You obviously don't know Justin's beliefs and he isn't the progressive Christian you think he is : having nonfundamental interpretations doesn't mean you can't believe Adam and Eve weren't authentic people or the YEC is the only right interpretation and you're H.sexually is still not acceptable in nonfundamental Evangelical circles : only the most progressive and liberal churches accept H.sexuals. Ham and Hovind R the ignorant fundamentals that many intelligent and Christian University trained Christians would reject : You obviously have read people like Dr.Michael S.Heiser PhD in O.T languages. Dr Hugh Ross astrophysicist. Dr Joel Duff . Dr. David Faik Egyptologist Dr. William Lane Craig.

You're so right. Most western Christians have no idea how this new fundamentalism is affecting communities outside the west, especially in Africa. Every week i hear the saddest stories of people caught up in literal cults, burned to death and exploited and the missionaries responsible have no care for the people whose lives they've ruined after they fuck off back to the west.

Be careful, to them you are a heretic and fair game 🥺

This comment it based and nuance pulled, bump

This is such an important point. The Christianity that's growing, even in the USA, is a fire and brimstone fundamentalism untethered from philosophy or historical perspective. Even the Catholic Church is being overrun by evangelicalism. Its marriage to authoritarian government is a necessary element for it's survival, not an accidental mistake as most Christians want to believe.

Well said.

agree and disagree. I would actually separate "new atheism" and just "atheism" as two different things. I think the former speaks more to a culture that made atheism sexy, mainstream and edgy. I do think that has now past and "new atheism" is pretty much dead but that's not to say atheism has diminished, its just not being touted with the same glory and cultural influence it once had. In these past few years there has been a strong rise in right wing cultural sentiments which comes hand in hand with religious belief, and guys like Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate or Daily Wire are flying the religious flag with that same edginess and glory that New atheism once had, making it more culturally attractive. To me though its all just a reactionary movement against modern ideals, western cultural shifts and identity, rather than the actual teachings, rituals and practices somehow demonstrating new merit, which is why it will eventually die down. That's just my perception anyway.

@@sum8601 agreed. I think we need to distinguish between 'new atheism', which was a specific movement in the mid to late noughties (though some have rejected the categorisation) with just a general lack of belief. In regard to that specific movement, I think Brierly has some decent points.

Thank you for your insightful and well made comments. I'm an atheist also a Humanist. Humanism provides community, being good without god is true altruism. Religions thrive in adversity. The goal of eternal life in return for dogmatically controlled behaviour, replaces empathy with obedience. Religion is clearly the early (worst) efforts of humanity to create community, Humanism is a better.

So why didn't people turn to the good news of atheism in the pandemic - why did they 'pick-up the rosaries' as you say? Why not pick up the hope, peace and truth that atheism brings??

From the most recent polls I've seen, religious adherence has shifted downward significantly in the past decade alone. I can understand contemporary atheists examining Christian theology as a humanistic anthropological reality of life on Earth... but I'm not sure that translates to "Rebirth" as he argues. There's also no guarantee that children raised in a religious household will remain religious in adulthood.

@@rabd3721It’s actually not only the Christian birth rate. It’s also the Muslim birth rate. While being born to a religious family doesn’t mean you’ll be religious, it does vastly increase the probability and is the most associated aspect of someone you could know the predict their religion.

@@rabd3721 Take a look at the countries with the highest birthrates and look at the religion relationship: Somalia is a Muslim state and prohibits conversion. Angola is described as "overwhelming Christian" Now let's look at the countries with the lowest birthrates and the relationship with religion. Hong Kong has over 50% with no religion and 10% total Muslim/Christian South Korea has over 60% with no religion

@@rabd3721 The increase in percentage of religious individuals is directly connected to birthrates of countries where religion is central to that country. Religion hasn't become any more convincing. Many people in the modern world have decided to focus on their own lives and not procreating. However, religious individuals differ in that they still see the need to procreate since many religions teach to do this. This is literally how religions have survived. Think of a religion like a nation. If the nation doesn't have a high enough birthrate, it goes away. Religions literally work the same way. The biggest way to get people in the religion is to raise someone in the religion.

@@malirk I understand, you're talking about non-Western countries. My focus is on nations who have prospered/progressed enough to achieve the highest benchmarks of human rights and privileges. When human beings have the liberty to be themselves, you end up with dwindling religious faith. Many "religious" countries who mandate religious belief are authoritarian and fascist. I'm not particularly impressed with religious adherence in these countries, because it appears to be under threat of criminal liability.

@@NinjaJay_Arashikage I hope you realize this was a tongue in cheek example and not something intended to have teeth to exemplify his point. Odd you took this personally enough to make a jab at Alex's physique as if he was taking an antagonistic position against weightlighting. In fact, I find the accusation Alex is "wrong" amusing and possibly ironic since it seems to me you don't understand what he would even be wrong about [in original context]. Anyhoot, back to my superior weighted calisthenics routine ;)

@@zacharyshort384 ml

Considering that comment and the relationship between Christianity and science, I don't think you can say so dismissably that science didn't exist yet to refute the religious thinking to cut the two apart. The relationship is closer than that. Before Christianity religion was preoccupied with the creation of victims to appease the gods, the rituals of sacrifice, both animal and human, existed everywhere in all societies and cultures but it is within the Christian world view that we all of a sudden gained the ability to distinguish an innocent victim which we now refer to as a scapegoat. Before Christianity there was no such thing and the concept opened our minds to forms of frivolous blaming and violence which were ultimately recognised as ineffectual and revealed something very ugly about our behaviour towards our fellow community. It is in this context that it can be said that we did not stop burning witches because of science, we invented science because we stopped burning witches, which is a huge achievement on the part of society which was operating within the moral landscape of the Christian faith.

@@chadh9457 Yep, plus Christianity instilled the value of truth seeking, and freedom of speech (and therefore thought). The idea that all humans are created in the image of God meant they wouldn't be executed for the wrong beliefs, unlike in the Roman Empire. And scientists saw studying the universe as a way to worship the creator of it. It's not safe to assume that any pagan culture or any different religious culture would have figured out the scientific method. We can look to the Islamic world and compare the fruits there, for example. By the way, I'm sensing some Rene Girard influence in your comment. I loved his reflections too lol.

but do you think Alex missed the point that science in the main wasn't birthed in non christian cultures. It was the christian worldview, that reality is constant and the universe had a beginning and is moving to an end rather than say the cyclical worldview of buddhism or hinduism that rendered reality amenable to the scientific method.

Ya, you're default position of nonintelligence creating the Universe is the bottom line of Atheistism: it's the most irrational thinking and totally illogical. That's why!

You mean "evolution has been observed just not when it's happening."- Dawkins. Or how about. "Universes are free! Maybe two bubbles hit each other!"-astrophysicist atheist. Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be Saved! Read John. Get a King James Bible and believe.

@@MichaelAChristian1 - Soooo… I guess if you cherry pick two partial quotes, robbed of their context, and ignore the hundreds of hours of additional conversations with hundreds of other atheists and non-Christians over the last nearly two decades, then you can feebly justify your desired conclusions about atheism, I guess?

@@TestMeatDollSteak “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion-a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint-and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it-the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."- Michael Ruse. If they hear NOT Moses and the prophets neither will they hear though one rose from the dead. Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be Saved! Jesus Christ loves you! Read John. Get a King James Bible and believe.

​@@MichaelAChristian1And yet I can't think of anyone who advances it the way Ruse describes. Curious!

It's only because they've both studied each others subjects properly Previously, the new atheists simply shot their mouth off despite not knowing the first thing about religious belief and religious arguments and religious scholars which never lead to good discussions, only rhetoric. I think time has shown that it was primarily a reaction to 9/11 rather than any intellectual rigour. Christopher Hitchens was the prime example of this. People loved watching him but never learned anything from his shows. Alex o conner has studied and has a degree in theology. I think every so called atheist should have atleast studied religion to that level before you should be allowed to comment or engage in a public debate with it.

​​​@@pierzing.glint1sh76Sorry my friend, but if you think I need a degree before I'm allowed to disagree with you, I also require a degree to be converted by you. I will stop being an openly uneducated anti-theist when it is only doctoral Christians who can preach and they can only preach to those with doctorates.

@@avisian8063 a degree in what ? Atheism ??? Hahaha don't joke about Anyway that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that ur opinion on a subject is worthless (to somebody whos from that field) unless u actually know what your talking about Eg U can give ur opinion on a soccer team to me I'll take it, but whatever u say will be worthless to that soccer teams manager, bcoz they actually know something about the subject.

I doubt very much if our morality would be the same today if it werent for Christian tradition. Even today, non christian nations have very different morals from christian ones. And countries that used to be christian but pandering to the woke ideology is very very different from christian countries like the Philippines, Hungary etc.

@@AthanaSus The age of reason was far more impactful than Christianity.

@@AthanaSus I am not saying Christianity has not had an influence on the way we live our lives today. All the religions/ideologies of the past have influenced the way we think and live our lives today. I am simply stating Christianity is not solely responsible for “good morals”’ There are many other factors and forces at work influencing our morality, yet when I here Christians defend Christianity it’s as if they can’t imagine how a human being can arrive at the conclusion of living a “morally decent” life without “Judea Christian values”. I think this is a very shallow and narrow minded view of the matter at hand.

I think it has more to do with the level of "good"

Religions definitely had their uses, especially in the past. I'm sure they were quite good for promulgating these ideas in an age before very much print. But to give them credit for creating our founding our morality in any way is laughable.

These people are misinformed. They have this ahistorical view that Christianity just fell from the sky. Christianity was influenced by its surroundings. You find all the same morals in ancient Near Eastern Wisdom texts.

Christianity borrows many of its moral and ethical assertions from older cultures and religions.

@@_____case it's words like "borrows" or "steals from" that I am objecting to. It implies that there is an ability to own/monopolize facts about reality

​@@He.knows.nothing"MyCulture Inc. Trade marked. All rights reserved. Patented. Do not redistribute or pirate MyCulture without implicit consent." 😂😂😂

And even *if* there was a case to be made for this argument, the facts themselves are that "christian" scientists were usually christian either because (like Alex said) there wasn't a reasonable alternative yet, or they were christians because otherwise they would be lynched by the church. Most things Christians credit to Christianity were things they made all manner of efforts to eliminate before pretending to have championed all along (e.g. gay marriage). It's historical revisionism at its most insidious.

There is no equality under god; bible nor quran. All state that the female is inferior to men. Any religious nut that claims otherwise is cherry picking from his own supposed "holy book".

As an atheist, I suspect he might point to where Jesus talks about the greatest, and second greatest commandments. I think Justin is very good at finding a reason to think what he wants to think. He could teach courses on post hoc rationalisation.

100% agree , Christianity does teach compassion and charity , but I'm pressed to find anything in scripture promoting equality ,freedom, or self determination if anything the opposite

Read Historian Tom Holland's work in dominion. He clearly portrays Christian influence in values of the west being thoughly Christian in origin

@@faustzxc Generally, the benefits of organized religion is compliance and control. Free thinking and self determination could lead to atheisms or at least questioning doctrine.

I'm a 69 yr. old Christian believer in Florida ( tomorrow's my birthday, I turn 70 ! ) Anyhow I appreciate your comments. I don't feel qualified to respond to the observation that Christianity is growing. That's because I've been kind of a "Christian hermit" the last 16 years for heath reasons. Anyhow... it's still important to ponder things such as the existence of God and the ultimate meaning to life. Respectfully.

​@@johnbrzykcy3076 The problem with religion is the innate control, abuse and violence. And that it makes good people do bad things.

@@johnbrzykcy3076 There is no meaning to life. It is the result of natural processes. The wind blows sand into dunes. There is no meaning to dunes.

​@@johnbrzykcy3076 What a wholesome interaction

​@@johnbrzykcy3076 Why do you think its important to ponder about that which cannot be proven or even indicated to exist? Do you also ponder frequently on vampires and ghosts? I mean, most people in life ponder about death itself, which I equate to a more fair similarity than whichever god. As people who fear death are more likely to fill in those gaps and become religious in the first place.

what is your favourite greek god?

@@srrysdrthu6716 Hermes. Messenger of the gods and the patron of thieves but truth be told I've always loved the demi-gods more. Achilles is my all time favorite.

@@SkinnyGreekGod cool :D

Christianity was in Africa before it was in Europe

Wouldn’t they turn in their graves to know what Africans did to Africans. Africans are the worst in this they always blame whites for slavery even though it was started by Africans and banned by whites.

I think the openness with which religion was being debunked by these people is amazing in itself because in many parts of the world it is illegal or majorly socially shunned to have these kinds of conversations.

Hold my beer. "New-neo Catholic" and "Post-Sputtering Protestant". No clue what either means, but I am ready to label any and all cherry picking christian strangers I meet with these newfound terms. 😂

​@@MrYellyThe fact that this is exactly how the term new atheism was created lmao

​@@MrYellywhat would you consider "cherry picking"?

Actually, I think it's that none of those writers are respected as philosophers by anybody outside of a particular brand of atheist. Dennet left religious polemic and went back to his actual field, nobody I know--religious or secular--takes Dawkins seriously as a philosopher. Hitchens was only ever the hero of angry teenage / early 20s atheists and even Alex has made videos subject Hitchens' logic to scrutiny and finding it wanting (as did serious philosophers back when Hitch was making the arguments). That doesn't take away that Hitch was wildly entertaining, though, and was better with his social/political commentary (the fields where he made his actual reputation). And finally, Harris has fallen into irrelevance as his brand of atheist has led him into Islamophobic, even genocidal tirades. One can even detect outright misanthropy in Harris's tones, and Chomsky really put a dent in any view of Harris as a particularly informed or enlightened commentator. About me: DPhil in Philosophy from Oxford.

I mirror your sentiment from the opposite perspective. I’m an atheist who thoroughly enjoys Alex’s channel for the same reasons. He never seems interested in scoring points or appearing the victor, more so getting to the real meat of the issue in a civilised manner.

@@Sic-Semper-Tyranniss I'm glad we get to enjoy it together without loading debate ammo immediately. Cheers!

Saved? From what? S'il te plaît réponds-moi en français.

Oh stop it. You know what I mean.

@@cachinnation448 well, not really actually, from a live without belief?

@@cachinnation448 No we do not know what you mean. We know some typicalochristian made claims. But that is what you belief. What you believe in does not transcribe to knowledge. It means we know what you claim to believe but not what you really mean as we do not experience your belief on our own terms.

God bless you, and welcome home ❤@@cachinnation448

Yup. I dont think I can sit through another "interview" like this. Terribly frustrating to see hateful nonsense to be so readily tolerated.

It is by pure arrogance to assume another persons good graces to be your own. As if envy is a merit, or lacking as a quality. Religion is a cruel joke played upon children.

I'd argue, as a Christian who studied theology, that so-called moral Christian values were never a "moral consensus" anywhere in the world. And certainly not in any European country. Influences came from basically everywhere. Greek philosophy, Islam, the enlightenment. Heck, just today I talked with my wife about how Marquis de Sade had an influence on criminal law with his theory that murder because of lust, rage, etc should be treated differently from cold blooded murder. And that's exactly what we see in criminal law. And it's based on de Sade of all people. He also made a very good argument for the relativity of all moral values.

@@MrSeedi76 I agree with you totally.

Atheism hasn't won. It's not even a worldview. It's a lack of one. Fundamentalism has lost to Science because it refused to grow and adapt.

​@@BaA-zz4pqWhere are you from? What are you forced to do in the mosque?

Germany isn't the world : atheistism hasn't won anything as it's a minority all over the world!

​@@sabar2453Forced to glorify a pedo prophet and an inhumane scam of a religion.

@@BaA-zz4pq You have my sympathy and understanding. I once had to act like that in a super-Christian society.

No offence, but why would you want it to be true. Even without the risk of eternal damnation everlasting life sounds like a monkey's paw wish that is bound to backfire.

@@bdnnijs192 When everyone you love has made it their their entire identity and purpose in life, not being on the same page creates a painful rift. That's really the crux of why I wanted it to be true in my young adult years.

If you were talking about some other youtuber's opinion, then you could say, "Well, I think..." But we are talking about the ETERNAL, ALL-POWERFUL, CREATOR of the universe. Who says, "Can the gods of the other nations (religions) tell you the future? No! They are mere lifeless idols." But I..." and then He proceeds to give us over one thousand prophecies in the Bible to demonstrate that God's word can be trusted. He also adds over one hundred scientific facts in scripture in all fields of science that were written down, thousands of years BEFORE the great scientists of the world would discover them. For example, up to a few hundred years ago surgeons used to wash their hands in basins of water, until they discovered it became a bowl of germs. They started using running water. The Bible instructed the use of running water thousands of years earlier. Soldiers used to die from disease, until they finally figured out to do their toilet business outside the camp. The Bible thousands of years before this, instructed the Israeli soldiers to take a small shovel outside the camp and bury their waste. Doctors used to drain blood (blood-letting) from sick patients, but thousands of years ago the Bible said, the life is in the blood. It wasn't until a couple hundred years ago, that oceanographers discovered mountains rising off the ocean floor, but the Bible thousands of years ago spoke of these mountains. The Bible says, "It is God who spreads out the stars." Astrophysicists now say the very fabric of space is spreading out taking the galaxies along for the ride. Up until a about five hundred years ago, astronomers thought there was about 4,000-5,000 stars. But the Bible in Genesis compares the number of stars to the grains of sand along the seashore. Astronomers now say there are at least twice as many stars as sand on all the beaches of the world. Albert Einstein in his paper on relativity stated that matter, energy, space and time itself all had a beginning. But thousands of years earlier in Genesis chapter one the Bible says, "In the beginning (a reference to time having a beginning) God created the earth (matter) the heavens (space) and said let there be light (energy). I don't want to make this so long people won't read it, but you can go any Christian bookstore and find books on the hundreds and hundreds of fulfilled prophecies, in the Bible. There were 256 totally fulfilled prophecies concerning the birth, life, ministry, and death of Christ alone. So, God in HIS word has told of science thousands of years in advance of it being discovered by the great scientific minds of the world, He has spoken prophetic utterances that have come true, over and over again, in a literal, not metaphorical sense, again, to demonstrate His authority. And what is your authority? Why should we believe you? You say things like, "Why didn't God do this or that. And, I FEEL like He should have done it this way, or that way." Look, if I decided someone should die and then carried that out, I would be a murderer fit for jail or execution. BUT, if God decides a person has come to the end of his days, He is God, we are His creation. This is His world, His universe. He is sovereign. Look, it's a great deal; surrender to HIs only means of forgiving our sins and reconciling ourselves to HIM, Christ dying on the cross, and reap eternal life, eternal peace, eternal health, and eternal joy. OR reject His offer of pardon and receive your just punishment. I choose Jesus Christ.

@Mike-qt7jp I've spent decades searching out the kinds of claims you are making here, and I there always end up being too many holes, paradoxes, and logical fallacies to the claims. You can assert the claims with as much confidence as you want, but that doesn't make them true. There are too many conflicting ideas within the canonical books for them to be inspired by a perfect god. No matter what interpretational methodology you choose, you will always end up with a puzzle missing pieces and extra pieces that don't fit.

@@Mike-qt7jp Cooly story bro 🤡

@@_hs.edjw-._du Cool. Those are definitely words.

Romanes Eunt Domus

I like to think we arrived at what liberal social value we have (or the few still left in some cases like the US), despite Christianity trying to hold us back, not because of it!

@@Leszek.Rzepecki YES!! They seem to blank out ever Christian atrocity and the iron boot they used to keep women as second class citizens

Compassion™️

They won't come on if he pushes back at all

sad to see alex go the way of access journalism :/

I think he does a reasonably good job of formulating counter-arguments through questions. Remember, they're interviews, not debates. I would also argue that most people here are already more than familiar/in sync with Alex's arguments and views, and have the tools to dismantle those absurd claims by ourselves. The only thing to be gained from it actually happening on camera would be a sort of dialectic bloodthirst, what's the point?

@@CosmicTeapot There';s a nice middle ground between being completely passive and engaging in some bloodthirsty debate. I'm just saying Alex could push back more, especially against the on the face of it flat-out ridiculous claims that his Christian guests often make.

​​@@gerhitchmanI'm more concerned with the lack of pushback he showed against some of the more right wing guests he had recently. Religion is on the decline. Nationalism, racism, homophobia is on the rise. That's where the true battle waits. Of course when dealing with Christian nationalism you can battle both at the same time. But they don't necessarily go hand in hand.

I agree with the second part of your remark, but not so sure about the first: there's a limit to the amount of smarm one can endure - and giving a platform to gun-toting, misogynistic US evangelicals with no mention of their extremism is odd behaviour for supposed decency.

No it wasn’t.

Bingo!

Most Christians are tired too. I think the both groups should just not try to convince the other side of anything.

True, there is a limit to the number of times you can push the atheist message again and again. Richard Dawkins is still doing this by repeating old video clips and some new ones, and full videos, because he feels very passionately about it! Justin Brierley saying that atheists don't seem to care anymore, and his talking of a rebirth of a belief in God is utter rubbish. I haven't heard any famous atheists saying they have seen the light and are bowing down to god or a religion, or anything like that because it won't happen. they are too intelligent. Here is Richard Dawkins' latest short video clip! kzfaq.info8W7I3_ss9V0?feature=shared

Christianity has so many holes in it that arguments for me it are a non-starter. I think it's basically infinitely easier to argue that religion is wrong than it is that it's correct because of that. It's a huge uphill battle for apologists if you're trying to use reason. You basically have to throw away all of science to argue Christianity is true. The same goes for the others. I am definitely tired of apologists who use tired arguments, as if they haven't heard any of the counterarguments of the last half-century. I think these people are better off to argue that they believe a god exists but that the religious doctrine is extremely faulty, inconsistent, and proven false in some cases. Basically arguing that "we still don't understand how the universe came to be". You lose a lot of baggage when cutting out religious doctrine.

​@@daniel-panek That's not the whole picture, IMHO. I was and remained a Christian for the first 30 years of my life because until then I had never encountered serious objections to my faith. I have listened to many of the various Dawkins, Hitches, Onfray... I've always found the vast majority of their claims very weak and easily demolishable, if not false, especially when they deal with the Bible or with Ethics. It was only when I learned enough about behavioural biology, neuroscience, ethology and astrophysics, only then my faith was dismantled. But I had to dig an awful lot, and I reached that results only because of my incredible curiosity and love for the Truth. My biology professor in high school taught me nothing interesting about science, so I'm actually more angry with him than with the priests that sustained my faith during my adolescence. All these best-sellers Atheist often cause more damages to the Atheist cause than the religion apologists. For example if you look at the thesis of Bart Ehrman, he seems to demolish some New Testament truths, until you realise the embarrassing quantity of cherry picking and omissions in his dissertations. Is he giving a good service to the anti-religious cause?

Concise and on point analysis. I wonder what you have to say on semi-religious "spiritual" people becoming almost brainwashed by old conspiracy theories, since Alex and other atheists seem to completely ignore this.

brierly is a two faced pond scum, spend a few minutes listening to him and his apologist mates with no atheists around, all they do is atheist bash.

And Alex accepted all the chauvinistic garbage wholesale, not s lick of pushback.

I would push back on the idea that christian morality is based on compassion. The majority of the Bible focuses more on obedience.

The thing is, Justin isn't doing this on his own - there are countless non-religious historians and sociologists who are making the same point. Quite strongly, in fact.

How do you mean?

A committed Christian can never be open to changing their mind. They can only, as Justin says, find some passages challenging, whilst still believing them as the word of God

​@@paulwellings-longmore1012the word of God is Jesus, not the Bible. That claim in itself is fundamentalist. And I only see these types of strawman debates honestly.

@@MrSeedi76 are you able to expand on this a little please? Who are the strawmen and who are the real men?

the problem with religists is they have god listening to every conversation they have and they are petrified of hell, whether they admit it or not, if you believed in hell you'd be wetting your pants at the thought of annoying god, so, they can't be trusted, they would lie, cheat, steal, sacrifice a family member rather than annoy god - never trust a christian. it wasn't catholics stopped the inquisition.

​​@@MrSeedi76"The word of God is Jesus not the bible." How do you know this is true? You're making a claim with no evidence to back it up. At best you have a person who may have been a loose representation of Jesus with possibly a different name who did exist and get crucified. The evidence for that isn't very good. But let's assume this person did exist. We still have no good evidence to believe he performed supernatural acts and was what the bible claims. That's a huge leap to make.

Cited frank turek as having "an interesting argument". Lol.

@@uninspired3583 Yea. He's a perfect example of a person who will always believe, because he just wants to. Arguments don't matter and the books are just a cash printers for him, not actual attempts to fight for his believes.

he doesn't care as long as he can feel superior, if i;m "new atheist" he's "new christian" - subs, likes, books sales, patrons, ZERO interest in what jesus was about. brierly is LOATHSOME.

That's a lot of religious apologists: virtually all have arguments that have been debunked or strongly counter-argued. Some of them have been crushed literally decades ago.

This isn't a debate, and he does have good arguments, in a conversational level atleast, and this video isn't titled "Justin's argument for belief in God" is it?

Indeed, he may have hosted many non-believers, but he doesn't appear to have actually listened to anything they said.

@@EnglishMike never trust a christian, especially an apologist, two faced dog poop IMHO.

​@@EnglishMikeHe listens carefully with a tightly closed mind.

Good point!

I have no desire to surrender my "logic and integrity.". It may work for some people but I tend to question things. Respectfully...

@@johnbrzykcy3076 I think you might be utterly missing the point that I'm making here John. I'm not giving any advices here to you personally or anyone else. I'm just giving an example of how one could be lead to take the wrong path out of sheer despair. Respectfully.

Exactly what I was thinking. And they do it better in Scandinavia as well.

@@Besthinktwice I would say that general prosperity and good living conditions allow societies the luxury of working to increase equality for it's citizens. It's hard to care about e.g. trans rights when you're in a coal mine for 16 hours a day making peanuts. Modern Japan would seem to be consistent with this hypothesis. On the other hand, Brierly seems happy to just assert that it's "because of Christianity" and leave it at that =/

I don't understand your comment. Scandinavia was (in some form) influenced by Christian values for last 1000 years. You need to back to Vikings and before that when violence, raping, pillaging and slavery was the norm for non-Christian Scandinavia.

@@josipkrnjic279 Read a book dude, you're fabricating shit. "Pagan" (pre-Christian) values were not at all like that.

Hi Paul!

So it is about changing your mind after all.

@@niemand7811 Which is the literal definition of "repent".

Sure it is a subtle thing, but we may say that the whole cultural and intellectual environment that Christianity created during the centuries posed the bases (or some of the bases) for our modern conception of social and moral issues like equality etc., the core of that being the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus Christ. This remains valid even if Jesus was not God and did not resurrected: his moral message was truly remarkable. You say "the least 200 years"... well, one of the problems in the Middle Ages was that girls of noble families were often forced to get married at a very young age for the political purposes of their families. Who opposed that, saying the a girl should get married at least only when she can express a conscious consent? Some bishops. Feminists ante litteram? Who knows... History is a complex thing, the influences of the current culture can be traced back in the centuries, but at the same time, every époque has its own problems, issues and quirks: equality was never an issue (not as we define it nowadays) before 200 years ago, so how do you expect the Church to fight for it?

Yes, I had the same thought exactly

Neither Islam or Christianity has a coherent argument that would exclude one from the other. Hell, they cant reasonably exclude any form of monotheism from their own nonsense without any cherry picking.

@@rp-ot6ov Good question! I think that it's possible that we humans, with our tiny material bodies and brains, can't have a handle on the everything that's in/around/outside the cosmos. It's not likely (which is the atheist in the little-a atheist) that a god or something that is remotely like a god exists, but it is likely that there's more to the cosmos than we can ever know. Also, what is God? A human like God with a form and a will? Haha nope! But expanding the definition includes concepts like matter-from-consciousness, Brahman, etc. So no, such a "god" isn't gonna come down and say anything 😆

@@rp-ot6ov pretty simple. There might be a being out there that is responsible for our creation and that we would label as a "god" but no one knows what its actual deal is so all these religious interpretations are man-made nonsense. Not something I personally believe but it feels perfectly plausible.

​@@ZangelinBigfoot and aliens are plausible. More so than "that one exact christian god". Other than that we can float around in the realms of deism or agnosticism, or simply accept that there is no evidence for a god, by which no differentiation would be necessary.

It's the shame what they're doing to Hitch, when you have clowns like Michael Knowles going on his podcast to "debate" a dead man.

The response to the atheists attacks on Christianity has grown and had to improve on our defense of Christianity. Also with the liberal consensus of secular Biblical Scholarship by atheists and exChristians in their attack specifically on the Bible and their attempted redaction of many interpretations has a large influence on secular society from liberal Religious studies programs on trying to debunk the Bible as only a man-made literature without any Divine authority.

I am one of them. Christopher hitches was wrong.

I just call it "Talking ill about the dead", which is most definitely a religious hobby. At least pick a guy who is still alive to rebute your idiotic nonsense. All it shows me is that even something as rigid as religion, can still degenerate into moral bankrupcy.

​@@MohitKumar-jf8lzHow?

Christianity's influence on society weakened to the degree that most prominent atheists are now concentrating on other issues! it must mean that christianity is winning!!!!!!!

Agreed. I dont think I can handle sitting through another hour of sheer nonsensical fallacies with Alex nodding as if any of it has any merit. There is a danger and risk in offering your platform to harmful individuals; one I would not be willing to support or condone as readily or passively as this.

Justin, bless him, is a bit too 'happy clappy' but means well.

@@iainrae6159 Yeah, I think he’s trying to be honest, but so much of what he says is nonsense.

He could give a master class in post hoc rationalisation

He’s really passive aggressive.

You guys were not affected at all by the intellectual arrogance and nievete of Dawkins. BTW Dawkins was the laughing stock of the academic world. It was only the popularist idea added to peoples general desire to blame God for their problems that gave him a platform - especially when God doesnt exist? How dare anyone be weak and nice like Julian - it doesnt fit into our dog eat dog NO MORALITY worldview. Pah

Can you do me a solid and define these words for me, and describe in what way you set them apart from one another? "New Atheism" "Strong Atheism" "Weak Atheism" "Firebrand Atheism" "Non religious" "Nones" Because to me, it seems like a very fanfic type of pokemon naming from a religious perspective, to be honest. You gave sort of a definition of "nones", but are they not already defined as simply cherry pickers? Weird and confusing, to say the least.

@@MrYelly The differences between the above are crucial, and are marking big issues in the changing religious landscape. Nones are not cherry pickers, they are people who have left the organized religions and may or may not be convinced of the existence of a god or gods. Non-religious are exactly that: people who don't have a place for religion in their life. They usually believe that no god or gods exist, but will not study the subject or engage in discussions with anyone on the subject. Weak atheists, also called generically agnostics by some, usually take a stand saying that they believe no gods exist, but consider the matter unprovable or unknowable. All of the categories above are similar in the position of mostly not engaging with or against any religious organization or claim. On the other hand, firebrand atheists, strong atheists, new atheists, anti-theists, and atheists+, to name a few, are actively engaging against all of the organized religions, and against all religious claims. They will protest, they will actively make the case that religious people are wrong, and some will make the case that religion is intimately linked with many kinds of evil. The group that you did not mention and is arguably the most important is the secularists, or people working for the separation of church and state. You might be right in saying that some of the above are almost identical, but it would be a historical mistake to put them all in the same bag.

@@MrYelly PS. There are cherry pickers in every religion and every religious organization and every atheist group. There are Jews who eat pork, and Catholics that believe that a sacramental wafer is just bread, and strong atheists that believe in ghosts. There are even Bible literalists who believe that Noah's Ark did not literally exist. Thank God, or the Cosmos, all of us human beings are cherry pickers.

As a christian Peterson is a fraud

Traditionally, they would have said that the ruling dynasty had lost the Mandate of Heaven and the people therefore had the right to rebel.

Why do you believe in god?

That is false at least in the west.

@@mevan883 meh, I don't know the statistics well enough but it seems that the vast majority of churchgoers in the last few decades have been the much older population, rather than younger people, despite the fact that the US has plenty of young people who could be going to church. This seems to suggest that the church will die out assuming the younger generations dont start going to church again

It's even more basic than that. Christianity is growing fastest where the population is growing the fastest. The dirty little secret about Christianity is that somewhere around 98-99% of all Christians were born and raised in a Christian family and/or community. By comparison, virtually nobody is converting from a different faith religion. It's all inherited. Even the vast majority of "born-again" believers were raised as Christians and merely strayed for a few years before returning.

exactly.. all the future predictions of growth of x or y religion completely ignores the reason that religion crashed in the west. Take away the desperation of people and they will find less use for religion.

A darker part of this is that, in many of these developing countries, atheism, secularism, liberal views, etc. are often described as a means of cultural colonialism on the part of developed nations. Opting for traditional views (even if these are actually the views the West held when it was at its most predatory) is considered the means of resisting the colonization efforts of the developed world.

Thank you man.

Agreed. Wish that Justins numerous fallacies would have been adressed.

Far too many of Justin's baseless assertions were allowed to go unchallenged.

The radical right is increasingly populated by non-believers too. Peter Boghossian is rethinking his hostility to Christianity only because he realizes that the Christian right are important allies in the politically driven culture war that's going on in the US. Progressives are the common enemy.

You don’t have to be certain a God doesn’t exist to be described as an atheist, you just have to not be convinced that one does.

Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God! Read John. Get a King James Bible and believe.

You're asking how could we ever know about a phenomenon that you just created by way of a feeling or a perception you have. If that's the premise by which you shift towards spiritual belief then its a match made in heaven.

@@MichaelAChristian1 The more I learned about Christianity, the less I believed it to be true.

@@sum8601 Something beyond this life is entirely possible, that's all I'm saying. It would be ignorant to conclusively say that this plane of consciousness is all there is. All I'm saying is I can't conclusively state either way, and that embracing that there are mysteries beyond that the human collective will never comprehend is an entirely rational thought

Is that just like Christianity was absorbed into our 'psyche' as you put it?

I don’t believe in Christianity either, but you are straw-manning it in the extreme by saying equality is not [explicitly] in the Bible. While you are correct in a very, very narrow sense, you ignore the reference to the golden rule and the claim that all of humanity is made in the image of God. Those Christian claims underpin the West’s sense of individuality and equality.

"Isn’t religious belief lower than it was before?" It depends how you manipulate the numbers! E.g. Some christians say that RC's are 'not real christians' and then in the same debate that christianity is the largest religion! But w/o the 'RC group ' they are NOT the largest religion..

In the west yes, in the world as a whole religious believe is growing due too religious people getting more kids

Lowest it has ever been in America I think, but most people trying to promote religion like to ignore that

In the West, Europe, North America, religious belief is declining, but in other areas in the world it’s on the rise.

@@WerstoftheWorst Well, I bet it was lower in the first 100 yrs ;) but besides that, you're right

2 likes, lol

That's a really good point, glad I thought of it

He also never heard about Greek philosophy, stoicism or the enlightenment, or anything that Kant ever wrote.

@@MrSeedi76 Christians aren’t generally known for literary acumen

But if you REALLY think about it, who wants to live forever? Living forever would be bad enough (aka BORING ) but living forever worshipping god? Sounds like HELL!

And as long as they think "justice will be served", which at the end means simply not sharing such eternity with people they don't like.

​@@robertx8020we are dealing with the crowd that believes a very fast process of macroevolution took place after a global flood where some of the descendants of a single couple of some generic bears evolved the guts of a carnivorous polar bear while others evolved the guts of a bamboo eating panda in less than 6000 years, but can't grasp the idea of evolution taking place over *billions* of years. You can't expect logic or understanding of time from people who believe their god existed nowhere before time and space existed.

​@@robertx8020When I was younger what kept me up at night actually wasn't the idea of hell it was the idea of living forever. I figured that eventually like you said It would get boring, existentially boring. However, one time when I was dreading this fate a rather settling and peaceful thought came to mind that being if heaven truly was heaven there would be no existential threat. I figured either boredom to that degree wouldn't be capable of experiencing, or that heaven would be so infinitely blissful in uniqueness that it would never be horribly boring. This is only useful though if you buy the idea of God, heaven, and hell which judging by your comment you don't.

@@theintelligentmilkjug944 And about the fact that some of the ppl you love now, might up in hell 'forever' while you are in heaven?

Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be Saved! Get a King James Bible and believe. Read John.

​@@MichaelAChristian1 boring comment

​@@MichaelAChristian1Educate yourself. Just like parts of Africa and Asia ought to do. This is too easy.

I believe there may be a flux in religiosity when people feel like they're in a bad situation. The effects of a global pandemic, for example, would qualify. You said it was something else but I figured I'd offer that consideration if you had an interest in it.

@@MrYelly You believe you are related to an orange and cockroach. Wake up or you'll end up just like hitchens.

"Greater good" is still quite a leap of a claim. Unless you'd consider slavery or witch hunts as such.

Alex has been entertaining the idea in various conversations. Maybe after a few years Alex will make a similar turn on the Monarchy. Well sure, they're a bunch of pompous billionaires that are above the law, wield undemocratic power and are overpayed with tax-money and famous for the sake of being famous. But what if there is some unknown utility to the institution you know. Can we really risk tearing the monarchy down and throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

​​@@MrYelly Yep, completely depends on how literally or metaphorically someone interprets the texts or which bits they choose to ignore entirely which can mean the difference between a fundamentalist and a liberal. It's a vague, ambiguous mess.

Yes, that's exactly how this works. If you care about what is actually true, you can't start with your conclusion. You start with observation, and if you do that it doesn't get you anywhere near a religion. To end up at religion you start with feelings.

​@@snoopy10411it has always been thus - vague, I mean. That's the nice thing about it. Even Jesus himself was picking and choosing from the OT. And in essence - one might first ask what the word truth actually means in connection with religion. Does it mean a simple literal truth of an ancient text? Then I'd say, even as a Christian, no, it's not true. Do I think some kind of truth is expressed in the text? Yes. Problem is that this truth is often the truth of myths. And myths have a bad rap nowadays being basically considered man made lies. But that simply wasn't the thinking of the people who wrote it. Just a tiny example - one could interpret the Genesis myth literally with being just a story about a piece of fruit and disobedience. Or it could be interpreted as the loss of innocence as soon as humanity developed enough intelligence to actually choose between options and not act on instinct. My cat isn't evil because she likes to play with the mouse. If my kid would have tortured mice when he was small, I'd be much more concerned.

"Gods teachings" + cherry picking + being permanently blindfolded to what interpretations wreak upon the world. Good luck with turning the most dogmatic, rigid, conservatist and archaic doctrine into semi progressive fluidity. As I think that is paradoxical unto itself. Religion is the rare instance it is better to throw out the baby along with the bathwater.

Only that's not true. Unless you only engage in debates with fundamentalists. Even the Apostle Paul claimed that pagans are a law unto themselves when following what their conscience tells them.

@@MrSeedi76 What's "specifically not true" about my comment ? *A law onto themselves?* As Christianity has a long history of being the single moral authority for many countries & cultures, and enforcing laws based on their religious beliefs, I see no reason to exclude them from your assertion.

There are more to mention: Pinker, De Waal, Swaab, Atkins

When did that happen?

New atheism is dead

What no, Justin spins bullshit for like half the runtime.

@@benjaminjenkins2384 That is exactly the kind of graceless and ignorant remark that atheists have become well-known for, particularly since they mistakenly styled themselves as “new”.

@@benjaminjenkins2384 What a typically graceless reply from the commenting atheist. Little wonder that “new atheism” didn’t last very long.

@@superman00001 I don't appreciate word games and I don't like to beat around the bush. If that's something you have a problem with, I don't care. He constantly reiterates how Christianity is allegedly responsible for the moral character of so called "Western civilization."

This guy is a typical misinformed Christian. The morals found in Christianity were around long before Christianity. Just read ancient Near Eastern Wisdom Texts.

So true. Plus he is mistaken, thinking Jesus myth was copied by those same Civilizations. The exact opposite is true.

It is downright insulting to state people to be incapable of empathy untill "christianity delivers". Its the most arrogant form of saviour complex.

Don't forget the Muslims. It's very convenient these days to forget the fact that a thousand years ago it was the leaders of Islamic world who were the curators and sponsors of art, literature, science, and philosophy while much of Western Europe was still recovering from the Dark Ages while dominated by the Catholic Church. Given the contributions of Pagans and Muslims (not even considering Eastern religions) it's bizarre how much revisionism Justin Brierley is engaging in. But then, he's only an apologist, not a historian.

@@EnglishMike na bro, they came after Christians. Muslims definitely influenced Europe, but not so much in values as in technology and math and science. Even the Muslims were influenced by Aristotle thanks Alexander the great.

He's an apologist, not a philosopher. That's the root problem. He forces the facts to fit with the one conclusion his faith allows him.

Ya, but I don't support democracy. so, there is that.

exactly

Alex eloquently burned down any unfounded point Justin tried to make.

People are going insane. Especially people that have youtube channels and spend too much time on the internet. They're falling for a lot of bullshit and not pushing back on misinformation. Notice we are having a rise in conspiracies/Qanon, the Alt-right, trad-Christians/Catholics, etc. all at the same time? These things are closely linked.

Yup, my thoughts exactly. I understand he doesn't want these to be akin to intense debate but this format isn't good either. I feel like he should push back more.

at which point in the video?@@cpt.kimintuitiondemon

Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be Saved! Get a King James Bible and believe. Read John.

@@MichaelAChristian1 Ah yes. Unrelated Christian spam bot posts. Truly king of tools of conversion.

Yes, time to plug the book.

Yeah, he's really pushing the childish idea of a rebirth of christianity. All that's actually happening is religious countries have higher birthrates (often because the religion says to). On the other hand, they tend to be poor and with little global influence.

yes, it's marketing campaign