Christians Probe the Paulogia Deconversion Origin Story
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 июн 2020
- Paulogia had been someone who was incredibly active in Christian ministry at all levels, went to Bible College to dig deep into his belief system, memorized most of the New Testament and taught kids to do the same, and devoted most of his waking hours to fully living his Christian faith.
And when he made the simple “mistake” of setting out to learn what “those lying scientists” had to say about dinosaurs, he had a road-to-Damascus experience in reverse. He found the scientific evidence for evolution so overwhelming and the YECist counterarguments so flimsy, that he not only rejected his faith, but he became a man-with-a-mission. The main target of his new-found ministry is Young Earth Creationism and its leaders.
Boyd Blundell and Luke Jeffrey Janssen of the Recovering Evangelicals podcast sat down with him to investigate the ruins.
Recovering Evangelicals
#25 YECist 2nd response to science - reject faith
www.listennotes.com/podcasts/...
Thanks to Shannon Q!
/ @shannonq
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord 
Наука
If it happens there is a god when I’m gone I would prefer to be judged as an honest non believer than a fake believer.
The one thing I have taken from Matt Dilihunty is this quote, "If there is a god and he is just, he will see the way I lived my life, and see I did the best job I could to be the best person I could possibly be. If there is a god and he is NOT just, why would I want to spend an eternity with that god anyway?"
Sorta kidding, but not really - because it's god! Our judgement that a god must fit our terms, be reduced to our level of comprehension or approval is silly, not just presumptuous, and may be seriously ignorant. Judging Whoever or Whatever created and sustains the entire universe is a bit above my pay grade. What I find most disappointing about people judging the veracity of "god" is that both sides reduce the truth value of its existence or phenomenon or reality to strictly literal or face value qualities. The universe, by itself, is so phenomenally mysterious and transcendent that it's hard to believe. You are all saying the existence of a "god" depends on its conformity to our ability to make sense of it? "God" is a name we give to this great mystery. Not some Dude. The Scriptures are first of all stories, vehicles, symbols. They are like the Zen Buddhist axiom of the finger pointing at the moon.
@@CleverMonkeyArt Are you saying we should believe in the existence of a diety even if we can't find evidence for its existence? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
It also seems that you might be saying that the gaps in our understanding of the universe is God. Is this the case?
@@CleverMonkeyArt If a deity creates a lifeform that reasons to its own sense of right and wrong, but is incapable of understanding the morality by which the deity will judge them, then the deity is the only one culpable for judging the lifeform against an irrational standard.
This extends to just trusting that god's morality is better, either because we have good reason to believe that god does not exist, because we do not have good reason to believe god exists, or that we have no way to be sure of what god's morals are, given the dizzying array of scriptural interpretation between all sects of all religions.
If there is a god who created us, then all I'm doing is living my life using the brain they gave us to come to conclusions about the world they put us in, and if that god has a problem with that, then so be it.
Reminds me of a buddy i asked:
"Ok, so ya die, and all of a sudden you are indeed standing at the pearly gates and God says "You, Hell" What do you say?"
He goes,
"Well Fu@k him then!"
😆😆😆
I was a childhood science reader in a Baptist family. I learned at an early age that nobody around me could answer my hard questions. I've have to seek answers on my own, through lots of library reading. I went to a Pentecostal school in 8th grade to escape public school bullying and the fundamentalists there put before me the all-or-nothing requirement. I chose nothing. It was like stepping off a cliff. Suddenly the whole edifice of Biblical nonsense fell away and the universe made sense. But I kept silent as I could see what happens to others who come out. It really wasn't until the last decade that I felt comfortable coming out in atheist groups and asserting myself. I thank Paulogia and others who do the deep dives into the Bible's history for that, for giving me the ammo to stand up to those who think it can't be questioned.
I particularly respect your decision to mirror the conversation that occured after you left it. Class act!
Yes! Full disclosure.
Agreed. Paul you are the best
Author Dan Plouff Info, ASMR, and Gaming dude. You’re funny.
@Author Dan Plouff Info, ASMR, and Gaming reading that made my brain bleed
When you dropped the Ken hamm book and realized that there has to be a better answer than that I totally related to it. That is a very important part.
I found this a good open discussion, they took the time to listen, and let you talk in depth about being ostracized by family and friends. No one should have to go through what you did.
Its so helpful to me. I am currently on the line of letting my parents believe I agree with them or being attacked for my true beliefs. It's so scary
Fancy seeing you here! I agree, it was really refreshing to listen in on an open, fair, honest discussion.
Not even LBGTQ kids?
@@jaebird3077 they are just expressing God's love. 😆 🤣 😂
@Fabian Darius you're a doush
When Paul is talking about all of the things he lost just because he stopped believing in Christianity; friends, job, connections, spouse, almost the kids even....all I can think about are those people who ignorantly say "What's wrong with Christianity? What harm does it cause?"
That's the harm it causes. That's it right there. It destroys peoples lives for _simply not believing in old stories._ You can't point to something that does that and say it's 'harmless'.
@North Sea Pirate Dogmatic beliefs, perhaps, but not all beliefs in general. Trouble is religions very often encourage the dogmatic aspects, if not by its tradition than by outright rules.
Holy crap! You were RED 5 comics?! I cannot stop recommending Atomic Robo, I love it so much. Thank you!
Red 5 published the independent Atomic Robo which was created by Brian Klevinger, who also created the hilarious web comic 8-bit theatre, along with Scott Wegener.
No way. I love Robo!!
The issue of gay rights was the pebble in my shoe that started my deconversation. From there i decided i wanted to find out the truth of things, not just to placate myself so i could merge my religious beliefs with a more modern society.
Same! I could no longer justify why I thought gay people shouldn't marry. I couldn't think of one good reason, except because the Bible didn't like it. That's when I started to figure stuff out for myself and slowly but surely got comfortable with finding out my own moral compass. Now two of my best friends are gay, and also former Christians. It's funny how life works out. So glad I left.
My wife was the same way. Good on you.
I couldn't reconcile the old testament histories with the more enlightened truths I had learned from the gospels of Jesus and that birthed skepticism, thank God lmao. Out of all the concepts of god that I could have imagined, I could not ever imagine that it would manifest itself within the physical realm just to tell one specific group of people alone who to kill, who to oppress, and what they could or could not eat or wear or say. From there it was like one match stick igniting and burning my entire house down.
If you look at the historical context of when the old testament was written the prohibition on any sexuality that did not result in a pregnancy made sense. The authors of the old testament are members of a small tribe more or less surrounded by hostile larger civilizations so any behavior that did not increase population numbers would be prohibited against. The old testament probation against behaviors such as homosexuality or masturbation made sense if you are surrounded by what you think are hostile civilizations. Now that the population of the earth being 7 billion people the prohibition does not make any sense.
My favorite niece is a lesbian and she is still the same wonderful person she has always been.
Another clash of the 21st century is advancements in science. Especially when brain scans show differences between gay, trans, and cis brains you begin to wonder how physical traits can still be portrayed as 'sin'?
Also watching The Church arguing tooth and nail about gay marriage (as Roeliene mentioned), or the ordination of women makes you question how the bible is interpreted.
For me, the thing that started my deconvertion was the bible itself. The verses on the fates of unbelievers, I found myself unable to reconcile a merciful god with one that would condemn someone for not believing.
Continuing on from that, the more I examined it, the less sense it made. The claims of religion, any religion I looked at, did not line up with reality. The more I knew, the less I believed. Now I know that I know very little of what is available. But I have looked, and if there is a god who wanted me to know him/her, I think I would have met him/her.
@Sage of Synergism god supposedly created a place of eternal torment and the rules for how you end up there. Said god would therefore be directly responsible for people getting sent to hell because he created it, made the rules about what gets you sent there, and has utterly failed to demonstrate its existence or communicate these rules effectively so that there can be no question as to where they came from.
The very existence of a hell at all is completely antithetical to the existence of a merciful god if that god supposedly created it. That god is a monster, not merciful.
Me too. As with most christians, I was raised being taught the ‘palatable’ parts of the bible, then I read it for myself in full, and discovered that the god therein was a monstrous, malevolent, mass murdering maniac.
@@Vivi2372 - It very much seems to me that Christians are not monotheistic. They sincerely believe in at least four gods and think that they are one. If you ask them the properties of god, you will get phrases like "all loving, all just, all powerful and all caring". This is almost universal among Christians and this is the god they claim to follow.
However, that god is nowhere to be seen in the bible.
The god of the old testament is jealous, vengeful, cruel and very limited in power. Except for the god of Genesis, who was powerful enough to create the universe, but not prescient enough to know not to put the tree of knowledge (or life) where his children could reach it. He was also not smart enough to get people right and had to wipe them out and start over and still didn't get them right.
Jesus was a kinder, gentler god. However, with the new testament came the concept of hell as an eternal lake of fire where non-believers could repent their decision not to believe. There is nothing the least bit loving or just or compassionate about eternal torture.
But Christians firmly believe in these gods as a single god and cannot see the contradictions in their natures.
@Sage of Synergism In your analogy, I agree, wrongdoings are bad, in a basic way of saying it. Completely agree. But what I find perplexing is what the commentor right after you described. God created hell. He created the devil. If god is loving, merciful and all knowing, why would he create such a place for those he "loves"? God's "love" doesn't seem to be love at all to me as I have witnessed acts of greater love by everyday humans, which, should be impossible. God is the most powerful being, yet humans are able to forgive, able to understand, and able to cope better than god? That should not be possible.
I've met everyday humans who are able to forgive and forget, whereas the god of the bible sends anyone who doesn't love him back to the hell he created. "Love me, follow me, worship me, believe me or you will burn in eternal torment" - is not love in my eyes, I am sorry, but I've met people who have had really bad transgressions against them able to forgive and be compassionate to their offender. This is one example of a greater love by humans I've witnessed myself. Complete opposite of the "love me or suffer forever" idea god of the bible pushes.
I used to be a strong believer, but this has been one of the most eye-opening things that aided in my de-conversion away from mainstream Christianity. Can you give a good explanation of this? Even though I no longer believe in mainstream religion, I still am perplexed by this. I've yet to hear a good answer, or one that can convince me otherwise, so maybe you can? I'd appreciate it, thanks in advance!
14:01 - - "One of the dangers...is travel. Changing location, changing context, is a real danger." So are they admitting Christians need to maintain an echo chamber? Not allow in any unapproved ideas? And they are fine with that?
Tim Berry To lightly steel-man what the hosts said: They were saying that if you grow up in an evangelical community, without much to challenge your perspective, then traveling will challenge those perspectives. Later on, they say it’s important for Christians to hear different perspectives and reflect on what they believe in. The hosts believe that a faith that has never been challenged is a shallow faith.
Paul himself pushes back on this, he was a creationist the whole time he lived in San Francisco, a far cry from rural Saskatchewan. Then, consider how Ray Comfort or Ken Ham have been all over the world, and it’s obviously not affected their views.
@@NDHFilms Thanks, just checking. It did sound at odds to what else they were saying.
@@NDHFilms The money justifies everything!
@@NDHFilms To build on that, they specifically mentioned social control. If your entire social structure is based on shared religion then any risk to your faith is a risk to your way of life. If you give up religion you may have to give up many of your relationships.
Edit: We can see this with Paul. He lost a ton of connections because he left the faith, basically having to rebuild his worldview and his life at the same time.
So what happens when you leave the social control? Nobody in the group asked these hard questions, doubt was seen as a vice. But now you find these problems, you're free to ask questions, and your old in-group is doesn't have the same grip on you. Those questions can eventually break down the old (flawed) beliefs.
It makes perfect sense that these guys would have a problem with strict social controls and an "all or nothing" attitude towards belief. They're an unstable foundation that threatens the entire structure.
Instead, they've gone with the usual happy-clappy, believe whatever you want style of christianity…
I like you Paul. Your maybe one of the few religion critics who (to my knowledge) has not been rude in any way. I've never even heard you call someone dumb or an idiot.
Now I am not saying you've never been like that (because everyone has done something bad at least once in their life) but you are so professional and it's awesome!
A MOST COHERENT AND ENLIGHTENING CONVERSATION PROVIDING BALANCED VIEWPOINTS TO HELP PEOPLE....GET REAL AND GET RID OF THE PRESUPPOSITIONAL NONSENSE SO MANY STILL HOLD ON TO !
If you’re not already familiar, check out Anthony Magnabosco’s channel. He does random interviews called “street epistemology.”
@Skeptic Psychologist Interesting. Both were useful in my case. I first ran across atheists in print and on youtube who used reason and sometimes humor to point out flaws in my beliefs, and it was good to see they weren't horrible people as I'd a'ways been led to believe. But later on hearing a few atheists explode in exasperation at the inanities they kept having to deal with shocked me out of my complacency and made me take a good hard look at the creationist beliefs I was raised with.
I totally agree with Paulogia's approach when he said he made a conscious effort to avoid vulgarity in his videos. Fundamentalist Christian indoctrination and sheltering is so strong that if he said "fuck" , well, that's it, many Christians wouldn't listen to anything else he had to say, they'd just walk away.
@Skeptic Psychologist Plus its FUN
Seth Andrews is usually quite good about being a non monstrous atheist. There’s room for Tom & Cecil or the GAM Crew, but there’s also room for this kind of conversation.
Have to say this chat helped me appreciate how lucky I am, having been spared the horrible transition Paul went through. A life-long atheist, I'll be 70 next year. While I never bought into Christianity in the midst of America, I've had the incredible luck to live among people who either themselves were never Christian or who, like you two, are believers without judgment. Kudos for this marvelously open chat. If all believers were like you, this would be a so much better world.
Thank you, Paulogia! Your videos have really helped me grow as an atheist!
I'm so pleased. Thank you.
Paulogia You’re a truly brave and honest person. Braking up with your entire base is a horrible decision to take. I’m glad my parents never pushed a literalistic bible view on me. It left me free to appreciate the benefits of a moderate religious stance and allowed me to view the bible in the context of the historical times it was written in.
this is such a Christian thing to say xD
Aurelia Boersma Is your comment directed to me? If so, you are sadly mistaken, I’m anything but religious. But I can appreciate some of the philosophical ideas proposed in the bible and I can appreciate the stories in their historical context.
@@angrydoggy9170 I'm rather curious which philosophical ideas the Bible proposes that you find to be good, useful, or interesting. And also, what is the historical context for these and how does that differ from, say, the Hellenistic myths and their historical context?
Recently saw an Ark Encounter ad on Discovery channel the other day.
Smh.
Ken and his ilk....well, Ken, anyway - Ken has a lot of money. Too much money.
@Pisstake
The Ark don't hold water you can take that two ways
“That isn’t meant to be a push,” he said. Later, “what I wanted to push Paul on was...” So it sounds like it was meant to be a push. I noticed they do not accept your position, @Paulogia, as it is, respectful as they are. I too will be interested in hearing your own comments. You guys make me wish to do something of my own. I am neither scholar nor scientist, nor yet any kind of spiritual guru or doctor of the heart. Still, I was so deeply damaged by my religion I would like to see others spared the same.
Very precisely stated. Your type of thinking is enviable, sincerely, and I wish more people would graduate to this level of insight.
Keep telling your story without shame or fear. That's an incredibly brave way to help. Keep your head up!
Drilling doctrine into children is abuse. Teaching them to distrust science is abuse. Teaching children they are broken is abuse. Teaching them others are broken is abuse. Teaching them a sadistic monster is the standard for morality is abuse. We protect children from the influence of bars, adult movies, etc. Indoctrination forces the acceptance of cognitive dissonance, and that leads directly to becoming delusional (maintaining false beliefs in spite of contradicting evidence). Children need to be protected from cults. Especially barbaric, blood sacrifice death cults from the bronze and iron ages.
No more tacit approval of theist lies and stupidity. If we hear them and their superstitions nonsense, they need to hear us. Don't lie, don't mislead, but definitely correct the narrative they try to sell. Their god is not loving. Their moral code includes slavery, killing kids to punish parents, and more horrific positions. So speak up, and help save the world.
"they do not accept your position' ... if that's what you're looking for here, you missed the point. It's not about winning an argument or extracting an admission. It's about creating a space where you're willing to question some element, even a small one, that sets you on a path of discovery and truth.
Glad to hear your story. Hope you find what you want.
These guys were really cool, great conversation. Thoughtful chat, respectful and the didn't mock, strawman or cut off your views. Good guys.
However, it was quite frustrating at the end to hear them end up reverting to the same old "hard athiests are fundamentalists too" line, asserting that many of those not believing the biblical claims of easily-disprovable supernatural events (like the 6 day creation) are automatically and blindly rejecting the entire thing, including other, less-obviously-disprovable supernatural events (like Jesus' miracles/resurrection, or even the premise of a God). They say they pressed Paul on it but in trying to keep the conversation civil they really didn't. Kinda wish they had actually pushed a bit harder on that so Paul could clarify the actual point, that the supernatural claims - obviously disprovable or not - take precedence and need MUCH stronger evidence than an ancient book can provide to actually start believing them.
In other words - a talking snake and a man coming back from the dead are not that far from each other in terms of the how much they go against our understanding of the universe and science, so dismissing both because of a lack of evidence is NOT the same thing as dismissing the second blindly because you dismissed the first reasonably.
Side note - it's especially weird to listen to this as someone who was never raised in a particularly religious household or society; creationists vs non-creationists are arguing over which type of LITERAL MAGIC exists. I realise theists (and even ex-theists like Paul, I think) don't see it quite that way, but if you've never been in it then it sure as hell looks that way.
I think the "atheists are fundamentalists too" line was actually limited to how atheists tend to look at the bible the same way fundamentalists do, we just don't believe it. They're bemoaning what I could charitably call a lack of nuance in interpretation from both fundamentalists and atheists. In this way, I think it's a fair point.
The problem is, this "nuance," as I put it, is actually just a willingness to rationalize the text. The intellectually honest way to approach any text is: You take it at face value as much as possible and you try to interpret it in the way that the authors likely intended as much as possible. Doing this with the bible, you either believe it, and you're a fundamentalist, or you reject it, and you're a non-Christian.
The irksome thing about liberal Christians (and other liberal believers) is how they have to distort and smudge their "lenses" in whatever ways necessary to preserve whatever elements of their faith they can't let go of. Of course you can contort your interpretations and come up with all manner of ad-hoc reasons to rationalize anything you want in any text, but _should_ you? With how nice and understanding they were, it's especially sad to hear them advocating for, and captured by, this kind of intellectual dishonesty.
The more you minimize the bible, the more impact you give to questions like, "what is the point of the bible at all, then?" "why _doesn't_ God have a clear, direct message to mankind?" It seems unavoidable that the less directly you interpret the bible, the less honest your faith is.
@@dancinswords "It seems unavoidable that the less directly you interpret the Bible, the less honest your faith is." So... despite everything you say against fundamentalists and literalists, they have the most real and honest faith? When they reject all kinds of problematic passages that advocate for all manner of horrible crimes?
While I agree that people read books and then misinterpret them, the Bible itself claims that it is more metaphor than literal. Popes and Saints have pointed out that the Bible should not be interpreted literally throughout time. Are they all more 'dishonest' than current fundamentalists? I think that the less directly you interpret the Bible the more honest a person's faith is. Faith is an individual event. Some have lost it completely (I respect that), others are all consumed by it (I respect that too, but hope they don't burn themselves out) but most people reside in the middle ground: some amount of faith, some amount of rejection, all residing in the shades of the spectrum. They have all chosen or adopted some manner of faith that clicks with them. Does that make it dishonest when they think their own manner works well for them?
I have ended up rejecting much of Christianity because it doesn't work, or advocates things I think are wrong. I'm well aware I have cherry-picked the religion, maybe that makes me not who you were originally talking about, but I'd like to think I've picked out the cherries that taste good and work well. My cherry-picking may well receive more passes in rejecting bad cherries I've picked, but I am aware of that too. One bad cherry doesn't immediately spoil the barrel. Frankly, I'd like to think God would be pleased with our much more secular values in tolerance, understanding, reason, acceptance of human flaws and attempts to continually approach whatever ultimate state of goodness we can have for each other (if it exists).
If my lens has to be "smudged", warped, and broken, full of flaws and failings, in order to adapt an old institution with flaws, failings, outmoded methods of thinking and problems into a better reflection of itself with fewer faults, and potentially a better capability to satisfy a basic human need or want than it had been able to before... frankly, I don't want a "fixed" lens because then it will see right past what makes us human.
"What [Hamlet] might say with irony, I say with conviction: What a piece of work is Man. How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty, in form in moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a God." -Capt. Picard.
@@efulmer8675 Rejecting those "problematic passages" is part of interpreting the bible less directly, so their faith is less than completely honest. Even the most fundamentalist Christians today do not entirely accept the Bible, and so are not completely honest, no. In any case, this honesty isn't exactly a wholly good thing. It's bad because what they honestly believe is bad. However, it is also good, because what they believe is easier to show as stupid, and it's more likely for a fundamentalist's beliefs to be shattered than to soften into a more liberal position. It's the old oak vs willow.
As if anyone should have a problem calling popes and saints dishonest? I'd be flabbergasted if there was a single pope who was a good person. I'm less certain about saints, but they shouldn't be assumed to be good, much less heroic.
When you think the perfect creator of the universe agrees with your personal opinions, you're fooling yourself. The more you twist what you're supposed to think is the word of the perfect creator to agree with you, rather than accepting what it says and trying to learn to agree with it, the more you're just having a dishonest, self-aggrandizing wank.
If you've picked out the good cherries, and are fine throwing all the bad baggage, then fine. I don't see how you could honestly do that without also throwing out the notion that a god also said the things you're throwing out. If you keep throwing things out, at some point it's got to stop being helpful to call yourself a member of that faith. It's fine for a nonbeliever to recognize and hold onto the good things that can be found in any religion, or that can be found anywhere for that matter. The lens only needs to be warped if it's a Christian one. If not, you can look at the good and the bad for what they are, keeping and rejecting as appropriate, without hesitation.
It was minute 52:00 ish where these guys let the cat out of the bag -- Luke especially. Something like, "I fear Paul has given up one kind of fundamentalism only to adopt another." This is a common trope among postmodern (post)evangelicals. They learn it from (trying) to read people like Paul Ricoeur, Jacques Derrida, and numerous other Continental philosophers. Their impenetrable ''texts' boil down to one cluster of ideas, all very congenial to never having to confront doubt or disbelief: "REASON CANNOT BE TRUSTED! FACTS ARE AN ENLIGHTENMENT HOAX. SCIENCE HAS AN UNDESERVED PLACE IN WESTERN THOUGHT. FALSIFYING RELIGIOUS BELIEF IS FUTILE." This all creates a safety blanket for people like Luke and Boyd. Their intuition is the following: "I can never KNOW that there is no God or that Christianity is false. Since this is all 'unknowable' I'm just going to take refuge in my tradition, in my community, in the narrative I share with the people I love." So, they just keep going to sexy evangelical churches with the cool music and the non-judgmental, but subtle guilt-inducing sermons -- the ones that encourage them to be 'the best versions of themselves' but deny this could possibly be done without church and without faith and without their fellow Christian sojourners. They don't take 'beliefs' very seriously, but they take their liberal-christian lifestyle very seriously. They drink, they swear, they laugh at off-colour jokes, and they support same-sex marriage -- they luxuriate in how very progressive they are compared to 'simple-minded atheists' on the one hand and their conservative- fundamentalist family and friends on the other. What a warm, cozy place to spend the rest of your life -- completely insulated from reality. These postmodern evangelicals are a dime-a-dozen at seminaries and Christian universities.
Your comment "These postmodern evangelicals are a dime-a-dozen at seminaries and Christian universities" (etc.)
Sure that might be "their journey". Perhaps they're just using a thoughtless "blanket" (of religion) to comfort and insulate themselves from reality ..
OR, they are just PEOPLE on EARTH, overwhelmed with life (and death) and all that we just don't know. And they're just trying to find their way. So they have a temporary superstructure that they are willing to "replace erroneous thought-planks on" as new information comes to light. But perhaps ALSO: they realize both THEIR shortcomings, AND the fact that, when you think about it, NOBODY here on earth have a IRREFUTABLE ONTOLOGY. So perhaps there is no reason to be flippant (one way OR the other) .. since NOBODY knows .. ?
.. Maybe
This comment is a bookmark, I will post my response later.
I mean, yeah. They don't have the balls to actually sit down and think about why they believe because they don't want to understand that you cannot believe in something you don't believe in. They would lose everything and everyone and their cushy life and all the free money people give them.
It's a grift. Some people have the ability to grift and some don't. The easy way around that is just don't think about it.
I think the idea is kinda more nuanced than that.
mind you i'm an atheist.
it sounded to me like he was essentially saying paul believes Christianity is/must be fundamentalism, he doesn't believe Christianity but still believes what Christian doctrine should be. this is somewhat true, but I think this is because the average atheist thinks that fundamentalism is the steel man of Christianity, where flexible belief in the bible is kind of undercutting itself.
I can understand how the theists came to this conclusion but don't agree with it.
and it is at this point i notice this is from 3 years ago... lol
@@HeadlessZombYit’s okay the conversation never dies lol
when they mentioned “there are christians who defend the book, not the man jesus himself” or something along those lines, i found myself saying “okay, but how do you know about the man jesus?” it’s from the book. without that book, there’s no basis for a modern person to say anything of confidence about a jesus, a crucifixion, a virgin birth, any of it. trying to turn this religion into this squishy “it’s all in how you interpret it” jargon means it has as much truth value as astrology.
1967: MY DECONVERSION STORY. From 1963-7 I was in a Catholic-Carmelite (the ones who wear all brown) Junior Seminary for high school [NEXT-DAY ADDITION: I was studying to become a Carmelite priest.] I had been raised by a very conservative, very religious mother (and a father who let her decide all such things). What started my deconversion was WOMEN.
SEXILY-CLAD WOMEN: It was endlessly said (and believed) that "if a woman/girl dresses sexy and gets raped; it's her fault!" I knew about nothing about women back then; but I DID know that you don't blame the victim for the crime. When I started to raised doubts to the religious authorities at the school - I began to get an inkling about what MILD opposition to ANY basic Catholic Church teaching entailed.
THE VIETNAM WAR: These were the days of Pope John Paul (the 1st, I suppose, in retrospect). Two of the many changes were: the Mass was now in English (not Latin) and we seminary students would lead the mid-Mass prayers. They went as follows:
Student: "For the Pope in Rome, we pray to the Lord."
Congregation's response: "Lord hear our prayer."
Student: For our parents ...
Student: For our men fighting & dying in Vietnam ...
One day I thought, "Wait, my 'all-loving' god takes sides in human wars???" So, when it was my next turn to lead the mid-Mass prayers eventually I said, "For ALL the people fighting & dying in Vietnam ..." AND ALL HELL BROKE LOOSE.
MY LIFE TURNS INTO A PSYCHOLOGICAL HELL ON EARTH: During the next two years, until I graduated, the school's authorities went to war on me. My always straight-A grades tumbled (though I was just as smart and studied just as hard). I was not allowed to have any friends. Intimidation was daily, hourly, constant, draining, demoralizing. My "guaranteed future in Hell" was a focal "teaching point". I had almost nightly night-mares; questioned everything about my self-worth; started having suicidal thoughts - that, after a while, I didn't try to fight off.
Frankly, I don't know how I "survived" those two years. But I did manage to graduate, barely.
DROPPING RELIGIONS: CATHOLICISM, XTIANITY, ALL RELIGIONS: Upon graduation (in '67) I had had it with Catholicism - THEY drove me away. I next turned to other forms of Xtianity. The one thing I summed-up from the existence & functioning of all the thousands of Xtian sects was: They ALL Push Arrogant-Sectarianism - too great self-faith & sense of self-worth; too much derogatory stands towards EVERYBODY else - heck, if you believed "wrong"; you'd suffer the worst torture possible every second for a TRILLION YEARS; renewable at that time by the "all-loving god".
FROM BIBLE-MEMORIZED TO TOTAL REJECTION OF IT: I took a serious look at the other major religions: Arrogant-Sectarian all of them. For me that was the end of organized religion. Lastly, I turned back to a review of the Bible itself. Keep in mind, over those 4 years of high school, studying the Bible hard 3 or so hours a day; I had come close to memorizing that book. When I started re-reading it, I WAS COMPLETELY SCANDALIZED. Not only by what it actually said & stood for; but also by the fact that I THOUGHT I KNEW the Bible; yet had had it all wrong.
A 1/2 YEAR OF SELF-DOUBT & OSTRACIZING BY FRIENDS & FAMILY: The next half-year was super-difficult for me. I lost ALL my friends; and all my family. I worried about Hell constantly (What if I were wrong; and was gonna be tortured forever?) What saved me was simply that I finally realized I had been forced (as Paulogia says) to accept this new set of beliefs; & must make peace with that non-choice.
SINCE 1967: A HIGHLY-MORAL ATHEIST: I've been a highly-moral atheist ever since. Between 1965 and 1975, I dedicated 20,000+ volunteer hours (40+ hours a week; 50+ weeks a year; btw, I count everything - I was born this way) to help end the U.S. Gov slaughter of 2-3 million innocent people in Vietnam. I've remained highly socially active (& studying the underlying principles) for the last 55 years and counting.
But Ken Ham told me atheists can't be moral!
@Sage of Synergism If life starts at conception, how many babies have God not aborted with every miscarriage?
1) If the bible condems rape with capitol punishment, then why has there not been public executions in the Vatican?
Is rape, just as marriage, between one man and one woman?
2) No, but the protests from the flock, gives a clear reason to reject catholisism, evengelism, islam, and every other organised religion.
The problem is not a non-existing god, but the group of people claiming superiority. When what makes "you superior" is not real, degradation and
harassment of others are what remains as tools.
3) Again, no reason to reject God, but a good reason to reject you. I do not reject God, I reject you. EDIT. I reject your beliefs, not you.
4) Hundreds saved to a life of lies. Hundreds of THOUSHANDS, or millions?, driven to suicide. Talk about cherry picking.
"Don't look at the many corpses, look at the three surviors. Sure they have a few missiing limbs, but still... it's a win!" Blah!
5) So there are moral atheists and moral christians? Then why the need for God? Why claim that God is the source of morality, when it clearly is not. We are. You are.
Mother Theresa believed that the sick should suffer. SHOULD suffer! Not blaiming the vitims (of the all loving god that made them sick) at all, right? She was no saint.
She did something, where something was not done. That is why she is famous. But giving a thirsty person poison to drink, is not a good deed.
It's an inspiring time discovering more people that have escaped enforced fundamentalist religious indoctrination. A *simple metric to use is how does a religion treat the other 50% of the population?
@@bodan1196 There is no reason to think there is a god, though. Nor is there anything to show that it MATTERS whether you believe in god or not. To god, to the universe, to yourself, to ANYTHING.
Mother Theresa, by the way, decided FOR OTHERS that THEY should suffer. A psychopath thinks that OTHER PEOPLE SHOULD BE IN PAIN. Now, if the psycho thinks there is nothing wrong, BUT doesn't actually hurt anyone because they realise that THEY don't think it immoral, but that it takes two to psycho on.
@@markhackett2302 I do not believe that there is a god. It would be satisfying to some degrre to get the chance to put forth the question "WTF dude!?".
We'll eventually find out, I guess ;-)
I don't think a psychopath neccesarily wants others to be in pain. I think is more a question of "at least I am not as unhappy as that person" kinda thing. That seeing
someone in pain, sets a marker, a benchmark, a comparison to the psychopaths own situation and life. It makes life easier to accept and live if you know that you are
not the "worst one off". Not the bottom of the barrell. But I don't know, just speculation.
Excellent interview, and it was very generous of you to keep the post-interview segment where they attempt to Christsplain why you failed to remain a Christian after rejecting Evangelicalism.
I am one of those people who posted a critical comment on the Eric Hovind video you talked about, but not because you did it, but because of all the comments about Eric sounding like a reasonable guy, appearing to forget the damage Hovind's ministry wreaks on the education of America's children.
I am a former Roman Catholic who went to Catholic grammar school to high school. In the 11th grade my Catholic high school closed and I chose to go to public school for the remaining year, I was blown away by culture shock and had a difficult time fitting in with my classmates, I played football and skiing on the ski team helped me to make friends. Once I had my first college level science class I was blown away by the fact that I was not being taught anything remotely like that in Catholic school.
I then began to question all of the teachings of the church and as I went on to join the Army and served 20 years as a Ranger completed my bachelors in Criminal Justice and my Masters in Social work and have tried to live my life as well as I can and avoid being an asshole.
I have no guilt no doubt and my life has been a lot better without the Catholic Church telling me that I was a sinner and needed to grovel and beg for forgiveness before I die. Also that I have to give the church 10% of my income to ensure that I have a ticket to the afterlife!
They seemed to be a bit dishonest at the end there, with their talk of fundamentalism. Are they missing the part where you continued looking after you first realized that the Bible isn't 100% accurate? You didn't just throw the whole thing out because it had one mistake. That was just the starting point; From there, you continued to find more and more problems.
Sage of Synergism There were 3 dusks and dawns before the sun existed. I have about 40 from Genesis 1
dvdjspr I didn’t catch that they were talking about Paulogia, but my rebuttal was that finding one significant error in the Bible can shift someone’s mode of thinking from “all of this must be right, because I am compelled to believe it” to “Let me assess these writings as I would any other.” When that happens, the bubble can burst wide open.
Sage of Synergism Not until you resolve this one.
The light in vs 3 is light in general, not “a light source”, not to mention a specific light for our position on Earth to rotate towards or from, which is what dusks and dawns are.
So your answer seems to fail to comprehend the meaning of the text.
But vs 3 helps to indicate that the author thought the sun just happened to come up in the daytime. The sun was later created “to rule the day”. They clearly didn’t think the sun was what makes the day.
@Sage of Synergism lol. You're EVERYWHERE in this comment section but go silent as soon as someone debunks your book. XD.
Sage of Synergism here’s an easy inaccuracy to spot, despite what the Bible claims the mustard seed does not turn into a tree. Oh and it’s not the smallest of all seeds. There’s also the inaccuracy in the death of one of the apostles. There’s also an inaccuracy on how many animals were on the ark as one set says 2 of every animals and another set says 7 pairs of clean 2 pairs of every unclean animal. Not to mention that a wood boat cannot hold the weight of 462,000 animals.
I could go on but one can see that the Bible isn’t a very accurate book and it’s also not consistent
Man, hearing stories like this makes me thankful I was never indoctrinated into any religion or god belief.
My parents and failed
I used to be an anti-theist, and loved to debate (or what passes for debate online) people.
I realized recently that I would rather put down all that negativity and just have a conversation. I want to know what you believe, and I want you to want to know what I believe. Questions are for exploration and clarification, not to set up Socratic traps or gotcha moments.
I once heard a conservative radio talk show host really anger his audience when he said "Before you can completely dismiss an opinion, you have to understand it. I don't feel confident dismissing something until I know it so well I can argue in favor of it and be convincing."
I've tried to make that a model since then & that's why I love your channel so much. Intellectual honesty is a great way to approach this.
The fear of hell is to keep you in the seats.
The comment about "community" is really telling: it tells me the reason he went back to Christianity wasn't intellectual honesty, but the community aspect, the peer group. It doesn't necessarily make him dishonest, since I think this was likely a subconscious thing... but it's how religion works, through societal pressure.
What about you? are you an atheist? if so, is your atheist based on intellectual reasons?
I caught that too - everything he said sounded like a rationalization of why he "returned".
@@meerkatsk5170 _"What about you? are you an atheist? if so, is your atheist based on intellectual reasons?"_
- *Yup, and mostly.*
@@timeshark8727
You said no to my question so your answer is bullcrap
@@meerkatsk5170 _"You said no to my question so your answer is bullcrap"_
- *Um... I said yes to your question...*
I just wanted to say how moved I was by your story, and by your dedication to both your family, and to intellectual honesty. Your story hit me right in the feels. Thank you for sharing it, and thank you for all that you do.
I think that Paul teches us not only by the material he puts on his video but by the courageous steps he has taken. He suffered much and went on, simply because he wanted to know the truth. What an awesome human being.
This is one of the best of your videos I've seen. It was a civil discourse that exhibited genuine curiosity and the appearance you all actually listened to each other and responded accordingly. The questions were excellent and your story very moving. Thank you.
Wow, thank you!
Paul, The appeal of your channel has been your personal demeanor and subject presentation. I could only wish a few evangelicals would follow your lead.
@Richunix Unix
As a Christian, I wish his demeanor and presentation was more common among my peers. Maybe then the minority of judgemental atheists will stop judging us so harshly...
@@DemonicRemption @DemonicRemption I've enjoyed Paulogia videos and comments over the past few years and as with all, we can ourself can be cynical at times, not even realizing it. But for the most part he has been spot on and is willing to admit when wrong. Followed by the ability to be honest and corrects his statement when new information is found, much like a modern researcher. He is not prefect and we as men are fallible. I'm not speaking for Pauloigia as he will speak for himself, as we all should. I'm just trying to educate those who watch these video "Supporting the statement "They're always two side to the coin". However on the opposite side of the coin is the Christian apologist. They create there hypothesis which is set in stone, as with the Bible and then try to find facts in order support these hypothesis, instead using facts to support their theories/hypothesis. Thus making changes when wither not new evidence is properly presented or event supported. Or as I call it, deception by omission (Wallace should be very familiar with this comment). Science DOES NOT prove nor does it DISAPROVE the existence of any deity, so why are the Apologist using science in a weak attempt to prove that ANY deity has ever existed. Yes there are PhD holders who are Christian and disagree with established science, that is why we have "peer review", In order gain a positive consensus of the evidence.
My statement is not all encompassing and it is not intended to be-little your belief. Believe as long as it gives you positive feelings. For me, when positive evidence is shown that a deity DOES exist, I will then revaluate my stance. But sadly to date for the past 10000 years of recorded man's history has ever presented itself. As for me I'm a New Testament textual critic (non-paid) so I try to stay out of the philosophical rhetoric as this has more to do with the teleological argument.
Here are two Quotes that I would like to share with you:
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere" - Voltaire 1742
"One of the greatest commandments of science "mistrust arguments from authority" Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else" - Carl Sagan
Keep posting...your comments are welcomed
Probably a few, but I think the others are preaching to the converted, rather than actually having a debate or putting forward an argument they expect to be challenged on.
Evangelicals tend o work on hell fire and redemption etc, so they need to sound excitable.
@@Cheepchipsable you forgot the brimstone!
That story is the same as my story. Having the propensity to ask why of everything along with a true willingness to be objective made for an inevitable result.
@Sage of Synergism Asking why about everything is what science is. But you are correct that those why questions have no bearing on religious belief because they are irrelevant to that topic. The queries I am referring to above are the why questions that were relevant to my faith based beliefs. Asking why about the biblical things I was taught as a child and continuing to ask why about all the other conundrums that result out of that are what lead to the inevitable decay of faith into reality as I objectively followed where the answers or lack thereof led.
Well to be fair, Paul never really asked "why" until decades later, and only through an incidental project.
@Sage So drawings based on educated guesses bad, but written text we know has been doctored and translated twice is legit...
Paul (yes, I know he won’t see likely see this),
Thank you for posting this. This was a great conversation to hear from all respective parties. I recently stumbled on your videos, and overall liked and derived value from what I heard, but this one has really put your channel in perspective for me. I really appreciate your candor and vulnerability here. Parts of your story are very relatable for me, and others are hard for me to even imagine. Nevertheless, I’m glad you’ve been able to persist through those hardships. And I’m grateful that you’ve put some of your findings and feelings out into the world through your channel. I’m going to be closely following what happens here in the future. COVID has left me jobless for the present, so I won’t be able to become a patron for now, but hopefully in the near future. I think what you’re doing is legitimately valuable, which isn’t easy to find on RUclips these days. So, genuinely - thank you!
(PS, if you’re looking to expand your operations, ya boy’s available 😉)
Wow, I loved hearing more of your story! It's pretty amazing, and I'm glad you took the opportunity to share it. Thank you!
I subscribed to your channel some time ago, but am just hearing your story for the first time. I really appreciate your story (I can totally relate) and REALLY appreciate your approach to your channel. I share it with the non-deconverted.
Always love a good deconversion story. 👍
To any Christians who think atheists leave their “faith” because of science...I am NOT one of them. It was because I could not make reconcile God , his contradictory messages, the vast amounts of differing faiths, what those faiths say will happen to you if you do NOT believe the same as them, and the dubious beginnings of the scriptures. (And many others reasons...)
I’m happy to see how the scientific method helps others; so don’t get me wrong. Nor, do I poo-poo others reasons for being atheist...it’s just I did not leave my faith because of science...which seems a counter by religious people, including these podcast hosts.
Same here..........for years I thought that the main problem with Christianity was fundamentalist Christians. That is, until I realized that even Jesus uttered and believed many of the same things in the New Testament- belief in hell, a harsh stance on lust, and loving him more than your own children, ect.
The problem with Christianity is Christianity. That's when I knew it was over for me.
@@pwoods100 Yeah. Seems to me that these two "reconstructionists" are totally missing the point. Its kind of irrelevant if you want god to be real, and specifically *your god* to be so real that they do the equivalent of throwing out the works of Shakespeare, recognizing them to be mere stories, then waste time writing new stories, based on the same themes, then claim that those are a better way to understand the original author (never mind the stories). The point is that the things "behind" the faith are all fictional. Its irrelevant how you rewrite the stories that describe them, or how much you really badly wish they where real.
If it worked that way, at all, freaking Super Man would suddenly become real, Trump would suddenly go bald, and the news papers tomorrow morning would all have the headline, "Super Man ousts Lex Luthor from White House." Or some variation there of. But, yeah, shoving the Bible into a word blender, and claiming its all "inspired", so not literally just a piece of ancient fiction, with no more reality behind it than a comic book, doesn't make it suddenly not be a comic book.
@Sage of Synergism I don't need it to be reconciled. Its not the messages that are the problem, its the presumption that you "need" a god in the first place. If you start from that assumption, then.. it becomes necessary to make up some sort of absurd justification for it. Its also possible to discover, with some intellectual honestly, that it is logically no more "necessary" an assumption than that Thor is the cause of thunder.
Sage of Synergism 1) I reject Christ, as described in the New Testament and/or Gnostic Gospels, ever existed. There may well have been an apocryphal preacher or an amalgamation of preachers, but the miracles are unproven mythology. The time he was supposed to of existed, and the place he may have lived, was at a time of ignorance and the backwoods of any learned society. And this is when God’s perfect message was put forth. Fuck that. You keep believing in it if you like, but we need to move on from such nonsense.
2) I don’t need apologetic bullshit because this is the EXACT problem with I was describing in the first place. Your hot take will be different from other Christian’s hot take and I’m just not swayed by that. This is why God seems made up...he’d be an ineffectual communicator if he exists.
Thought about this a bit more, and.. I think the issue I have with it is that it is itself a form of intellectual dishonesty. Like most things involving religion though, the spaghetti mess made to justify something often goes way beyond any other human endeavor, imho, so trying to find an analogy..
So, lets build one instead, using a few hypothetical adjustments. Lets say, as the main one, that Stonehenge had been found to be made of some material never before seen, and not explainable using standard science. At some point lets also presume that someone had decided that "Elves", or specifically the Tuatha De Dannaan, or some such, had built it. Now, thousands of years after this idea is presented for how it came to be the camps have broken down into, a) Its really was elves, b) it was space aliens, c) the space aliens are actually elves, or d) its simply an as yet unknown material, which man carved, stood up, then gave silly arguments for the creation of. The last one may not explain "what" it is, but it does still make it man made, it fits the tool marks, maybe physics even suggests *what* it might be, its just not something found naturally on Earth, etc. This "should be" the most plausible explanation, hands down. Except... there is this group that has got it in their head that it still has to be "someone else" who made it, that its unnatural, and impossible in nature, thus needed to be created by some higher intelligence, and even if the whole "space aliens built the thing" is totally nuts, it was definitely space aliens that made the material its made out of, and therefor it has some profound significance to understanding the universe (beyond just figuring out what the F it actually is).
I would argue this is the, "I found a way to faith, and a specific god, even though everything describing that god made no sense.", argument. Its even a classic creationist/evangelical argument, ironically, "Something can't randomly come from nothing, therefor the something has to be god." Only.. This assumes a whole load of things not in evidence - this "God" doesn't seem to be all benevolent, or all malevolent, more.. either indifferent, or like someone playing the Sims, where they are totally obsessed with a few of the things "living" inside the computer, for a while, until they get bored and go mess with a different set of them some place else in the game. From a purely physical reality stand point, such a thing isn't even necessary. You can have, and there kind of needs to be, a "statistically probable, stable, universe, which also includes quantum uncertainties", I would argue that the evidence seems to imply that something like entropy works on a quantum level, such that all the super, massively, radical stuff, like all molecules jumping to one corner of a room (in one classic example), actually have vastly less chance of doing so, in the universe *today*. It might have been difference .003 seconds after it came into existence, and there was near infinite complexity (i.e., complete and utter disorder). I would also argue that what we think of as "complex" is a misnomer in this case. Example: You drop 100 random chemical liquids in a pot, and stir. You get fire, smoke, strange poison gases, and one and on, for a brief time, seemingly all total chaos, then you are left with a ball of crystals, and say 8-9 new chemicals, all of them "vastly more complex" than the simple stuff you tossed in and stirred. But.. is any of this *actually* more complex than a hundred chemicals, mixing randomly together, as liquids, in a pot? Well, not really, because you started with 100 things, and in the process of undergoing entropy, they likely went through billions of changes, and mixings, and parings, etc., none of which you directly observed. But, man, those "crystals" sure look "complex".
Point being, we live in such a universe, and you can have such a thing, which includes some level of chance, but, possibly with decreasing odds of something utterly off the wall happening, as time passes, and still also have one with "rules". In fact, unless there exists some rule that says that, "All this energy will mix into a single uniform substance.", the very fact that the raw stuff of the sub-atomic realm can form structures, at all, with different properties, guarantees that some sort of rules will eventually result.
None of this requires someone "planning it". It could set itself in motion, it could have always been in motion, it could have been set in motion, but then just left alone, to do stuff, and by all evidence, until the whole thing literally grinds to a halt, there is nothing someone/something could even do to stop it from doing stuff, once it started.
The desire for a "god" that cares, and does things, which no one can seem to show he/she/it actually does, but a lot of people claim to, "feel he/she/it does", seems to be just that - desire. There is no logical defense for it. And, with no logical defense, its meaningless to claim that only one of them is real, that all of them are, and are just misunderstood to be different, or that they are all actually a telepathic orange baby bib, which floats gracefully at the exact, true, center of the universe. No statement that can be made about the nature of something such as this is a) intellectually honest, or b) logically more consistent, beyond personal desire for your own version of it to be real, for any of them to be plausible. Not without making pleas to, "complexity", "special tuning", "everything needs a creator-ism", and other rehashed arguments, and pretending they are somehow not the same ones being made by.. whoops, evangelicals, and/or creationists.
Thank you for sharing this conversation. It's amazing how far civil discourse goes to making this a nicer place. It also makes the truth far more approachable and accessible.
I did enjoy your live chat with Eric. I have a long term friend (31 years this month of June) who teaches at San Diego Christian College. Occasionally discussions get heated, but we both appreciate and (yes) love each other so much we are not willing to endanger such a long lasting friendship with our opinions about theology and origins getting in the way
47:15 I think Jesus is pretty clear on this. It’s not until the New Testament that the concept of Hell is introduced. Also, Thomas Aquinas said that one of the great joys of heaven will be looking down at all the people burning in Hell, and exalting in God’s justice, so for him Hell was a very Christian concept.
so basically, the entertainment of heaven is watching the eternal torment of people on hell... that's a horrible god to worship! that's just plain fucking twisted...
The very concept of hell is evil in its concept by christians
What is your native language? I guess not Hebrew. „Sheol“ the realm of the dead, is a few times in the Old Testament, the New Testament translatea it as hell.
E. Honda Motor Co., Inc. Sheol was not seen then as Hell is seen now, altho the concept of Sheol probably changed over time. Sheol was considered as a grey, gloomy place, and almost everyone went there (for people who believed in it). The prophet Samuel went there and in the passage with the medium (owb) of Endor, the ghost of Samuel prophesies that Saul and his sons will lose and join Samuel. Yahweh’s favorite and his disliked would end up in the same place.
1 Samuel 28:14-19.
The NT speaks of Hades, which is a Greek word for a Greek concept. The NT used the Greek word, because the authors more or less accepted the Greek concept. So it was not so much a translation as an admission that the concept of who goes to what kind of place had changed.
Goshdangit I always felt your thoughts on this were so similar to mine. But I had no idea you're also a cancer survivor, right on bro so glad you also pulled through, to learn from your work, thank you Paul.
Thank you, I enjoyed this podcast, I learnt more about you and your past, which leads to me to find you inspiring. This is particularly so for your ability to have a civil conversation with a major opponent. A great role model in this current time. Again thank you.
Thanks for this. Some great insight into the story around those of us who’ve found ourselves outside the camp to not really needing a reason to need to make a way to have to get back in. I found the last minutes after you dropped (Paul) to be very insightful. Too many thoughts and too late for me as I write this to say why, suffice to say, everyone has a reason as to why us (the non-believer) just doesn’t have the true gospel. It’s honestly the thing that I struggle with right now to not just completely dismiss the whole thing outright; too many “this is the way”...
I always think, when I hear someone say: "I found a form of Christianity that works for me", that I thought Christianity was supposed to work for everybody. The fact that Christians can choose from countless versions of their faith or even make up their own suggests that Christianity is not really a religion at all, but just a vague umbrella term encompassing whatever metaphysical and theological nonsense anyone chooses to subscribe to.
This sounds like you haven't studied religions and their development much. You've basically described the (a) secular idea of how religions work. They adapt because religion is people and people adapt, like culture or society. If you believe religion is divinely inspired then it makes less sense that it should adapt, but if you believe your belief is divinely inspired you will adapt the dogma to your beliefs and will see that as the true religion. You wont see it as adaptation.
@@adaroben1104 I can't be sure where you are coming from. You say that, if you believe religion is divinely inspired: 1. "It makes less sense that it should adapt" and (2) "You will adapt the dogma to your beliefs" if you believe they (as distinct from the religion?) are divinely inspired. Or you might be basically agreeing with me. though, judging by your first sentence, that seems unlikely. Some clarification would be appreciated.
Sounds like what I saw with a lot of (post christianity) self initiated Wiccans who just took whetever they liked from entry level books and inserted random deities.
There are too many denominations and differences of opinion about what Real Christianity is, every splinter group starts at the idea that everyone else has it wrong
Paul's story made me think of the Nike ad with Colin Kaepernick: "Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything"
Thank you for sharing your history. It makes me feel like I add my voice to these conversations.
Love the shoutout to you and Viced Rhino. Some of the best, and more informative youtubers out there. We are all proud of you, For whats its worth by a bunch of strangers.
You're one of my favourite faces on RUclips and I love you rational and civil approach to things :) I also quite enjoy the fact that you look like my favourite wooden-eyed character from Pirates of The Caribbean; Ragetti 😄
Best Atheists Testimonial videos I’ve seen in a long time! Thanks for sharing!
Glad you enjoyed it!
This was a great interview Paul. You are so up-front and involved, so REAL. I think this is what makes you and story so compelling.
Well done and thanks for sharing this with us.
Love the vids, greetings from Belgium.
Thank you for all you do, Paul!
My pleasure!
Tons of respect for you Paul. I didn’t know much of your story at all and it’s really quite moving. I really really hope you have, or can, get back to a good spot with your kids.
3:00
The (largely honest) part of his introductory of you, made me appreciate you and the quality of your content more than ever. It has a whole lot meaning coming from a "non-choir" party.
I guess it means a Patreon tier up is coming!
I really enjoyed the interview on the podcast and am excited to listen to it again and hear your thoughts on it.
Edit: Listened to it again. I found it interesting that they seemed to classify you as a person who rejected the idea of God because the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy does not hold, but didn't seem to notice that the one reason you shared for rejecting the Christian God has nothing to do with the inerrancy of the Bible.
I noticed that too and was a little disappointed TBH. The hosts of that show seem nice and reasonable and seemed like they were genuinely interested in hearing Paul's story. But then he left and they immediately launched into what I feel was a bit of a straw man about him rejecting all of the Bible and all of Christianity as false because 1% of the Bible isn't true... Which makes it seem like they completely misunderstood what he was saying.
And to paraphrase, what I think Paul was saying was something more along the lines of "I had always been taught and accepted that the Bible was the word of God and inerrant. When I discovered things in the Bible that are presented as fact but are in fact untrue, that opened the floodgates to me reexamining all my beliefs, everything else in the Bible, and Christianity as a whole."
Which is completely different from "either all of it is right or all of it is false."
I really liked the non-assholeness of these guys, but come on. PLEASE try to listen what your guest is really saying and, if you think there's genuinely a problem like this, try to get to the bottom of it while they're on the show rather than using it as an object lesson for why you think the "second path" is folley as soon as your guest leaves.
@@MrJacobegg I agree with you, but I don't think that they are intentionally misrepresenting Paul or his story. The discussion at the end of the podcast was an honest analysis of his story as they understood it.
Edit: Expanding a little, it is my understanding that "straw manning" is intentionally misrepresent a position so that it can be easily rebutted. It is possible to honestly misunderstand a position and discuss it without building a straw man.
Agreed. They say things like "decided to leave" andake it sound like a choice when you don't choose what you believe. However, I don't think they do it on purpose, I believe that's just how they were taught to think about people who leave.
@@MrJacobegg Yeah. I took that statement about 1% more as a, "Ok. 1% of the bible (so far) is false. Now i can get rid of all my previous held biases and re-examine the rest."
Not that literally only 1% of the bible is false.
It should be especially obvious when in context with what you paraphrased.
Interesting that they mention a change of perspective/context. My change of context was from secular uni to bible college that broke my faith.
Edit: I disagree with their evaluation towards the end. I dont think a more supportive environment will change where inquiry finishes up. Its the same "I can't choose what convinces me" answer.
Have seen quite a few Paulogia videos but first time I've heard the back story. Thanks, most informative and enjoyable. x
Thank you for sharing! I really am enjoying listening.
what a sad show, they can dress it up with all the politeness they want, at the end of the day they're teaching people to do mental gymnastics to hold onto Faith they don't have reason to hold on to.
Give them some credit for hosting a friendly dialogue. This is much better than just demonizing unbelievers and saying they're suppressing the truth.
God is a concept that believers use to prop up their personal opinions and biases.
I listened to a few of their other conversations and it always felt like they were trying to use science to get to a conclusion they had preconceived. (I listened to the conversation on consciousness, original sin, & I'll probably listen to the soul and after life one aswell)
That has not been my impression. I have only listened to a few episodes, but from what I've heard they do not make scientific arguments to support Christianity. Rather they discuss the ways that evangelical Christianity must change in order to be compatible with our modern understandings of science, history, philosophy, etc. I find the discussion to be rather refreshing even though I do not agree with their theology.
Escuddy People like that are so close to rejecting the religion altogether.
Thank you Paul for posting this to your channel. It has helped me conceptualize how to interact and try to recover a relationship with my fundamentalist family member.
Paul, my dude. I appreciate you. I relate so much with the "having someone else pray" thing. It is what makes me sure that I followed my convictions honestly.
Yeah, after watching a lot of Paulogia videos, i find his words are well thought out. I'm sad that his family left him and even kept his kids away from him. That yearning caused him to make this video series; i'm speechless.
I listened to it and Paul did a great job and so did the interviewers. At the end tough, Boyd made a personal attack on R. Dawkins calling him a "evangelical atheist", comparing him to an evangelical of the opposite side. Dawkins could not defend himself here.
Appreciate how you played their whole conversation
I was raised in a strict evangelical Christian household, went to church 2 or more times a week and a year of Bible college. I lost my faith about 3 years ago, but after seeing the evidence on the Shroud of Turin, I was convinced Christianity had to be true after all. Now once again, I am torn. After so much research on my own, I find it very hard to believe Christianity true. However, when I see the evidence on the Shroud, plus other things that seem to present evidence, such as healings done in Jesus' name, I am just torn as to what to believe. Loosing my faith is heart wrenching at 68 years old! I told God 3 years ago, I just want to know the truth! After 2 years, I found evidence on the Shroud of Turin, so I praised God that my faith had been restored. NOW, I have doubts again, and the thought of God giving up on me and sending me to hell because he had showed me the truth, and I now turned away from him once again. I'm so distraught. Do not know what to do but DO want to know the truth and not keep vacillating! Please help!
I have one problem with the whole respecting a family member's position.
What if it causes harm, teaches hating group of people, teaches abandoning the search for knowledge, adopting a cult mentality, and so on.
What then, because at the moment I consider it like smoking, it may improve your life, but it can also destroy it.
Just wondering what your opinion was on this.
Ps. great video, always enjoy honest peaceful exchange of ideas.
You can respectfully challenge bad ideas. Respectful communication isn't the same as an endorsement.
In my experience, people respond better to conversations that are respectful and loving, even if you don't endorse what they're doing. If you really want to change your mind, you tend to catch more flies with honey. At the end of the day, though, it's up to them to decide what they want to believe even if it harms them. Of course, if they're harming others (like their children) that makes it much harder.
I freakin love this kid. He genuinely represents the best idea that none of us were "stupid" when we believed in certain things, so treating people like they are that.. only hurts your ability to talk them out of it!
Kid?
Watching this video resonates so well with me. I remember when I left Christianity, the religion I was in baptized their members around the age of 9. There was a strong push due to family influence and you couldnt question it. The religion taught it was a choice to make that no one could make for you. When I left it was a lot of you are going to hell, how could you do this, you dont understand your choice, among many other things loosing friends and family as well. My response was if I could make the choice at the age of 9 and in the eyes of the religion be grown and educated enough to make the choice then how could I not have that same freedom 10 years later. Even quoting some of the doctrine of being there and lying about belief is worse than not believing. I really appreciate your videos. While I had wanted to leave for years prior mine started with being told by a religious leader that you can go to any other religion sit in on their session and you will know we are right with other religions only speak bad about us all the time, well I had a friend in school who was a different religion and had an event they wanted me to attend, I was like wow these people are nice and the only thing mentioned about other religions was"I dont care what you believe but you are here supporting someone so respect their beliefs." Then go caught up in this "we need to save you soul for going somewhere else." At that point I started to question everything and well came to the fact the bible is small take the Dune saga or The Lord of The Rings, much more expansive and detailed yet we know they are no true. Where the bible has little historical fact to back any of it up, it must be a similar indulgence in the writers freedom.
Wow. Paul. 😳 I did *not* know you started Paulogia Ayer you'd been diagnosed with cancer. It doesn't change how I hold your videos, which was already in respect, but so much compassion & respect for the way you continued your life, wanting to leave something for your children.
I think it's really interesting that the hosts are still Christians! I'm just curious how this is 'possible'?
When I listened to the podcast I didn't know that they weren't atheists but I was kinda confused by some comments lol.
Progressive / Liberal Christians are next door to atheist. Take a look around youtube, you'll find that these people like these are often embraced by atheist channels rather than "true" believer channels, The "true" believer channels are as judgemental about liberal Christians as they are about atheists. there isn't much difference between "you're not a true Christian" and "you never were a true christian" which is what atheists get when they leave Christianity. Several atheist channels have liberal Christians as chat spanners and Jimmy Snow (atheist) uses Megan Lewis (Christian) as a voice over. They want a community and "true" Christians won't have them so they come to atheists. Interviews with liberals almost never turn into dumpster fires, whcih often can't be said of "true" belivers.
once you allow for errors in the bible and a creation myth that isn't literal Genesis 1&2 it's not that hard.
Theistic evolution where you replace natural with divine in natural selection is one option to give that guy some agency.
I see it as cognitive dissonance, trying to hold on to their old culture and the religion they grew up with.
They basically just believe that a very nice man with very nice ideas walked around 2000 years ago and was crucified. Not much else.
There are some impressively open and sophisticated Christians out there. One I have become a fan of is Laura Robinson, a PhD candidate in New Testament History at Duke, who I learned about through Shannon Q. If you find yourself surprised at how the faith of these people is 'possible', Laura will leave you bewildered.
With people like this, I feel we have won the battle. Before, I thought that winning the battle meant people losing their faith, but I'm not convinced of that anymore. I would be happy with a world filled with this kind of person and their consequentially innocuous, or perhaps even net-positive(!), faith. ruclips.net/video/HjJMS1a00Pk/видео.html
So basically they want the level of inspiration and fallibilty of the Bible to be completely amorphous so as to fit whatever scenario they are advocating for it in. It's like having purely holographic goal posts that can be Zapped into whatever place you need them to be.
This was great. Just started following you a couple months ago, it was good to get to know who you are a little more.
I love how respectful you are with each other!
Great to hear more of your story Paul. Mine was more of a reverse revelation. I was standing in an empty church talking to god, as I regularly did, and realised that no one was listening. The science and reason came later for me, which is why I enjoy your channel so much.
Its quite significant in that you dont need any science to reject whats in the bible, any honest person would realise that a lot of the basis of christianity is truly horrible
@Sage of Synergism people who feel their prayers are answered are free to believe it. The prayer studies that have been carried out show prayer is no more efficacious than a placebo. I also find it difficult to accept that prayer can sway god either way. If she already has a plan and knows all that will happen, neither she nor we have free will. If god intervenes is it already part of her plan? In which case, prayer hasn't changed anything. If god is all loving, why aren't all prayers answered? If god can be swayed into acting, then how can she be omniscient?
Claiming a creator god who lit the fuse is unfalsifiable. I can't disprove it, which makes it unhelpful scientifically. We understand too little about the conditions prior to the big bang to say what happened. It is being actively worked on though so maybe my grandchildren's generation will have a strong working theory on origins.
Abiogenesis is another field that we just don't know the answer to. There are some hypotheses but none is established. Inserting god here gets you no further forward. Magic words and spells are not a helpful explanation. What is the origin of god? Will you use special pleading to claim she is eternal and outside of our reality?
As for blood and blood vessels, a preliminary scan of the papers on Google scholar shows that this is an active area of research. Within extant species it is possible to see a gradient of complexity in the systems.
Can I ask a question? How would your life change if evolution is true?
@Sage of Synergism Hiding yourself and then torturing people eternally if they can't find you is pretty horrible.
I remember the conversation with Kent. I still think that Paul was so concerned with having a "polite" discussion, that he refused to call out the false ideas that Kent put forward forth.
That would be Eric, not Kent, his dad. Kent makes it impossible for any atheist to have a civil conversation with him.
I thought he explained that pretty well.
Had he gone on the attack, he would have been presented as a rabid atheist.
Paul is trying to get peoples brain working, so they are invested enough to search for the answers themselves, not just be dictated to by anyone.
I admire you so much. Your story is fascinating, sad and liberating. I am so glad you shared it with us. You always talk in such a. calm, clear and reasonable way. I am so glad that your soul searching and search for honesty made you an atheist. You are an exceptionable person. You are my favorite RUclips producer. Please keep on. Lots of love, Paul.
They kept referring to it as “your decision“. That made me bristle because as you explained to them, you can’t help what you’re convinced of. You didn’t make a decision not to believe, you just couldn’t believe it anymore.
there's some weird possessing each other's bodies going on at 39 mins.
This was a refreshing view of american Christians who can see WLC for the prick he is. Good blokes.
I think they’re *Canadian*
@@pechaa
hey man - that makes sense.
3:29 his number is a bit outdated. It's 46.9k now :)
How very precise of you. :)
Thank you Paul for another civilized conversation. 🙂 JIM
*_"Lord, Show me the truth. Even if it kills me. Even if it rips me away from my religion because I would rather know truth than believe in something because someone said so."_* That was the prayer that started my journey.
My children went to AWANA and they were brought up fundamentalist and they all _chose with knowing all the scripture and context_ to get baptized. I always worked in the church as much as I could until I started having mental issues. _(I have 7 mental illnesses as of 2021 I was diagnosed with since 1992)._
I did also tell my kids to question everything. All of my kids decided on their own to be agnostic or full on atheists. I didn't push them, encourage them, or discourage them. I did ask pointed questions. Some of the questions drove me to do research myself.
My husband is the only person left in my nuclear family who believes in Christian fundamentalism. I am not sure if he is a literalist when it comes to creation. I know his mother and his sister are fundamentalists. I don't attend family events on that side of the family. I was asked by my sister in law's husband if I believed in Jesus and that he was the savior. I said no and at that moment he looked at me like if he had a weapon I would be dead. I decided not to poke the bear and be safe.
I am glad you are doing this for your kids because there are many others out there who are going to benefit from your videos. When I was deconverting I found Evid3nc3's videos and they helped me understand concept that deconverting is not like just flipping a switch or one network node failing.
When I talk to Christians I like to to tell them of a round table with 20 legs. You can saw off 10 legs and it will still stand. You can probably saw off 17 legs and it will stand.
If you saw off all the legs then the table will have no support and fall. It takes a long journey to get there. It was not some whim or the result of a fad.
I think that the internet is contributing to the deconversion process. Many people who are afraid to ask questions can now ask without fear of punishment, shunning, or being kicked out of Christian school.
My hope is not that people convert or deconvert.
My hope is that people will look for truth and that they will adjust when they find new factual knowledge.
I long to know as many truths as I can in this last half of my lifetime. I deconverted when I was 45 and now I am 52.
To this day I refer to my self as a *_NONES_* , nothing in particular. People will try to pinhole me an atheist, agnostic or an agnostic atheist. I choose the label *_NONES_* because it does not lean toward there might be something or there is nothing but toward purely saying _I DO NOT KNOW._ Here is some information on the *NONES* category.
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/08/why-americas-nones-dont-identify-with-a-religion/
Okay, it seems to me that they think you're rejecting the bible based on your understanding of the bible, when it seems to me that you reject it because of your understanding of what knowledge is.
Like, they think you've rejected the bible because you have a flawed epistemology, but you've actually rejected the supernatural because the supernatural worldview IS a flawed epistemology. At which point, the bible becomes a human text inspired by human ideas of the divine, just like all other such texts.
It's frustrating to me that anyone who studies philosophy doesn't actually understand that it needs to be tested against reality. But what do I know?
Yes, basically the all-or-nothing approach with which he was raised caused Paulogia to go to nothing when his faith wasn't 100%. They seemed to think he would somehow moderate his views and believe again, but not take the bible literally, kind of the way they believe.
I am interested by their "unpacking" comments about there being an equal, right-angled rigidness to rejecting the whole Bible in its literal interpretation as there is to accepting it through that lens. The thing is, though, the Bible being a trustworthy source for truth is kind of the major selling point for Christianity in my opinion. I have a hard time seeing a case for believing the book is valuable for spiritual insight if it's "inspired" but still colored by the perspectives and biases of its writers. If I have to adjudicate the Bible against something else -- my own feelings or reasoning, scientific observation, my innate sense of morality -- to determine which parts are right and which aren't, why not just listen to those things? What is the Bible but literature at that point? And why align with Christianity over any other faith, if their literature is the same? I'm curious to hear their thoughts on why they're Christians and not Universalists or Muslims or Shinto or any other faith, if the Bible isn't authoritative.
You nailed it. If it's not inerrant how can one decide which parts are right and which parts aren't? It's why we have 1000 denominations. Each group cherry picks the verses they want to believe and the verses they want to ignore. At some point you are writing your own book so why not toss it out entirely?
That's what I was thinking. If the bible is no more trustworthy than any other book, then why not build your faith and life on, say, Socrates' or Plato's works. These are ancient texts and food for thought? I was disappointed how they picked him apart at the end when he was no longer there to respond.
@@heidirabbach also hilarious was the way one host said, while asking Paul to his face, "Not to push you on this..." and then after he left said "that's why I wanted to push Paul on this..."
Buddy....are you or aren't you?
@@valid_sound_and_furious8413 Well he wanted to push without being pushy ;)
@@heidirabbach Why? Everyone accepted they didn't believe the same things, so there was really nothing to respond to. The show was more discovery rather than point scoring. Probably better they were honest in their thought then gloss over them.
What a wonderful story. I grew up as a nominal Catholic. My parents were Catholic but did not practice it in any way. For Catholics the Bible was not read. Only passages read on Sunday mass. We had no Bible at home and i relied on the catechism class that I went to for a while. Little by little i drifted apart. I found mass boring and uninspiring. When i was in high school living with my Dad we went to mass. There I met the priest who was so different from all the other priests I met before. He was such a sweet man, and he went around the neighborhood talking, comforting and helping the poorest of the poor. One Sunday in his sermon he said, I "know that tbey don't want us to say mass upstairs . But that is ok because we know god is here with us." He was referring to the fact that we were not allowed to hear mass upstairs but heard mass downstairs in the basement. We were all Hispanics. I kept going to mass inspired that admirable priest. But in the end even he could not provide me with motivation to stay.
Later in college i faced a crisis of faith when i learned about evolution and how we are all descendants of ancient apes. If that is so, then when did god infuse us with a soul? I struggled hard with that because i could not accept that i had no soul. But what about those early hominids? Did they have souls? What about the primates that preceded them? I found the subject so overwhelming that I decided to evade it altogether. Years after I took up the subject and realized that what i had learned about relugion was all wrong and becane an atheist. Thank you Paul for telling us your story. Truly inspirational .
Great story! As fan of yours for a long time, I'm still surprised that being raised as you were, you were still able to come out of that and become who you are today. It sounds like it was an extremely painful journey, I applaud you for it!
Wait that was a christian podcast? I did not know this, the initial community tab post didn't mention it and I stopped listening after your interview finished XD.
Very pick and choosing Christians. I mean they even though hell out of the window.
@@guiagaston7273 The sort of Christian that Ken Ham dislikes because they are so wishy washy on what parts they actually believe.
AAARGH!! dammit!!!
**pauses video**
**stands up, goes to the fridge, finds no fruit but a guava, grabs the guava**
**sits down, unpauses video**
what? i got no apple so... **crunches the guava**
Guavas>apples, in my opinion of course.
@@blvalverde yeah well... i fancy an apple after seeing paul's girls biting some juicy apples in the beginning of his vid...
This was such a great video. I like seeing stuff like this. You can tell the guys are genuine about asking Paul questions.
Paul, I admire your choice of compassion, kindness, and generosity, they are on the path toward enlightenment.
In my mind the devil is so clever. due to his age on the planet, and the time he has practicing on deconverting people. How are you able to resist the temptation. He even could have invented a religion. There are so many religions so it has to be that the devil made a religion, a false religion. but now comes the question. wich one(s).
Sinse the devil is super sneaky, i cannot tell anymore what religion was correct. and sinse god refuses to give evidense, and praying does not even work at a descent rate. i had to doubt my religion as well.
From there i learned so much about a lot of religions, and non of them seem correct, they all expect faith. Non of them can provide evidence of their god's existance.
From there i learned that every god is using magic, i have not seen magic ever. but i am again to trust a book. although Magic is by definition impossible, it is something that does not abide by the rules of reality and therefore impossible.
I was christian so my deconversion there is much greater but serves as a bases against all religions.
Moses talked to god on a mountain, so we looked on a mountain and there was no god.
The tower of babael was so high, god was afraid we would get to close and destroyed it. but now we have skyscrapers that are much higher.
God lived outside the firmament, well, we looked (rockets) and there is no firmament, and the earth is round.
Now people tell me he lives outside space time. wich is litterally impossible. Something with no time, cannot exist, Something withouth space is non existant.
So now i have 2 ways of where god(s) is impossible, Where is god, and Magic.
I am definitly not the smartest person in the world. But if i can figure this out myself, Why are there so many religions left.
I am not going to dispute most of what you said, I just take issue with one thing. Something can exist without spacetime, at that point though it is just pure energy, as far as we know. Our universe was most likely like this before the Big Bang. However, the only issue with God being outside of spacetime is that it would not even be a conscious being, it would be pure energy working according to the physics that are both known and unknown to us. That and how would exactly would an immaterial being not affected by time be able to interact with the universe?
You must be real. No self-respecting bot could spell so badly...
@@rationeextrema3776 Outside of space time the same issues with how matter exists would also affect energy. At least energy as we know it anyway.
Space time encompasses all that we consider natural, and thus anything outside that almost has to be defined as supernatural.
There is a possibility of something outside of spacetime conforming to some laws, that might be considered natural in some way. However, since that would be outside our definition of natural, that would again still be supernatural.
The question of how something outside our universe could interact with our universe is only possible to answer with knowledge of the properties of what exists outside. And that's a tall order.
@@stevewebber707 I agree, which is why I find the idea of a god absurd, as it makes many assumptions. Of course, there is a possibility one could exist, however, no evidence supports that idea.
Paul - absolutely excellent stuff and admire you hugely.
It's probably only my thing, but I prefer when you can narrate freely. I don't find the interviewers' questions all that insightful. However, your story is inspiring, and I'm glad to get so much of it in one bite!
Thank you very much for this.
Thanks for doing things this way and sharing them, too.
Hardcore atheist here, really enjoyed this conversation. Will go to Recovering Evangelicals site to congratulate them.
Very enlightening! Thank you Paul!
Okay, but almost an hour is not just a bite.
My church school library made the error of having a book by Isaac Asimov in it, and my parents made the error of letting me watch Nova on PBS.
The rest was just building on that foundation.
So helpful! I can relate in so many ways and feel less ostracized. Thanks Paul.
A wonderful discussion that provides some interesting points of view and paths on my current journey
This is such a unicorn convo! Thanks for sharing. I have hope that we can have more of these in the future.
I like the idea that I might not change anyone's mind, but I gladly plant seeds or water the ones already there!
Ok, I'm a little embarrassed by this, but I had no idea they were Christians until well after you left the discussion and I glanced at the title again. They just talked so respectfully, it was completely the opposite of every other Christian vs Atheist discussion I've ever heard. Thank you for having this conversation with them.