Humans need to convince themselves that there is no ultimate moral criterion, so that they can live their lives utterly on their own terms. See how easy it is to project psychological motivations onto our intellectual opponents. Much better to return to objective argument.

@margarethhuapcent1270

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, like water in dessert

@Wakeup382

3 жыл бұрын

We love you HE Barron......

@splinterbyrd

3 жыл бұрын

Dawky came to my university to take part in a debate on Religion (Believers won,) after which he was signing copies of his book _The Greatest Show On Earth_ which I'd bought. When he signed mine I said, without meaning to be offensive It's for my Mum. She's a churchgoer but she does like your stuff. He seemed a bit ruffled by what I said, but thanked me for my purchase. I reckon that's the best putdown to the New Atheists. We Believers like your stuff.

@Wakeup382

3 жыл бұрын

@@splinterbyrd Nice, kind of gave him the old cold shoulder, I see. That's pretty cool. I would read his stuff and I have listened to his lectures and there is something more. I wouldn't be the person to debate a professor. I want to get Bishop Barron and invite to Real Time with Bill Maher who made the movie that mostly was kind of promoting judaism and then calling everyone else including the person that played Jesus as if he was and Bill just crashing the faith and I won't even mention it. No publicity for a man who now has covid and yet I pray for him. Do it for Dawkins. Do not get the mRNA based vaccine, friend. They are back to censoring things again. they never stopped

@johnbrown6189

Жыл бұрын

There is no ultimate moral criterion other than the morality evolution has provided to all of us.

Without factual support?! Take a good look at what happened, morally speaking, in societies that systematically exclude God. And I'm not defending "Divine command theory." I'm speaking of God as the Ultimate Good which finally moves the will. Without that final anchoring, the will drifts--inevitably into cruelty and self-absorption.

Muslim here, and just love your eloquent articulation of the Theistic world view! God guide you and bless u father Barron

@BishopBarron

8 жыл бұрын

Respond to the argument from contingency, which I've developed many times.

@CezarMS1

7 жыл бұрын

+Drigger95 Now that I have the chance... why in your opinion are there so many radical Muslims in the world? What do peaceful Muslims learn that is different from radical ones? Are they the same teachings but taken in different ways?

@Catholic-Redpilled-Spaniard

7 жыл бұрын

Right on Drigger, God bless you too brother, and May the Virgin Mary protect you forever

@Drigger95

7 жыл бұрын

Jesus is God read Christian history. Very similar. Radical islam is a type of protestant reformation in response to colonialism and a degrading culture in the Islamic world. Radical Islam abandons a thousand years of tradition and uses the Quran for political purposes. It's not an accurate representation of the vastness of the Islamic tradition.

@Catholic-Redpilled-Spaniard

7 жыл бұрын

And most important of all, the muslims see The Virgin Mary as the greatest woman to ever be created, so that is the thing that bonds me more with them.

It's funny that when these videos find their way to atheist demographics by being more viewed than usual they end up with a shit ton of dislikes. Why don't you use constructive criticism against Bishop Barron instead of being salty and dislike the video like a child?

@Zenitself

6 жыл бұрын

Well said, I lmfao.

Man, I love Father Barron, and I'm not even a Christian. All the haters can't stop him.

@GregAitchison

7 жыл бұрын

Amen! Bishop Barron is awesome. Just curious - What's holding you back from being a Christian?

@Alanthewhite

7 жыл бұрын

Greg Aitchison I'm Jewish, and a firm believer at that. But, the Abrahamic mentality and culture goes far beyond the confines of just my religion. I both admire and appreciate Christianity (especially Catholicism) for all the good it has done for the world, and creating (mostly) sound ways of worshipping God.

@Catholic-Redpilled-Spaniard

7 жыл бұрын

amen my jewish brother... god bless you and cheers from the catholic side

@stephenandersen4625

7 жыл бұрын

From a Catholic point of view, Judaism and Catholicism are the only real religions

@Catholic-Redpilled-Spaniard

7 жыл бұрын

Woah. Thats close to heresy

Come on, friend. This ad hominem stuff gets us nowhere. I've offered arguments for my position over and over again.

First of all, thanks for the disrespect. Second, might you have the courtesy to tell me how I'm misunderstanding atheism?

@Sonicwarp68

4 жыл бұрын

First all Bishop Barron I appreciate your perspective on the New Atheism movement. However Atheism is just the answer to one question: "Do you believe in God?" Answer: "No". That is the only thing that makes someone and atheist. Therefore atheism is not a belief system or philosophy of life that answers moral questions or addresses the origins of the cosmos. Which implies that atheism is not under fire when an atheist acts in an unethical matter ; In other words the only one under fire is that individual atheist moral character. This also implies that atheism requires no faith as it doesn't make the assertion that there is no God and has no burden of proof.

@DiscoFur

3 жыл бұрын

@@Sonicwarp68 Atheism has implications further than just not believing in God, which is exactly what Bishop Barron was discussing. "The New Atheist," as Bishop Barron referred to atheism of our current time, centers around the disassociation from ontological and metaphysical philosophy as a pure act of laziness, and not as an act of disbelief once the arguments have been exhausted.

@Sonicwarp68

3 жыл бұрын

@@DiscoFur First, Thank you for replying and giving me your feed back. Second, I rewatched the video because it has been a while since I last saw it. Third, I respectfully disagree with the statements that father barron made in the video regarding atheism because to me I don’t think New Atheists have done a very Good job explaining atheism in a clear but respectful manner (I’m not innocent either but I like to think I have change for the better). If I understood him correctly (and maybe I didn’t) He was talking about the existentialist philosophers Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus (who were atheist). I have to point out something important: Atheism and Existentialism are not the same thing. Atheism (like I said my previous comment) is the response to one question: “Do you belief in God?” Answer: “No”. Atheism answers no moral or cosmological questions origins of the universe (It is not a belief system or a view on life and doesn’t make any implications on life). Existentialism on the other hand is a philosophical theory/ enquiry that explores the nature of existence and find meaning of life (Which is the thing that does philosophers that father barron named where using to make implications of life not atheism). I apologize to you and other readers for not including that distinction in my previous comment. I will also point out another distinction: Human beings having a Deep desire for meaning in their lives is not same thing as they have a Deep desire for God or that they are weird for God (There’s human beings who have no interest or desire for a God and live happy purposeful lives). The attempt of father barron trying to flip Karl Marx statement to “Atheism is the true opioid of the mases” is simply not accurate as the majority of world’s population is religious (only 7% of the world is agnostic and atheist). I have to point out also that existentialist (both theist like Kierkegaard and atheist like Sartre and Camus) They refute the notion that God made the universe, or our world, or us, with any particular purpose in mind (Teleology). So even if an existentialist believes a God he doesn’t accept any kind of Teleology. I also point out that when existentialist used the Word absurd they don’t use it in the context as regular people used the Word in everyday conversation (something being preposterous) instead they use it to describe the search for answers in an answerless world. We are creatures that need meaning (no matter what you belief or don’t belief in). Jean-Paul Sartre was supposedly shocked by the amount of freedom we humans have in our disposal saying “If there are no guidelines for our actions, then each of us is forced to design our own moral code, to invent a morality to live by. You might think that there’s some authority you could look to for answer, but all of the authorities you can think of are fake. Those authorities are really people like you-people who don’t have any answers, people who had to figure out for themselves how to live”. In other words what ever meaning are lives have is completely determine by us individually and think that’s something pretty Deep and wonderful. Anyway I hope this reply helped anybody. Stay safe people.

Although I'm an atheist, I have to agree with Fr Barron on some of his points here. What I see in new atheism, is a very simplistic worldview, where you can just subtract god and keep everything else. What Nietzsche recognized, was that if god doesn't exist, it requires one to rethink the entire value-system. If we wish to be intellectually honest, we have to accept that philosophical claims exist as part of a larger philosophical system, and therefore carry baggage. For example, if you are a christian, and you believe we are wired for god, and therefore are able to recognize theft as wrong, you have to rethink theft if you stop believing in God as that connection no longer exist. If you accept, say, the philosophy of aquinas, and then stop believing in god, that changes nearly everything in that philosophical system.

@atheistlehman4420

10 жыл бұрын

I'm not such I follow what you're trying to say. Atheism only addresses the question on belief of the existence of a god, or gods, and by itself is not a worldview. That said, there are many worldviews that are compatible with atheism. The lack of belief in god(s) says nothing about how rational you are about the rest of your views.

@absw6129

10 жыл бұрын

A Lehman Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I'm talking mostly about those people who used to be christians, and then became atheists later in life. I think that in order for such a process to take place, a state of temporary nihilism is neccessary. It is part of the christian worldview that morality, for example, comes from God. Therefore, if there is no god, that view of morality, and all moral values that come with it, must be reconsidered. I'll take murder as an example. If you grew up with the idea that "murder is wrong because God says so", then the correct course of action is not to say "I'm an atheist but I still dislike murder, so how can I prove murder to be wrong?". The logial way of thinking about it is "Now that there is no God to tell me murder is wrong, is it really wrong or not?". The tendency among many modern atheists in the media is to jump directly into secular humanism, which is a neat trick to keep a lot of your old christian morality and simply framing it as being good for humans, rather than going through a true process of revaluation of all values. Sorry if my writing seems a bit unorganized. long day at work. lol

@atheistlehman4420

10 жыл бұрын

Adrian Bräysy I do agree with the points you make. What I can't speak to is how frequently those situations occur. I suspect that if you ask people to explain why they believe certain things, they would give you some wishy-washy answer and probably try to avoid answering it, out of fear of cognitive dissonance.

@twistedyogert

7 жыл бұрын

It's a house of cards.

@margaretcooper797

6 жыл бұрын

This is an excellent comment on Atheism.If you abandon the church you therefore must abandon all its precepts and moral laws which are based upon the Christian faith.

I want to say thank you Bishop Barron!! I have been watching your channel for a long time now, and it’s because of your work that I’ve gone back to Christianity. It’s because of your channel that has also led me as a new Christian to want to join the Roman Catholic Church. God bless you.

@Lerian_V

4 жыл бұрын

Welcome home!

I wonder how many of the people who disliked this video, actually watched the video

@thecatholicteen3017

8 жыл бұрын

+Bob Trufant Agreed.

@purpandorange

8 жыл бұрын

***** You literally just said "When did he use the bible other than when he used the Bible" You just answered the question moron. Did the cosmos pop in existence because some magic sky daddy decided to just fart everything into existence one day? Yea cuz that's a totally logical position. We don't know what started the Universe and because we aren't you, we aren't in the business of making shit up, so we leave the question a mystery till we discover evidence of the answer. And by evidence I mean scientific evidence, not the nonsense and semantics Barron and other apologists come up with that has no backing in actual science "MUH BRAINS WIRED 2 GOD!!!" "God's existence while concurrently incapable of making explicable your life having any meaning whatsoever" Right, so I should just make up an entire story about how the universe came to be that is entirely devoid of science and rationality like you did?

@purpandorange

8 жыл бұрын

***** LOL if using logic and rationality is being angry, then yes I'm very angry. A lot of people who are right are angry with your logic. Yes I prove that atheists are illogical by not believing in something that has no evidence backing it and has just as many chances of being true as a million other superstitions. You are a real genius you know that? IDK if God exists just like I don't know if Zues or Thor exist because there is an equal amount of evidence for all of their existence or non-existence (none). Did you just try to compare the existence of Gravity to the existence of God? HAHAHA! OK, come back to me when we can measure God. Yes, all Atheists just secretly believe God is real and we just hate him, if that's what you have to tell yourself at night to feel comfortable then go ahead. Because millions of people are so stupid and irrational that they believe in a God, but choose to go to hell anyway, cuz fuck it, we need a tan I guess. Or you know, they just really don't believe in a God because it's silly superstition that has never been proven like a million other superstitions. Anyway, I don't have all the time in the world, so don't write a book and next time I might actually read the entire thing.

@atheistlehman4420

8 жыл бұрын

***** *YES or NO? Does God exist?* If your God is a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, all powerful, all knowing, mind, then no! That God does not exist, as the idea is completely incoherent. *Read the book again when you muster up the time* Which book? The Quran? The book of Mormon? The Bhagavad Gita? Why don't these books lead to the "truth" about God, but your holy book does? *Science is possible because God is the author of it.* You sound like the presuppositionalist retards who tell me that knowledge is only possible because God exists, and your claim has just as much support behind it. Science is an invention of humans, and your should God be given no credit for it.

@atheistlehman4420

8 жыл бұрын

You're parroting CS Lewis', and Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism. There are two basic refutations: 1. You really cannot trust your thoughts and sense. This is why we have the scientific method. It gets us around the cognition problems that we have. 2. The argument comes down to an argument for solipsism. As far as i'm aware there is no way to disprove hard solipsism.

7 years latter and you still see this form of new atheism on internet forums. And these comments remain as true in 2009 as they do in 2016. New Atheism in terms of it's characteristics tends to be(i)Very shallow in it's arguments. (ii) Very emotional in it's arguments. New Atheists on internet forums often just use the appeal to ridicule, red herring fallacy and the ad hominem fallacy in their arguments rather than actually presenting a serious case (iii) They have the same black and white view of the world as religious fundamentalist. Fundamentalists think they are chosen by God and anyone not a part of their tribe is either wicked, evil, demonic, etc. New Atheists believe that they are the most reasonable and intelligent people since slice bread(Dennett calling them the "brights") and anyone who doesn't share their views is stupid, irrational, psychotic, superstitious, etc.

@Watcher1301

8 жыл бұрын

True.

@antoniov64

8 жыл бұрын

I totally agree.

@leonherperger4055

8 жыл бұрын

that's a really naive view of ALL atheists. atheists are no different than any denomination, that's to say they are incredibly varied. I don't think ridicule in a safe forum is a meaningful way to pat yourself on the back about your views about atheists. that's to say, you called ALL atheists "stupid, irrational, psychotic, superstitious" on that last point, would you not call a belief in god "superstitious"? I don't expect a reply. you got your frustration out, insulted atheists, and are not looking for a debate. it's clear because you chose to voice your opinions about atheists here, in what seems to be a safe forum, where you didn't expect a rebuttal

@Watcher1301

8 жыл бұрын

Belief in God is not a superstition. It's a serious philosophical matter.

@TiffTheTyrant

7 жыл бұрын

If the atheist doesn't know who Aquinas is-I don't even bother to argue.

So your best explanation is...that's just the way it is! And I'm supposed to be the avatar of the irrational.

Camus rightly saw that people fall into despair because life has become meaningless to them. Thus, he advised that people give up the notion of a meaningful life to escape from the feeling of despair. But the problem is that people naturally need meaning in their lives to be happy, just like they need water to quench their thirst. Forgetting about water or abstaining from drinking water won't quench their thirst. Like water, meaning or purpose has objective existence beyond ourselves and is something we depend on to be satisfied with our lives. It isn't something psychologically subjective which we can rid ourselves of by altering our perceptions and ideas.

This makes so much sense to me. Thank you for explaining it for others. Since I have been watching your videos the past two days I have woken up with that same feeling of waking up on Christmas... refreshed, well rested, and encouraged

@faithbycatholicism1416

4 ай бұрын

Bishop Barron makes some great points here....but I think he ignores the most obvious. See, most atheists want us to think they care about "God"......His existence or His non-existence......but that's not true.....not really. What they REALLY care about is "SIN". They desire to live their lives without any accountability for their actions or behaviors.....without the shame and guilt of SIN!! The sign on the bus should read, "Hey, there is no God....therefore, there is no such thing as SIN....and right and wrong is completely subjective.....so do whatever you want....and live your life in whatever form of depravity you wish." That's what they REALLY want to write on the bus.

Amen. You are such an articulate man, and express yourself so convincingly. I am hooked on your videos, and you are helping me so much with my for so long ailing faith. Bless you, father.

@BishopBarron

6 жыл бұрын

I promise to pray for your journey.

@Torcufanshaw

6 жыл бұрын

Thanks a lot, father. This means so much to me. Warmest regards from Spain.

God bless you for that.

If stars come into being and pass out of being, they are contingent. So how do you explain their existence? If you appeal endlessly to other contingent things, you haven't explained anything. I'd love you to answer this argument.

God bless you and keep you Bishop Barron! !! I love you very much, thanks for the way you evangelize with such widsom!

I have advanced degrees in Philosophy and have studied it for many years... there is nothing stupid about this gentleman's view on "New Atheism"...I think he is very correct.

@leahpatts6007

7 жыл бұрын

Thats curious. And how does philosophy make you a credible source for the Bishop's correctness? (please excuse my grammar and tone. its a genuine question, not sarcasm)

@stephenandersen4625

7 жыл бұрын

Philosophy and theology use similar rules for argumentation. To become a priest, Bishop Barron would have had to study philosophy intently at the seminary and possibly in college before that.

@alexchristopher221

7 жыл бұрын

In the Archdiocese of Toronto, back in the 80s, 3 full credits in philosophy at an accredited university were required for one to enter the seminary and study for the priesthood. If I recall, 2 of these credits must be in epistemology and metaphysics.

@leahpatts6007

7 жыл бұрын

I think I'm misunderstanding here. I always thought Philosophy was a way to expand your mind through thinking, to challenge perspective, even your own, and the greatest philosophers, I assumed, famously would have flexible morals, but the way you made it sound they just learn how to do is debate. I'm wrong aren't I?

@stephenandersen4625

7 жыл бұрын

I'm not sure what expanding you mind means. Philosophy (in my very limited understand) is a tool for positing answers to what you observe. it is not just for winning debates but a way to demonstrate to yourself as well as to others that what you are saying is sound and rigorous and reasonable. Effective argumentation is not just contradiction or just winning & losing; it is coming to an understanding through reason. Thesis, Antithesis, leading to Synthesis.

Bishop Barron: I've noticed that many atheists have had deeply damaged parental or family relationship- the template for a relationship with God - my parents were married 42+ years and never divorced (my Dad was a 'good Catholic'!). Words don't describe how grateful I am for this and how it gave me a strong ethic to get through life.

@tornay131

Жыл бұрын

Stable family life is so important. My parents celebrated their 50th a few years back. I'm an atheist.

@Taco0718

Жыл бұрын

I am not an atheist (agnostic), but I have an extremely stable family life, soon to be wife and friends. Plus, I was raised in a devout Cuban Catholic family. However, after much soul searching, prayer, and doing a lot of research, I realize if their is god, then clearly they (I don't think God has gender) has many messages because every religion claims to know the truth and the path of happiness. Heck, even atheists (who i have my own issues with) speak truths. My question is, are all religions correct? Are they all wrong? The reality is (or my reality) the only way to happiness is love. And I am not saying you should love everyone or everything, but if we loved more and celebrated our similarities and shared beliefs and just be content with that, and then the world would be such a better place. Now I know there are fundamental issues that need serious discussion (ex. abortion, politics, justice, and etc.) point is instead of attacking and demeaning let's talk and listen.

@beliciamathias

Жыл бұрын

Yes most of them are misotheists they hate God or specifically angry with God..tho maybe not raised in a religious background they still had some hope until tragedy struck..actually we need to pray for the healing of their souls

@faithbycatholicism1416

4 ай бұрын

Bishop Barron makes some great points here....but I think he ignores the most obvious. See, most atheists want us to think they care about "God"......His existence or His non-existence......but that's not true.....not really. What they REALLY care about is "SIN". They desire to live their lives without any accountability for their actions or behaviors.....without the shame and guilt of SIN!! The sign on the bus should read, "Hey, there is no God....therefore, there is no such thing as SIN....and right and wrong is completely subjective.....so do whatever you want....and live your life in whatever form of depravity you wish." That's what they REALLY want to write on the bus.

Btw guys Koheleth = Ecclesiastes

@LaNika1

4 жыл бұрын

Noel D'Souza Thank you!

@michaellawlor5625

4 жыл бұрын

I thought I was going mad. Lol.

@Lerian_V

4 жыл бұрын

I had to Google that.

Is there an argument anywhere on the horizon?

Thank you for bringing this kind of video father... your videos are very insightful ... please keep bring to us. GOD BLESSES YOU

The point is that we have a desire for the properly unconditioned, and the unconditioned, by definition, cannot be merely an idea in the mind, for sequestering it that way would render it conditioned.

Been there done that, the infantile atheism phase is something i dont ever want to go again eventhough its all about hedonism and self serving dogma. All the hatred and resentment toward god doesnt bring peace at all and feeling like i need to be right all the time is suffocating. God bless the good Lord for showing me the way and not fully hardened my heart from realizing that in atheism im only tring to replace God with something twisted and bent born out of pride

@icrushchildrensdreams4556

2 жыл бұрын

The gods of atheism are the ungodly gods (idols) of this world; Money and Sex.

A better question is this: how do you explain the persistance of the religious instinct? All of those gods are the objective referent to a deeply grounded subjective ordering toward the true God. That's why I reject the standard "new" atheist argument that they are all simply false. They represent something profoundly true, though to varying degrees of adequacy.

Fr. Barron, you're fighting an uphill battle with insight, honesty and intelligence. You might explore getting a cable show? You'd be great, and I believe many would watch. I know I'll be the first to watch.

"Hip, popular, and deeply unintelligent". An apt description of New Atheism.

@TheUntergangMan

9 жыл бұрын

Bob H It's funny how all criticism of New Atheism is automatically construed as an advocacy for religion. From my experience with New Atheists, I find Barron's characterization of them as deeply unintelligent and philosophically illiterate to be quite accurate. They're a mirror image of the fundamentalists they claim to oppose. It doesn't mean that all atheists are this way, only the brand that grew around demagogues like Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. in the last few decades, and that gets the most publicity these days. I think that Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. have done a considerable amount of damage to serious atheism.

@TheUntergangMan

9 жыл бұрын

Bob H I've watched nearly all of the debates with Hitchens, Dawkins & friends available on KZread. I've also read their books haphazardly over the years (The God Delusion, God Is Not Great). I will say that Denett is probably the most tolerable of the New Atheists (and my favorite), with Hitchens being by far the most insufferable. Anyway, the point that I'm trying to make is that the New Atheists, by and large, are not well-versed in theology or the philosophy of religion, so in that sense, they are "deeply unintelligent", although the term is more applicable to the swarms of internet acolytes who parrot their every word. I have no doubt that they're all very competent in their own respective fields, but when it comes to theology, the philosophy of religion, etc. they are ignorant. They don't understand what serious theologians mean by "God" (it's not a "sky-daddy" or "celestial dictator"), and they don't understand the difference between metaphysics and physics, and to which one the scientific method applies.

@naturalismforever3469

7 жыл бұрын

Oh, yes,, unfortunately, they do understand what "serious" people "mean" by their "god." They find such "meaning" without verifiable evidence, utterly incredible, ridiculous, and inconsequential. In other words, they are merely atheistic about one god more than you.

honestly that was one of the best points I've ever seen.

I think what Bishop Robert Barron is saying to all atheists is that they need to wake up and come to their senses and believe in God. I'm so fortunate to believe in God and accept Jesus as the savior and be a member of his Catholic church.

@jkjkjk5827

8 жыл бұрын

+Alan Bourbeau "Belief" is not something we can just turn on and off like a light switch; many factors that we are not aware of that are psychological and social come into play in determining what we think we have "chosen"as a belief.

@alanbourbeau24

8 жыл бұрын

What are you trying to telling me?

I love his videos so clear to understand and right to the point

Love it! Thanks Fr. Barron! Well constructed and spoken with clarity.

It touched my heart. Loved it.

The thing that gets me is how much atheists care about commenting on this. The thing is that atheist people tend to not want to be quiet about what they "believe" or don't believe. I think that this in itself proves the existence of God in addition to what @Fr. Robert Barron has mentioned in this video. They are still constantly looking for something to prove or disprove their belief. If they truly "believed" in atheism, they probably wouldn't talk about it so much and be satisfied with what they know. Very rarely you see an atheist like that. Even the leaders of the movement (Richard Dawkins, Steven Hawking, etc.) still talk about it constantly and write books about it. Not as often do you see a Catholic like Fr. Barron share his beliefs with others. I think he knows he is intelligent and knows he can make a difference by sharing them, and wouldn't be surprised if he felt a particular obligation to do so. There needs to be more Catholics doing this. It's time for us to come out of the woodwork and share our beliefs with others and what God can do for you in your life and show why He loves us. I think us Catholics stay quiet because we believe in our beliefs so deeply that when other people speak against it, it is easy for us just to remember to trust in God and that our Faith can't be shaken. While this is important, I think it is also important that we defend our religion and study apologetics like Fr. Barron demonstrates in this video. Great job Fr. Barron and may God bless you!!! Word On Fire Catholic Ministries

@johnbradley3786

9 жыл бұрын

***** I feel sorry for you and the cult insulted your baby. That sounds awful. If you come to the Catholic church we will treat you with love and respect.

@johnbradley3786

9 жыл бұрын

***** That sounds like a very mislead Catholic. I'm sorry that you were treated that way. However, I can guarantee you without a doubt that the far majority of Catholics do not act like that. Catholics founded what are known to be one of the most widely accepted moral standards for the past thousands of years (i.e. The Ten Commandments, Love your neighbor as you love yourself). So, definitely you ran into an anomaly of a situation. I'm sorry that you were treated that way and were communicated a false view of the Catholic church and moral standards.

@johnbradley3786

9 жыл бұрын

***** Love your neighbor as you love yourself is empathy. You understand the feelings of another. Love your neighbor as you love yourself is the golden rule (treat others as you would like to be treated). Empathy is just a short word to sum up the feeling. What commandments do you think are the only ones that are relevant? I don't even know where to begin with your list. I think you have a very jumbled view of what the Catholic church is.

@johnbradley3786

9 жыл бұрын

***** Answer what? I don't see any question that you asked me. I just got back from vacation.

@Thagomizer

8 жыл бұрын

+nickj14711 Your trolling is funny! .... Oh wait, you're serious?

What?! "Full and complete explanation" and "contingent" are mutually exclusive, for contingency implies that something is not sufficiently explained. Until you have come to a non-contingent ground, you have simply postponed explanation indefinitely. You are so afraid of affirming God's existence that you are giving up on reason!

Bishop Baron you bring us The Light in the mids of darkness. Glory to God! 4ever..

Bless you father

Friend, the Gospels have been subjected to more skeptical historical analysis than any other text from the ancient world! Christianity is an historical religion and, as such, it gladly welcomes close historical scrutiny.

Thank you! keep up the good fight....the World needs you!

Bishop you bring light to our faith.

What an excellent video!

By the way, the "Life is absurd" conclusion of the most prestigious atheists namely Sartre and Camus could be used as an argument against those who deny God's existence. In mathematics a well known method to prove something is the "demonstration by the absurd " or "reduction to absurdity" which is a common form of argument that seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that an absurd result follows from its denial. Sartre set the hypothesis that God does not exist and concluded that life is absurd! Can't this argument be used as a proof of the existence of God?

@Watcher1301

8 жыл бұрын

Very good.

@jof8160

8 жыл бұрын

That's very interesting.

@Watcher1301

7 жыл бұрын

And the absurd result is called Eliminative Materialism.

@keeroe2020

7 жыл бұрын

Johannes Grützmann Can you provide more information about this teen?

@keeroe2020

7 жыл бұрын

...term?

Well that's just a lot of hot air. Why don't you propose a refutation of the argument from contingency?

Sure, goodness itself, truth itself, beauty itself.

I am not religious. But, this man, even when I consider my disagreements with him, relays his thoughts, considerations, and convictions so articulately. More people of various backgrounds should relay their convictions in this way.

It's called the argument from contingency, and I've offered it many times. A contingent thing depends for its existence on factors extrinsic to itself. If those factors are themselves contingent, they in turn depend on agents extrinsic to themselves. This situation cannot proceed to infinity; otherwise, we have not explained presently existing contingent things. Therefore, we have to come, finally, to some reality whose very nature is to be.

The key is this: your experience of the unconditioned cannot simply be "your understanding." It is an experience of a reality that goes beyond the subject/object split; otherwise, it wouldn't be truly unconditioned.

thanks Bishop Barron, really you find the words that i was looking for !

I dunno, I think that's the most brilliant, accurate, and observable thing I've heard. He explained it perfectly too.

Nonsense. The sheer act of to-be itself must be one, for the introduction of multiplicity is the introduction of limitation and contingency. The mystics that I follow--John of the Cross, Augustine, Bernard, Teresa of Avila, etc.--all hold to the unicity of God.

If it truly is an experience of the unconditioned, it cannot, by definition, be merely a "subjective" experience. That's the hinge of the argument.

God is not "a being operating within time and space." He is the sheer act of to-be itself. Precisely as unconditioned, he is in possession of every ontologcial perfection, including mind, will, freedom, etc. His moral perfection is a function of his consistent and absolute ordering to his own goodness.

The best thing you have ever done Father, is expose these whiny brats who attack the truth. Thank You!

@naturalismforever3469

6 жыл бұрын

Oh, Nate, my boy: Whiny brats? Really? Scientific naturalists are whiny brats because we INSIST upon UNFETTERED inquiry??? We are whiny because we INSIST upon skeptical empiricism, leading to VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE? We are whiny brats because over and over and over and over and over again we DELIVER powerful, broad, robust, coherent, falsifiable, predictive EXPLANATIONS? And because we have, through our efforts extended the average life span of our species by 3-fold? All of that makes us "whiny brats?" FASCINATING!

@eatgrass123

6 жыл бұрын

Naturalism Forever shows up and starts being a whiny brat. Classic!

@asparagusbear3323

5 жыл бұрын

@@naturalismforever3469 The Catholic Church invented science. You're welcome.

@MrWig100

5 жыл бұрын

@@naturalismforever3469 You are doing a lot of whining. Sorry, couldn't resist saying that.

What a genius for the lord 🙏

By what possible criterion are you making bold to claim what is and is not too high a price to pay in this regard? How can you, who have a miniscule grasp of the totality of space and time, possibly assess things accurately here?

May God bless Bishop Barron

You rock father

I converted when I was 18 because of an intense desire for more than the world offered!

Because ontological limitation implies that a thing is conditioned in its being. The non-contingent ground of contingency is unconditioned in its being. Therefore, it is in possession of all ontological perfection. For the full version of this argument, consult the first ten questions of Aquinas's Summa theologiae.

What book did Bishop Barron mention....The book of Cohalif?? Anyone famiar with the book he mentions and do I have the correct name??

@MartinG200

8 жыл бұрын

+Lloyd C Yes! The person in the book calls himself, Qoheleth. Another name for the book is Ecclesiastes and in most Bibles it follows the book of Proverbs. I think sometimes the book is also called: The Song of Solomon.

God bless you for that. I will remember you at Mass this morning. You might suggest that your husband read Peter Hitchen's book. He's the brother of Christopher and passed through an atheist period on the way back to faith.

You really hit the nail on this one. Thank you

In every corner of the universe, we find structures that can be described only with the most sophisticated mathematics. How do you explain that? I'm truly curious. In answer to your question, I'm talking about intelligibility as opposed to unintelligibility; a universe marked both macrocosmically and microscopically by stunning complexity as opposed to one that lacks rational coherency.

I really enjoy talking with you by the way. You're much better versed than many with whom I've had the privilege of conversing over similar matters.

C.S. Lewis makes this very point.

@ramoncales1210

4 жыл бұрын

wcatholic1 Yup “If I hold within me desires in which none can be satisfied by this world, the only logical explanation for this is, I was made for another world” - Lewis 😄😄

Wow, as a lifelong embittered atheist who still has doubts about what the causality of the Universe is, that was one of the most powerful arguments ever for the existence of God.

@warmachine8006

6 жыл бұрын

The more one questions why things are and how they came to be, the closer one gets to acknowledging that our observable universe must have come from something, or somewhere, not observable. Something beyond our realm of reason and understanding. Reason and understanding work wonders for understanding the world we live in but once we question the world itself, now we rely on factors we have not been able to observe. Whether or not Catholicism is the truth I do not know but acknowledging forces outside of our observable universe is the first step to finding out.

@filthyswit

5 жыл бұрын

@@warmachine8006 Not entirely true. Using reasoning is the ONLY way to try and understand things we are not able to observe. That's how people came up with the concept of god. But now we know it doesn't have to be god.

Martin...Thanks much for the info...I will check this out as I was a bit lost previous to your reply...Thanks!!

God bless you Bishop Barron.

I just love when an intelligent person makes me think about my preconceived ideas. I am in a point in my life that I consider myself an agnostic. This catholic priest made me think. I really consider incredibly naive and contradictory many things in the Bible ( I have two masters degrees in Bible). However, I have to honestly say that even though I consider that now as an agnostic I have better and more solid ideas about the nonsense in many religions, I definitely felt better in my soul when I was a believer. It is like: "My mind say is OK, but my heart tells that there is some unavoidable void."

@user-ft5wk6mz5j

6 жыл бұрын

Ocean Diver I think I understand you my friend, I was there too. When I feel the overwhelming power of love and beauty in nature, I automatically feel like to surrender to God. But I find it logically impossible. Then I started to serious reason the existence of God. After a long time, I found it quite the opposite, which is if God doesn't exist nothing would be there. Maybe you could read some Hiddeggar. My sensibility and rationality then both prove God's existence.

@adamage1766

5 жыл бұрын

What kind of school gives masters degrees in art of bible? Seriously, what are your masters degrees actually called and from what school or schools?

@j.v.c6465

4 жыл бұрын

Listen to your conscience, it will never lie!

@IIBloodXLustII

4 жыл бұрын

One of my favorite teachers told me that if you find an apparent contradiction in the Bible then you should rejoice and pray earnestly to the Lord, as you study more you might find that the contradiction was only in your mind and deeper meanings are there to be found.

@maiahermosa1400

3 жыл бұрын

Have you read “Mere Christianity” by CS Lewis? It is a good book to read to overcome intellectual barriers to faith. The Bible can’t be read just intellectually, if read that way you will miss revelation within scripture. It must be read with both the mind and heart open.

I disagree with his conclusions, but i agree with his point about "New Atheism" not being serious

@purpandorange

8 жыл бұрын

+Subconscious Qualms Cuz you're a dumbass

@UnconsciousQualms

8 жыл бұрын

you don't really have a point do you?

@UnconsciousQualms

8 жыл бұрын

Well I guess I just have a different definition of "seriousness".

@purpandorange

8 жыл бұрын

***** Oh yea, they're not being serious with all that science and evidence. Do you really have that level of delusion?

@philmiller2010

8 жыл бұрын

Logic is a great tool - and one not enough Christians appeal to. But there is alot of reality in the world that logic doesn't explain. Like why gentiles during WWII would risk their lives to save Jews. Logic/empirical science alone isn't big enough to explain that line of behavior. Disproving God requires, also, a larger scope.

If all opinions are just "ideology," what prevents me from writing your opinion off as ideology? I'd prefer if you offered a real counter-argument to my position.

wow my favorite word on fire right now

Atheism as an opiate of the masses… wow, beautifully put. Thank you!

@mugogrog

Жыл бұрын

If atheism was a belief he would possibly have a point. Atheism doesn't grant you anything, it is simply an answer to a single question and that answer is not something you choose. Note how the original quote is not: theism is the opiate of the people (and it goes on to specify exactly why). It is specifically adressing religion.

@thebacons5943

Жыл бұрын

@@mugogrog call it a belief or something else. It’s a world view that, arguably, people retreat to for comfort even though it isn’t ultimately fulfilling. Like a drug. The truth value of your belief may not even be totally relevant to the way it impacts you psychologically/spiritually/etc.

@mugogrog

Жыл бұрын

@@thebacons5943 It isn't a worldview either. Nothing about how I view the world is due to not believing people have made the case for any gods. It is not something I actively actually think about at all other than in the context of people saying there are gods. Humanism on the other hand is a worldview of sorts but not all atheists share that because as I said atheism simply means you don't think theists have made the case that there are any gods.

@thebacons5943

Жыл бұрын

@@mugogrog the term you use, be it “belief,” “world view,” or “thing you think” appears almost totally irrelevant to the point

@mugogrog

Жыл бұрын

@@thebacons5943 It is relevant to the point you were making. Just think about it for one second. How could not believing something be the opiate of the people? It's analogous to saying non-stamp collecting gets me by when times are hard, not sport fishing is a relaxing hobby etc. It makes absolutely no sense at all.

You know, I don't like to comment on the internet when it comes to religion, because somebody pointed out to me that the comment sections on the internet are like a really bad game of cards against humanity. But I must say this, when it has come to my own pursuit of understanding the fullness of the Faith, I will see criticisms made by "new" atheists like Hitchens, Dawkins, Maher and company, and I honestly have to say the criticisms aren't well thought out, since they don't do their research properly. To me, understanding the Faith is like reading Moby-Dick, Crime and Punishment, or another masterpiece of literature. There is so much to it, and it needs a great deal of attention to fully grasp it. But unfortunately, you can't fully understand Moby-Dick in an after school program like in CCD or Sunday School. I think of these critics of religions as the smart-ass kids who would make fun of the book in class and say it makes no sense, write their own book and gain their own following of other people who don't want to bother to read all the legendary commentaries on said book. You wouldn't exactly look kindly upon somebody who wrote a book saying Herman Melville was an inconvenient writer who had so many unnecessary things in his book that confused said reader a great deal, and refused to read commentaries because he said "I can read it myself, I can understand it myself," then proceed to write a book bashing Ishmael's story, appear on the talk show of another guy who hates the book just as much and is mean to people who say they love Moby-Dick.

@Roper122

8 жыл бұрын

+Seamus Kennefick Yes.. but by the same token... you don't need to study literature for years, to know that Harry Potter is fiction. You can delve deeply into Lord of the Rings if you like, and all the layers of complex societal structure.. but you don't need to, to see that it's all made up.

@seamuskennefick7692

8 жыл бұрын

Oh, please, those books are intended as fiction, the authors made them up. Look at the genres behind them. And btw, Tolkien wrote LOTR and all of the Middle Earth fantasies as a way to convey Christianity in a more understandable and relatable way.

@seamuskennefick7692

8 жыл бұрын

I'm not going to get into a religious debate, I'm just going to leave it at that. I'm not in the mood for immature name calling and bashing other people because of their worldview.

@Roper122

8 жыл бұрын

Seamus Kennefick Well at no point have I called you an immature name... and you started by criticising people for not knowing enough about religion, you said you had to comment, because their points aren't " well thought " out, and you gave a metaphor... Well, I must comment too, and I must point out where you're wrong, and I'm using that same metaphor. I'm sorry if that annoys you, but the internet is still public. Nothing about the depth of a fantasy story implies that it's real. ( And I think the _Chronicles of Narnia_ were far more aimed at being a christian fantasy series than _Lord of the Rings_.)

@seamuskennefick7692

8 жыл бұрын

Well, it's just my experience with dealing with people on KZread, since it usually ends up there. I always anticipate bad things. My apologies if I cam off as crass.

You can't desire something unless you know it. To desire the unconditioned is to have, therefore, some knowledge of it. But as I argued, the object of that knowledge cannot be sequestered in subjectivity alone, for that would render it conditioned. Therefore, the desire for the unconditioned does indeed prove that the unconditioned is real.

Quite right. God is not "self-caused;" he isn't caused at all. And the existence of such a reality is revealed through the argument from contingency.

" The great I AM can use evolution " - the great IAM? Is that anything like the Great and Powerful OZ?

He says that discontentment with life proves God ! .. What? What sort of reasoning is that ? We are in a stage of evolution, so who's to say that we should be within a state of ecstasy or states of discontent ? It seems theists will try anything now as an argument for the existence of God. I do not wish to believe in something that doesn't exist .. the idea of God seems absurd to me. To quote Einstein, he said "anyone believing in God is naive".

@BishopBarron

10 жыл бұрын

Perhaps you could listen a bit more carefully, friend. My argument is that nothing in this world can fully satisfy the longing of the mind for truth and the longing of the will for the good. This shows the ordering of the spiritual capacity toward the unconditioned form of the good and the true. And Einstein believed in God!

@BishopBarron

10 жыл бұрын

Bob H No. It's a rendering explicit of what is implicitly contained in the experience of the properly unconditioned. If you want the unconditioned good (which you surely do), you have already been grasped by a reality which transcends the split between the subjective and the objective, for otherwise, it wouldn't be unconditioned. That's why you can't, even in principle, write this experience off as a subjective projection or a wish-fulfilling fantasy.

@BishopBarron

10 жыл бұрын

Bob H Says you! Logical positivists restrict the "meaningful" to what can be empirically verified or falisified. The problem, of course, is that that very principle cannot be empirically verified or falsified. People have been witnessing to an experience of the properly unconditioned from time immemorial. Who are you to say that it is "irrational?"

@BishopBarron

10 жыл бұрын

Bob H I desire the unconditioned good and true; the unconditioned cannot be merely subjective, since that would render it conditioned. Therefore, I have an experience of a reality which transcends the objective/subjective split. There isn't anything "irrational" about this, and people have been witnessing to it from time immemorial. Again, who are you to say, arbitrarily that this is irrational?

@BishopBarron

10 жыл бұрын

Fr. Robert Barron You've just involved yourself in a contradiction. Anything "breakable" is, by definition, conditioned. Leave the word "God" out of this for the moment. Like everyone else, you desire, whether consciously or not, the good and the true in their unconditioned forms. This gives you access to, experience of, the absolute. "Faith," at this point, has nothing to do with it. I'm appealing to experience.

Well indeed it is a matter of missing the point. And I can tell by the content of the criticisms. If you think that I'm arguing from the intentional to the real, you've missed the starting point of the demonstration.

Wow this is the best video I’ve ever seen

Barron drops some wise truthbombs.

It's funny how the guy always asserts that no one is ever satisfied, tells a lot about him if you ask me.

@Thagomizer

8 жыл бұрын

+Muu Duu His point clearly went way over your head. What he's alluding to is the Argument from Desire. And he's right, in a way; at least as far as making an observation about man's insatiable need for transcendence of some sort.

@Faggydoo

8 жыл бұрын

Thagomizer Why insatiable?

@Thagomizer

8 жыл бұрын

Muu Duu LOL, if I knew the answer to that, I would have founded a new religion by now!

@Faggydoo

8 жыл бұрын

Thagomizer With that I'm implying that it's satisfyable and I don't need a religion for that.

@Thagomizer

8 жыл бұрын

Muu Duu I don't mean to imply that going to church will make you 'whole' , but as a general rule, I don't believe anyone who says, for instance, "I'm perfectly happy". Perfect happiness is something that everyone seems to want, yet no one is able to attain. So it might lead one to wonder why we have this desire for a fulfillment that can't really be fulfilled in this world at all.

I love your vids,father!

Then you won't understand the argument. But friend, I'm convinced you have had an experience of the unconditioned, precisely because no truth, goodness, or beauty you have ever experienced in this world is enough to satisfy the deepest longing of your heart. Feed a dog and he's blissfully happy. But no matter how much food, sex, success, fame, or pleasure human beings have, they are not ultimately happy. Why? Because we desire good in its unconditioned form.

i think the new atheists are just using common sense. i don't see my self as a new atheist or a old atheist. i really don't understand what this new atheism is because for me it is still the same good old atheism which is not a belief system but how a person thinks that is accepting things on the basis of evidence. i don't like to label myself

This is exactly what the lord told us what would happen. In end times evil will rise as the devil knows his time is nearly up.

Follow the curiosity to find meaning all the way, and you will find what I mean by "God." And no, not all religions can be right in every detail, but they can indeed all be right in regard to certain fundamentals.

The unconditioned ground of contingency must be fully actualized in its being, which means that it (he) must be in complete possession of all ontological perfection: mind, will, freedom, power, etc. So of course the creative source of existence involves himself very personally in all that he has made. Further, precisely because he is uncaused in his activity and because he has no need outside of himself, God must have made the world out of pure love.

I've only just come across this point of view on atheism. I did not take kindly to the comment that the signs on buses were unintelligent and not serious enough to be considered alongside Camus and Sartre. The sign that said stop worrying and enjoy your life, holds more for the success of mankind than religion, which has done more for its destruction. Why does there have to be a meaning to life? Why do religions’ preach that without a meaning, life would be meaningless? I have lived my life to the full and enjoyed the experience (I’m 66) I have raised a family, I have never committed murder, given false witness, never committed adultery. I have always had respect for my fellow humans and deplore racism. I have lived my whole life without a god and yet I seem to have been morally superior than most humans. All of this without wanting or worrying about a meaning to it all. Well Mr Barron (your not my father) it seems to me that if everyone led their lives like me, the world would be a better place. I suggest that when you looked at the sign on the bus, you did not really consider the implications before making such a crass statement.

@SSTTEEAALLTTHH

10 жыл бұрын

I'm confused as to what the point of your 'cool story bro' is. Does your life make New Atheism any less unintelligent and any less capable of living up to a real existential philosophy and not something defined mostly by internet trolling (extending to busses, so it seems)?

@Encyclicals

9 жыл бұрын

Rog5446, you make an interesting point. I wonder however if you yourself are the origin of your goodwill? To put it another way, did you yourself decide that "I am going to uphold certain principles and that will fulfill my life." Or did you learn from the examples set around you? Your parents? Childhood friends's parents? Pre-Lion King Disney Programming and Films? Aside from the Sexual Revolution, the anti-Soviet Communism mentality of the middle 1900's dug hard into upholding Christian philosophies and principles as a means to define our society against theirs. Whether the people or government realized it or not, they created a decidedly Christian environment where we were all exposed to Christian morality almost on a daily basis. We added “God” to the Pledge of Allegiance and throughout the 50’s and early 60’s Catholic Archbishop Fulton Sheen gave weekly discussions on various topics moral, religious, or otherwise on NBC. So, while you lived a moral life and found happiness in non-worldly endeavors and nurtured your relationships in a Christian-like manner, (and I applaud you for that) I think it would be hard to deny that the Christian society in which we live/d helped form that morality. We are now moving into a Post-Christian society. We will not know the effect of God’s non-existence for another 50 years or more. Society moves so slow that I will probably never get the chance to learn or understand the impact of God’s non-existence. I would be willing to make a wager however. As society has redefined sex, and now is redefining marriage, so eventually will we redefine Adultery, Fidelity, Falsehood, etc. The chopping block is out and once the guillotine was satiated with flesh, it moved on to minds and will begin making short work of perceived reality. Just to comment quickly on the destruction of religion. Yes, there are religions that have been and continue to be destructive. But very few religions have basic tenants that are just and merciful at the same time. That is part of the reason why I’m Catholic and not anything else. Before you talk about the Crusades, Inquisition, and World War II, quickly assess yourself and try to remember the last time you actually studied facts about the history and wasn’t simply reciting something “you heard.” Contrary to popular belief the history that lead into the Crusades actually begins around 550 AD. History doesn’t chisel with precision. She paints with broad strokes.

@Rog5446

9 жыл бұрын

Kevin Karam I am offended by your comment that I have 'nurtured my relationships in a Christian like manner'. I consider Christians to be vastly inferior in their moral standpoint than my own. And I do not understand what ‘un-worldly endevours’ means? As I am not superstitious in anyway, all of my endevours are by definition worldly.

@Encyclicals

9 жыл бұрын

Why? What have Christians done so wrong that no other human being hasn't? What is that particular vice so tied to Christianity that non-Christians are incapable of doing? And please don't mis-interpret my question. It is not meant to absolve Christian people of any wrong doing.

@Rog5446

9 жыл бұрын

Kevin Karam You’ve asked for it, so I’ll let you have it with both barrels. The particular vice that Christians are addicted to is, not just acceptance of, but glorification of torturing someone to death to pardon their wrong doings. This is the most morally obscene doctrine of all religions, especially when that particular religion always takes the moral high ground in their dealings with non-Christians. Christianity has as its fundamental teaching the most immoral proposition, that anyone who has morality as their first priority would find sickening. The only person who can forgive you sir, and the only person you should ask for forgiveness is the person you have wronged.

I like much of Father Barron's stuff. He is well read and thoughtful. This particular video was a tad too laden with logical fallacy for me to glean much from it. The overriding straw-man argument itself undermined the entire premise for me. One would think that a common victim of the identical straw-man argument, a Catholic, would be more aware of his folly. How often do you hear statements attributing positions and behaviors to "all Catholics?" Yet this is precisely what he tries to do by using the label "New Atheists." He then alludes to some shallowness in understanding by making reference to Sartre and Camus (two of my favorite authors) with sweeping generalizations and a rather juvenile interpretation of existentialism. He reverts to the big question of origin as the crux of his argument, indicating that somehow our curiosity and desire for transcendence indicate the existence of a benevolent bearded man in the sky. It would be interesting if the ancient Greeks or Egyptians had KZread. We could insert a Greek clergyman who would say "We long to know why the sun rises and sets; this itself is evidence of Apollo." We all experience the tangible, I just am not willing to insert the supernatural in every gap in our understanding. Religion was mankind's first attempt at science. As we have found better explanations for our world, god has retreated further and further. He no longer drives the sun across the sky or the currents in the ocean, he has retreated to one of the last great mysteries: origin. I see no reason to think that, as we learn more, there will not be a very natural explanation for origin and consciousness. I base this on the observation that there is not a single thing that has reversed the recession of this god of the gaps; not once have we had a natural explanation for something, and through research and fact finding, replaced it with a supernatural explanation. I would also be very interested to see how Mr. Barron makes the leap from "we don't yet understand origins, so it must be god" to the specifics of a Christian god, and even further to the, rather comical, Catholic version of god. How he gets to a cannibalistic weekly ritual to appease a 2000 year old mythological Jewish messiah who happens to oppose equality for women and homosexuals is a leap of impressive proportions!

@laus7504

9 жыл бұрын

Tyler palmer "There is probably no god. So relax and enjoy your life' is NOT a straw man. That is a direct quote of the new atheist's campaign slogan. It's right there on the sign. . Did you watch all of the video? Like even the beginning?

@multismashify

9 жыл бұрын

***** No. No he didn't. He merely clicked on a video only as an opportunity to post the same tired, sweeping criticisms we've all heard of God, Christianity, and more specifically Catholicism a million times by this point. We could hope that next time around he addresses and actually raises some challenges to the specific points made in the video, but in all likelihood, it's not going to happen. He needs to feel important, and reciting the same tired, boring, shallow crap is enough for him to satisfy this need. For the rest of us, though, the unoriginality only makes us groan.

@tonybennett4159

9 жыл бұрын

***** It's obvious that his comment is not referring to the bus slogan. If you actually read his comments carefully you would see that Father Barron trying to separate the "serious" atheists and the "frivolous" (in his mind) new atheists is what he finds shallow and unconvincing. That's like saying that the ascetics are to be taken more seriously than those participating in gospel revivalist meetings. They are merely different manifestations of the same thought process.

@cmcsdf

9 жыл бұрын

Tyler palmer Thank you for your reasoned response. There are some Catholic priests who have some interesting things to say about religion and its place in the modern world, I was actually hoping this guy might be one of them when I clicked on his video channel but instead I found a lot of the same sort of defensiveness and arrogance that had originally put me off the religion. There are plenty of things that could benefit from a theological perspective that might bridge a gap between the religious and nonreligious but apparently divisive Fox News style distractions are more of the focus here.

@jimberley6341

9 жыл бұрын

Tyler palmer I would submit to you that as our understanding of science has sharpened our understanding of the universe, the same has affected religion in what it must focus on the most. Ontology is the nature of religion. What the earth revolves around or what it revolves around is far from the wheelhouse of what the bread and butter religion provides in terms of the human experience. What religion must provide above all things is a definition of the origin and nature of being, and thus a codification on how those that experience being fit in to such a reality in the most conducive way is simply something that the philosophy of science cannot apply. Also, you disappoint me with your last sentence as I was enjoying everything you wrote up until that point. A twist of the knife is all it was. Nothing gained, nothing earned.

Friend, what's at stake here is not the desire for any conditioned object, but rather the desire for the properly unconditioned. The object of that desire cannot be sequestered in the subjective realm alone, for that would render it conditioned.

How in the world is it "inconsistent" to say that God, precisely as the unconditioned Good, is the ultimate criterion for morality?!

This should be re-titled Father Barron vs His Strawman Atheism. The moniker "new atheism" is nonsense that theists contrived to keep the criticisms from atheists at arms length.

@RinaldoDegliAlbizzi

9 жыл бұрын

LogicalAtheismRising oh yes? how so? tell me your logic why God doesn't exist, please. If there is something atheists are particularly bad about is in logic. They might be good in empirical science, but usually pretty mediocre at logic. Maybe you are not one of those, so, tell me why logically God cannot exist.

@jamaicanification

9 жыл бұрын

LogicalAtheismRising It really isn't. Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett and the rest of them call themselves New Atheists. So Theists aren't strawmanning anything when we call it as we see it.

@Rooktakesbishop

9 жыл бұрын

RinaldoDegliAlbizzi Maybe once you learn the difference between valid and sound you'll understand.

@Rooktakesbishop

9 жыл бұрын

Janhoi, That's blatantly false. In fact, Sam Harris doesn't really like the term "atheist" and has expressed that he thinks it's largely unnecessary. I think you have just bought into the rhetoric of your religious leaders. It's nonsense. I suggest thinking for yourself.

@RinaldoDegliAlbizzi

9 жыл бұрын

LogicalAtheismRising so I guess you don't have the argument I requested. The best answer you could tell me is that I'm somehow too stupid to understand your logic, right? Is that what you are implying? I mean, if you really had a reasonable, logical, sound or valid argument you should be able to spell it out in words, right? Do you even have that argument, or are you simply bullshitting? Because logic is about words and their logical connection. Let me tell you my theory of why you didn't answer: because you don't know what you are talking about. You are an atheist just because you feel like it, because it makes you feel cool, because you feel superior, or "enlightened" or free thinker, or any of those platitudes of our times, but you really have no clue of the logical and intellectual implications of thinking about God. Hence, you have the opinion you have.

hunger is not proof of food it's a signal of its need.

@NicolasAntonioJimenez

8 жыл бұрын

+Joshua Hess, the point is that your body and mind are designed to need things that exist in reality, not in your fantasies.

@joshuahess7197

8 жыл бұрын

Hunger is designed by evolution. Religious superstition is a by product of the kind of intelegence we have. We tend to see causes that aren't there because it tends to be less dangerous to.

@purpandorange

8 жыл бұрын

+Nicolás Antonio Jiménez No LOL, people have a desire to grow wings and fly, does that it mean humans actually have wings? That's the dumbest logic I have ever heard. The lengths you people go to in order to delude yourself into believing your fairy tales is absurd

@purpandorange

8 жыл бұрын

***** The law of gravity isn't absurd because we can test it. DERP. Try testing God.Don't worry, I'm not close to killing myself, unlike you I don't delude myself into thinking their is an afterlife so I actually live for my own happiness unlike you.

@purpandorange

8 жыл бұрын

***** Aren't you supposed to put nothing before God? I get joy from helping others and being a good person, not because I think God will be mad at me if I don't, but because I actually care about people. You can convince me by giving evidence that is testable, repeatable, and predictive. If you can't do that then you're right, you can't convince me. "I guess you regulate your own neuro-respiratory involuntary functions while you slumber or keep your heartbeat firing with the 11 watts of power your brain consumes." What point are you trying to make with this? We have instincts programmed into our brain, that's why we can breathe when we sleep. "How do you test oxygen" Simple, first you have a hypothesis that oxygen exists, then you predict what would happen if you interacted with oxygen in a certain way and then test it. For instance, we know oxygen is needed to live, so cutting someone off from oxygen would kill them. As we can see from people who have been hung, smothered, or strangled, cutting someone off from oxygen, does in fact kill them. So that is pretty solid evidence that oxygen exists. Find an experiment I can do like that to prove God. "Breathing you ungrateful fuck" And it's that easy to prove God? "I've tried testing God and He is much more patient than I would be as His creation" Oh you tested God? Please tell me how I can also test God since you clearly have an experiment that will prove his existence. " You're pathetic. I'm going to pray that you wake up from your hate induced hoodwinked ephemeral nightmare. " For someone calling me hateful, you sure used a lot of insults that someone who is very hateful would use. "Does God exist? Your answer? No." Wrong, my answer was I don't know, because I can't prove either way if God is real or not real, same way as I can't prove if Zeus is real or not real. That's part of being a rational human being, acknowledging when you don't know, instead of just making up something like religion does.

Hardly. God does not "cause himself;" he does not require a cause, since his very nature is to be. And no one is "defining something into existence;" I am showing that God's existence is required through a process of a posteriori reasoning.

Doesa anybody knows witch book he says in this video? :)

The fact that humans invented religion shows only that we are naturally curious. It in no way proves the existence of God(I'd like to point out that the Christian God is hardly alone among the Gods that humans worship or have worshiped), it shows that we lacked a means of explaining the world around us, so we chose to invent an answer instead. "What makes the sun rise everyday, must be some all powerful force, let's call that force Apollo." Our "hunger" for something more than simple, short term pleasure(though some are satisfied with such) only proves that humanity has a desire to explore and question. Atheism is a simple non-belief in any deity. We are all atheists. I doubt the good father here believes that Thor or Sol Invictus are real. Modern day atheists just go a single God further. It in no way denies the natural desire to know about the world around us(which spawned religion in the first place), it just rejects an answer that is so obviously wrong.

@CESSKAR

9 жыл бұрын

Mattheaus The Apostate Your argument about the invention of god is very weak.

@occasional_doomer

9 жыл бұрын

***** "Rejecting the existence of God implies asserting that there is NO absolute Universal and Trascendent Truth." First of all, Don't define my arguments for me. I am challenging the existence of a deity(in this case the christian god), and your desire for a universal truth does not even come close to proving his existence. "1. your argument becomes subjective, thus invalid. " Hardly. I rely on facts and evidence before I believe a claim. There is sufficient evidence that shows the earth is a sphere rather than flat, so I believe that claim. There is not sufficient evidence for the existence of any deity, let alone one that humans beings have just cooked up over the last several thousand years. The burden of proof is on you my friend, and you've yet to prove it. "2. there can be no objective morality, which implies that all laws, moral norms and rules have no solid base." Assuming there is an objective standard, and assuming Christianity is the one that gets it right, it has hardly been consistent. Christians 1700 years ago were perfectly fine with owning slaves, killing & persecuting heretics as well as jews and pagans. Yet today most Christians would look at these behaviors as abhorrent. Where is this objective, unchanging morality? Certainly not among Christians.

@CESSKAR

9 жыл бұрын

Mattheaus The Apostate 1. In spite of what the new atheist gurus say, there is no such thing as fact in science, only hypothesis, and that is all there will ever be. For the "doom" of science is that it approaches the truth but never reach it. Scientists who talk about facts are just dishonest. 2. Tu quoque fallacy, fine argumentation...

@occasional_doomer

9 жыл бұрын

***** I notice you ignored my second point on morality. "Let's do this." Let's not. Make the argument yourself. You responded to me, stop being lazy. "Evidence does not prove anything, because without absolute truth there can be no objectivity, hence everything is subjective." That's ridiculous. I can observe that my hand has five fingers. I can observe that my car has four wheels, and my dog has four legs. The difference in size between the earth and the sun can be measured, as can the distance between the various planets. Non of these are subjective. The answers can be firmly established with evidence. CESSKAR 1) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science 2) 2. Tu quoque fallacy, fine argumentation..." Person A makes claim X. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X. Therefore X is false. Try again, that's not at all what I did. I demonstrated that even should it exist, the christian god(or any other) does not in fact provide objective moral standers, when he claimed it did. That's called refuting a claim.

@CESSKAR

9 жыл бұрын

Mattheaus The Apostate 1. About scientific fact. The definition does not apply for universal or unquestionable truth. As a machine of interpretation, the human has an impossibility to get to some sort of objective truth. Observation depends on a subjective understanding. And, as a philosopher said, is it not the objective, the subjective of many? As a _fact_ (hehe) in the scientific method the conclusion is never a fact (as it is in a holy book) rather an hypothesis, or a theory, which differ terminologically of fact. Speaking of which, as terms are words of a language this creates another impossibility to reach truth, considering that science express through the language; symbols. 2. Of course, you cut half of his statement quoting him, which was: "The tragedy of atheism is that, by rejecting God, they end rejecting the objectivity of the reason, truth and ethics they so blattantly defend." So, I think that part you skipped makes your reply a fallacy.

That was well said Father, Amen i say to you. "+"' And thank you for the great videos you post, they really help explain many Different issues for me that i have been trying to understand.

For a counter argument please refer yourself to the works of Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. If you still consider them as superficial or frivolous then you cannot consider yourself as open minded. With pure respect.

Observation (something you noticed) is what sparks your curiosity. And curiosity is what drives you to investigate (to learn).