Atheist Debates: The Bible, Part 1 - The Sermon on the Mount

I'd kill to see footage of Matt in his fundamentalist preacher days.

Was there ever a part 2 of this?

Congrats on becoming a religious heretic, Mr. D. The irony is off the charts.

7 : 35 "It's a naive way to develop a moral code."

Priceless. lol

Atheism presupposes the universe is an accident and necessarily devalues life by its materialist reductionism. The science is settled: you're just made of particles, and particles don't have any morals, kids. Aatheism means "get yours while you can, because death is God and our God will win."

Have a nice day! :)

I really like these videos recorded out in nature, Matt. Much better than those recorded indoors.

Fasting is a practice not always associated with Religion. It can be a way of ridding the body of food derived materials unwanted in order to more effectively enforce a coming diet. I've done it many times, though never to the point of starvation. I don't disagree with you, just wanted to put that out there.

No mere human could have deconstructed the sermon on the mount like this. Hail Lord Dillahunty.

Are we still talking about this..you either believe in Santa Claus or you don't... end of discussion

love it matt. keep it up.

Hi Matt,

Disclosure up front, I identify as an atheist and thoroughly enjoy your work. A few months into deconversion, I found your work and it has been some of the most thought provoking of my life.

That is why I am concerned that in this video you might be mis-categorizing much of what Christians take these verses to mean from a historical context. If you are unintentionally doing this, it might be that it is fodder for Christians to ad hominem reject your work, or for atheists to parrot some points and to be ignored as well. (I have a brother who dismisses evolution because Donald Prothero said all geologists believe evolution, even though it's clearly hyperbole) You are a seeker of truth and do not wish to straw man a group, so I would like to hear your thoughts on a few specifics.

1) You mention the verses that talk about praying/doing alms/good should be done in secret and I took what you said to mean that Christians don't keep religion to themselves and they are hypocrites. I think you missed the intent of the verses where they say "to be seen of men". These verses are more of a slam on pharisees who would historically score big points by praying on street corners or make big shows of their giving to receive the praises of their society which was generally religious at the time. These verses are saying if you are motivated solely out of self-interest, that praise is your reward. This might still be in the thought crime category, idk. I know this is the general opinion of the Christian communities I have associated with while growing up.

2) When discussing Matt 7: 15-23, you say it's a contradiction that in a previous verse you should judge teachers by their fruit, but then in the kingdom of God people will say they did great works but still be called workers of iniquity. The problem is with who is doing the judging. In the first category, man can only judge the actions. We can not see the true intents or motives, unless compared with conflicting actions. The distinctions in the second verse is that God/Jesus is doing the judging and they supposedly can see the intentions and actions. Again, it's a thought crime. I agree with a lot you said about the first verses that actions are really poor judges and can lead to people being manipulated. But, the final conclusion would be rebutted by Christians similar to what I said.
3) You argue that many of these things are not done by Christians themselves, which is true, but I know most Christians would just say that it's proof that we are sinful and in need of a savior. Or that Christians are saved by Jesus' good sacrifice, but that doesn't make them perfect, aka they are still sinful. Perfection would only come in the imagined afterlife.

I think some of your critics might fall into the straw man fallacy and so respectful submit my own critic for your thoughts. I could be wrong, but being closer to my deconversion date makes how I interpreted these verses fresher in my memory.

I loved the point you made comparing the beatitudes to the luke passage that makes poverty a virtue and riches something to be avoided.

Thanks again,
Nate

PS: I did not read before I posted the comment and edited a response that sounded harsh on re-reading.

Wait did Matt unironically used the term gender binary in there? uncanny.

I enjoy much of what you say, but there are proven medical benefits of fasting.

The sermon on the Mount was for the JEWS primarily.....He was totally pissed of with the pharisees ...(Jesus told the apostles To go to the Jews only).......The beatitudes are the manifesto for the coming kingdom......Jesus FULFILLED the law ONCE for ALL with his blood at the crucifixion....The Jews blew it !.....So now comes Paul, the apostle for the Gentiles, (Christian believers), and the gospel of faith,.......but God's covenant still holds for Jews......you are trying to fit Jewish law (Old Testament), into Christianity. "He taketh the wise in their own craftiness" 1 Corinthians 3:19.

Matt -- I hope you wore a safety belt. We need your voice around as long as possible.

Very informative. Thank you 😁

There is no way someone could listen to jesus, obey him, and end up with capitalism. And i before I'm declared a commie, i fully support capitalism.

Hey matt,

apparently John 2:4 jesus wasnt being disrespectful.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+2%3A4&version=NIV

Idk, see what you think.

stupid that comments aren't allowed on "TheAtheistExperience." It is completely retarded unless you are present. Are you still affiliated? It's dog shit unless you are present.

I was talking with this really sweet woman at work the other day who was in a very messy marriage for more than 25 years. She told me that her husband was abusive and unfaithful the whole time they were together. She'd been wanting to divorce him for years but refused because of verses in Mark 10 where Jesus expresses outright that it is adulterous for a man to divorce his wife. They did finally separate some years back. I asked her how she was able to reconcile her decision to leave her husband with Jesus' pronouncements against divorce. She told me that she prayed a lot, but didn't offer too much beyond that. But I'm curious to know exactly what God told her. Did god tell her that he would rather she stay married and be miserable until she dies so as to avoid the sin of adultery? Did he tell her that that commandment doesn't apply given the circumstances? Did god change his position on divorce entirely? It's interesting how prayer can make the bible say things it doesn't and totally erase the things it does.