Secularism DEMOLISHED In Debate With Alex O'Connor

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 25 ноя 2024

Комментарии • 64

  • @S.D.323
    @S.D.323 6 дней назад +7

    If you're saying secularism is a bad thing do you mean the separation of church and state because if so would you rather live in America or Iran

    • @IndieThinker
      @IndieThinker  5 дней назад

      This channel is made with people like you in mind. Separation of church and state is a not a founding principle of America. It is an ahistorical idea from secularists based on a misquote of Jefferson and a fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment. I find more and more that people actually do not know what the first amendment says. They only know what they’ve been told it says. I’d encourage you to read it. I also touch on this in the video. Maybe you missed it.

    • @jessephillips8319
      @jessephillips8319 5 дней назад

      ​@@IndieThinkerActually the first Amendment was about the federal government. You have to look at the state constitution for what was permitted.
      That of course changes after the 14th amendment. Which then makes me wonder what you think would entail establishment.
      For example, requiring the display of the 10 commandment creates a broad recognition for the Christian religion.
      Then you have the side of allowing the display of the commandments at school. Can the school choose to or to prevent other religious text?
      I didn't get a sense that your channel covers these topics. So I do not feel like it is for someone like S.D.323

    • @S.D.323
      @S.D.323 5 дней назад +3

      @IndieThinker well if America isnt a secular country what is it it definitely isn't a theocracy

    • @JATION
      @JATION 5 дней назад +2

      @@IndieThinker You didn't answer the question.

    • @mitslev4043
      @mitslev4043 4 дня назад

      @@S.D.323 America is a federalist Republic. It is regulated by the people within the confines of certain principles later out in the constitution. The regulations that people impose can be secular of religious. They simply can not establish a state religion nor force others to believe in a religion or stop someone from worshiping as they please. Laws are made laws because people want them. For example wether or not abortion is banned will be because the amount of people who vote against it. Whether or not they vote against it for religious or secular reasons or no reason at all doesn't really matter to the law.

  • @gustavomartins7547
    @gustavomartins7547 5 дней назад +7

    I believe you watched that video a little more biased than you should
    I ended up agreeing almost 100% with Alex, since i'm an antheists, but no one was demolished there.
    Alex asked questions, Cliffe and Stuart answered what they could and were honest to say they don't know all the answers and besides all of that they believe the bible's "problems" are so much smaller than what Christ and provide to them.
    And that was it. It's a beautiful worldview the christians had and a worldview many atheists like me are valid for not accepting, since those problems are more difficult for us to accept, maybe because we don't have a relationship with God, maybe because God hasn't touched us yet, or maybe because God doesn't exist.
    We don't know.
    That's the phrase that summarizes that video. We don't know. None of us know. All we can do is try to understand and discuss what we think.
    Also, about the data on how important religion is for mental health, that's true, but it's also true that any religion could do that, from christianity, to judaism, to islamism, to budhism, to african religions, all of them can help with that.

    • @IndieThinker
      @IndieThinker  5 дней назад +1

      @@gustavomartins7547 maybe you favored Alex because of your bias. Sure, great convo but watch Alex, he’s been going to bat with people making him reconsider his views, like we all should be willing to do.

    • @gustavomartins7547
      @gustavomartins7547 5 дней назад +1

      ​@@IndieThinker "Maybe you favored Alex because of your bias"
      That's literally what i said. I favored Alex because i'm an atheist, but I don't think what Cliffe and Stuart said were necessarily wrong, just a little bit off with what I expected as an answer.
      And yeah, I love Alex way of living, he talks sincerely with christians and reconsider his views all the time, what we all should do.
      Still, that was not a "demolish" just two three people who have no idea what they are doing in this world trying to understand each other. And that's what religious debates/conversations should be.
      None of uf have a clue of what God is or what he wants or how the divine behaves, we are just trying to understand ourselves and understand what this world means.

    • @IndieThinker
      @IndieThinker  5 дней назад +1

      @ what I’m implying is I think it’s just you missing something. Christians do have something to offer more than conjecture, maybes, and good responses. Our message is not a religion but a real God that will reveal Himself to real seekers.

    • @gustavomartins7547
      @gustavomartins7547 5 дней назад +1

      @@IndieThinker
      I mean.
      Your message is not "the real God", since the real God is infinite and perfect and our language and intelect is finite and imperfect.
      So all you have to say is a representation of God, not the real God.
      As a christian you probably feel the real God and you feel his love and connection and empathy. But you cannot tell others about him, only your interpretation of him

    • @IndieThinker
      @IndieThinker  5 дней назад +1

      @@gustavomartins7547 typing a lot may allow you to avoid what I just set before you before but it isn't honest. I made a large moral and empirical claim about the God I believe in that you can test yourself. I placed the ball in your court to see if you're actually interested in pursuing the truth of that claim. Are you?

  • @chrishyde5903
    @chrishyde5903 5 дней назад

    Would you apply the same moral judgment to the animal sacrifices of the Aztecs and the ancient Israelites, or is there a valid distinction between the two?

  • @resh6701
    @resh6701 6 дней назад +3

    14:15 it's not 60% of the people it's 60% of the studies...

  • @lukaswimmer885
    @lukaswimmer885 6 дней назад +20

    average theist thinking they won a debate 💀

    • @IndieThinker
      @IndieThinker  6 дней назад +5

      Won the debate and hopefully burying a broken ideology.

    • @Theo_Skeptomai
      @Theo_Skeptomai 6 дней назад +3

      ​@IndieThinker Are you stating that the position of atheism - to suspend any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented - is an _ideology?_

    • @UpliftedKeys
      @UpliftedKeys 5 дней назад

      @@lukaswimmer885 average atheist thinking they won a debate 🤡

    • @neonnnn110
      @neonnnn110 5 дней назад

      Literally everything is an ideology.

    • @JediMasterEzio
      @JediMasterEzio 5 дней назад +1

      @@neonnnn110 literally, no it's not...

  • @danielarnaudov6256
    @danielarnaudov6256 6 дней назад +9

    I don’t mean to be rude, but you, and Stuart Knechtle, seem to grossly mischaracterize secularism as a philosophy. A “secularist” as you put it, doesn’t advocate for the abolition of religion from everyday life. Secularism as it relates to states and institutions simply omits explicit affiliation with religion. The United States, for example, is a secular country because it separates church and government / rule of law. Public schools, similarly, are secular because they don’t advocate any particular religion and don’t preach any particular religious text in their curriculum. A "secularist" is simple an individual who supports these principles. Those who believe religion has no place in society and, even more radically, believe religion should be actively censored, denigrated, or made criminal, are certainly not secular. The USSR, for example, was not a secular state. It actively persecuted people who practiced religion, thereby making religion part of its political and legal affairs. Secularism actually has very little to do with what you personally believe about the truthfulness of God's existence. You can be a very devout Christian and still be pro-secularization. Those aren’t contradictory beliefs. Likewise, you can be an atheist and be anti-secularization, in which case you presumably believe certain religions should be suppressed and perhaps even criminalized while others are incorporated into our institutions in some explicit and meaningful way. One can imagine a "non-secular christian atheist" who believes Christianity is fundamentally good and should be integrated into government but isn't actually convinced of Christianity's truth claims. Such individuals are rare but certainly do exist and do so without internal contradiction. That person is both an atheist and non-secular. Ultimately, I think the way you and Stuart conceptualize of secularism is simply not very useful. That being said, it was a good video, you made some thought-provoking points and I’m curious how you would respond to this…

  • @jessephillips8319
    @jessephillips8319 6 дней назад +1

    I don't see how you attacked secularism in this video.
    At no point did you call for Christianity to be the national religion. You never declare church service to be attended. At no point did you request the outlaw of other religious symbols.
    Most importantly you never advocated the legalization of all killing because God said murder was sin and you want to eradicate sin from our world.

    • @Theo_Skeptomai
      @Theo_Skeptomai 6 дней назад

      @@jessephillips8319 ?!?

    • @jessephillips8319
      @jessephillips8319 6 дней назад

      @@Theo_Skeptomai Are you questioning your excitement for your question.
      Don't know if you need to be excited, but feel free to ask.

  • @matteozinho
    @matteozinho 6 дней назад +9

    Nice copium

    • @IndieThinker
      @IndieThinker  6 дней назад +2

      According to those Harvard studies it’s that and much more. The real cope is ignoring all the data to make a cheap quip.

    • @SlimeSlayzMinecraftnMore
      @SlimeSlayzMinecraftnMore 5 дней назад

      @@IndieThinkeryeah data can also show prayer helps people recover faster but only when they KNOW they are being prayed for. Citing one study and failing to consider lots of parts of cause and effect is not the own you think it is

    • @IndieThinker
      @IndieThinker  5 дней назад

      @ 444 qualitative studies is kind of a big own. But it isn’t about owing. That’s immature. It’s about being honest and seeking truth.