reason?
_"Atheists are much more likely to evaluate their morality and question if they're doing the right thing than theists are."_
And then change their actions to be better people, while theists don't question their lives and never improve.
_"Emphasizing the certainty of dogma over the uncertainty of morality is a really good tool for recruiting."_
For your dogma to have any affect over me you'd first have to demonstrate that it's true, which means demonstrating that your god is true and you can't do that, can you?
BTW: Want to see how *moral* theists are (particularly Catholic theists)? Google "Canada Residential School".
@@fred_derf Clearly the assumption that Atheists use their perspective to be better people doesn't hold water. Some do, some don't. But the point is they have a capacity for morality.
Well you've got me there. I cannot provide you proof that my dogma is true, given that I don't own a dogma. And I can't prove my god is real as I'm fresh out of those as well.
BTW; want to see how empty an empty bucket is? Google "Bucket with no bottom" and look at images.
I'm an atheist/agnostic. I'm also a subscriber to your channel and a huge fan of your level headed and light hearted approach to these serious topics.
Am I a 'good' atheist? Yes... I believe so. I hope so.
I believe my morals and ethics come from inside of me. I believe they're a part of who I am and not something instilled by a higher power.
After 40 years on this planet, I've studied numerous theologies, religious texts, spoken with Priests, Pastors, Rabbi, Monks and other devout. I've also spent a great deal of time reading classical philosophers both Atheist and spiritual in other ways.
Thanks for your questions. Keep pushing Father Casey. You're doing a wonderful job and I thoroughly enjoy your channel. I would love the chance to have a beer with YOU someday.
Well explained sir !!!
That's very nice, but the father believes you will be screaming in agony
for eternity, no matter how moral and ethical you are,while he is basking in 'paradise'
you won't be sharing many beers with him then.
@@jamesparsonNot my god, this was in reply to Ben Peterson .
@@frankwhelan1715 I am not 100% sure, but I believe I saw Fr. Casey mention somewhere that he is *not* one of the "all non-believers get eternal torture" people.
@@frankwhelan1715 Unfortunately this outlook is off putting and isolating which I believe are both against what Father Casey and these videos are trying to do. And if those ARE his beliefs, that's fine. They don't threaten me in any way... I still wish the best for him and would still enjoy having a beer with him while we're both on this plane of existence together.
So, you demand to see the "proof" that we have studied your dogma and can articulate why we are not following it? Well, here is something you might want to consider (even if I am sure someone else has asked it of you before): are you a good Christian who has studied Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, all past pantheons of great empires of the world? No? Then you cannot accurately describe to me why you are not worshiping Mars or Thor?
If this demand sounds ridiculous, you may wish to look into the mirror. Your faith is not the first one that has held dominance on the spiritual stage of the world, and I very much doubt it will be the last.
I find the desire to engage with atheists to be false based on the rejection of Richard Dawkins. Every church should have engaged fully with Dawkins and rejected literal creationsism based on the genetic evidence that Dawkins, and others, presented. Dawkins is the good atheist.
Check Matt Fradd's channel (where he has a video about Aquinas vs. Dawkins) and Bishop Barron's channel (where he has an entire playlist on atheism and scientism).
In short, Dawkins's forays in philosophy are amateurish at best. He never bothers to truly understand Aquinas's points and argues from a giant strawmen of them.
Also, creationism is something Biblical Fundamentalists believe in, and those guys have pretty poor theology. No, the Bible is not to be taken in its entirety as a litteral text. It's a compilation of books from various genres - there's poetry, law books, stories, letters, prophecies... No serious Christian would believe the claims of Fundies.
@@ХристоМартунковграфЛозенски 'No Serious Christian would belive the claims of the Fundies ' because Dawkins won that war. I'm old enough to remember in my lifetime the fight made by Christains to keep creationism and entirely reject evolution.
@@leonais1 Dawkins won? How? With strawmen?
Also, I meant mostly Catholics and Orthodox. The creationis crowd is exactly those loonie fundies I mentioned in my previous comment.
@@ХристоМартунковграфЛозенски Dawkins won with sceince. You seem to be denying the modern history of religion and the widespread acceptability of literal creationism before the advent of genetics. Theological argument does not change this modern history.
@@leonais1 Dawkins is a biologist who tries to do philosophy but fails miserably.
Also, who's the father of genetics? Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian monk. Ironic.
I'm sorry to say that these are quite weak questions that even a couple of hours of watching atheist content on RUclips, or preferably reading an atheist writer (Russell, Dawkins, Dennett etc) would deal with quite easily.
I don't think they are weak questions. I think they are genuine questions in an attempt for discourse or maybe to put the thoughts out there. A question can't be strong or weak. They're just questions. Some are more interesting than others and some require more or less thought, but they arent strong or weak. I'm an atheist and I listened to the whole thing. It seems to me he's being genuine because I know this man is dedicated to spreading his faith to as many people as he can that are willing and while I disagree with the faith itself, I fully support his decision and ability to do this. I think it's fantastic and I think if more people actually engaged in the discourse civilly rather than simply having knee jerk reactions like some people on here or deferring to authors he already mentioned like you. How about we actually put our own thoughts into the fold and have an organic conversation? No? You just another atheist who quotes dawkins, hitchens, and george carlin like they're prophets? Or are you an atheist like me who actually cares about living harmoniously with our religious counterparts and finding beauty in our differences rather than volatility. None of us know for sure what happens when we die other than the fact that our biological processes cease. That's all we know. We know nothing about consciousness itself. We can see it happening electrically but what it actually is, is still a subject of debate and research. We may never know. But the point is that we, as human beings, do not know. We, as Atheists, accept that and simply move on with the process of learning more and disproving what we can. Our religious counterparts are also constantly learning. Simply in a different way. They aren't stupid people just because they're religious. They learn things and think deeply on how it affects their belief system. That's commendable whether you agree with the faith or not. I admire religious people's faith and I admire this man's willingness to at least speak civilly and offer his own thoughts. I think we should all learn from his example. We need to stop treating religious people as if they aren't intellectual. It's an embarrassment
@@TheHyugafan That's quite a lot of assumptions about me that you have made from the single sentence I wrote. I disagree with your interpretation of his intent and understanding of the discussion. I believe him to be utterly disingenuous. His questions are those of someone who is uninformed of atheist thought, ideas and refutations of religious claims but he is not uninformed; he knows the best atheist answers to those questions yet dodges those answers when he flippantly dismisses the most prominent authors who address his questions. He then hypocritically insists that we need to read *his* list of thinkers in order to fully understand his position.
Let's not forget on whom the burden of proof falls.
I have absolutely no issues with getting along with religious people and have friends who are believers. But I will challenge anyone who wants to preach to me or engage in disingenuous discussion.
@@chrislyne377 I don't believe it's about proving or disproving anything though. It should be about an open discourse. Tender emotions need to be put to the side. If you are secure in your position as I am, and I hope you are given the fact we read the same things, then someone being disingenuous should be something you can easily brush off. Being an atheist, Im sure you know, as I do, what it's like to be accosted by religious zealots with no agenda other than to insult you and try to make you sound stupid. I truly don't believe that is his intent. Yes, some of the things he says in this video come across as a sort of "gotcha" statement with no solid backup but I imagine that's also just a product of being the faith for so long and being so firmly rooted in his beliefs. I'm sure things like that happen unknowingly. I believe he truly wanted to get his message across and I don't think it was an attack on atheists by any means. Compared to the vast majority of religious folks I've spoken with down here in the south, this man is very calm and respectful. I feel like I could have a very productive conversation with this man in person. I think a lot of us could. It's our role as Atheists to be the reasonable ones. We can't let comments about our lack of faith upset us. That's their goal. Their goal is to show that without a belief in a faith, that we are tortured souls who feel threatened or attacked whenever our viewpoint is challenged. We can't do that. Because then we are the exact same as the zealots who we disagree with so heavily. Admittedly, you're comment was very docile compared to the vast majority of other comments on here, but what compelled me to respond was simply you calling them weak questions. As an educator, it's deeply ingrained into my head that questions are a necessity to further learning and understanding. So I did, indeed, have a bit of a knee jerk reaction myself to seeing someones questions attacked as weak when my interpretation of this is him genuinely asking these questions. Even though he may feel he already has his own answers, he still made the effort of peacefully and civilly putting this out there. I've watched a lot of his videos and he does not seem like the type of person to make a video directed toward atheists in a gotcha manner that so many other people do on youtube. I truly don't think this is a "Checkmate Atheists" video. I think ultimately, his point is that both sides need to be read up on both sides of the spectrum, and that will make both the faith stronger, as well as our pursuit of knowledge and scientific understanding. I actually think this is moreso directed toward the teenage, angst filled atheists who are just mad at the world and have yet to do any actual meaningful research into either side. Even as an atheist, I'd agree that there can be good and bad atheists, the same way there can be good and bad people in general. I think anyone with any mind can agree to that. Someone who claims to be atheist and has not done any research is a bad atheist. An atheist who has done all their research and can explain what they know thoroughly and effectively but attacks people who disagree, or attacks those of faith for having faith is a bad atheist. I think that's ultimately his point. And vice versa for those who are religious. Yes, as atheists, we see that it tends to be mostly religious people who do the attacking or anything along those lines, but that doesn't mean that he as a man of faith can't bring attention to the other side of that coin. I believe it's important to eradicate that sort of hateful, fearful rhetoric coming from all sides. That's the only way harmony can exist between those of faith and those without. We can learn a lot from each other, I believe that's his core point. And if it's not his core point, I'm wrong, but I truly believe it is.
dude, he would probably never touch Dawkins.
the fact that he discredited Dawkins so hard and almost like an offhand comment when this guy hasn't gotten anywhere near as impactful as him really makes me doubt he would go check out some of what he says.
@@firephantom115 In my knowledge priests read atheist thinkers to write critical essays in seminary. And Dawkins is pithy compared to Nietzsche who is pretty widely read in catholic religious schools.
Im atheist. I think your commitment to your faith is wonderful. if you feel empowered by love, stay the course. Yes I am a good and moral human being - the benefits to myself and others are wonderful. My wife, a Christian, often shares her readings, Richard Rohr for example. I listen, hear, and support her.
Good for you
Good for you
I have a strong suspicion you are fake.
@Humanity Is Doomed to Extinction You are obviously unaware of all the good that comes from people of faith. Who do you think was handing out all the food during the pandemic? Christian groups. Even though I'm an Atheist, I still volunteer with Christian groups all the time, because they do so much good. There are good and bad Christians and Atheists. Stop lumping everyone together.
@Humanity Is Doomed to Extinction Christians run the majority of shelters, soup kitchens, and food banks in America. They give more time and resources to charity around the world than anyone else. What have you done? I never said all Christians were good. You're so full of hate that you can't even see the difference.
Good grief, we really do see ourselves as Yoda addressing the benighted, don't we? Sad. Even the rural Protestants that this guy casually craps on have moved past this kind of apologetic.
My take is that this is the one life that we know for a fact that we'll have. Therefore, we must make the world a good place for everyone to share in.