I agree that the arguments here aren’t very in depth, but they’re not trying to be. All these atheists are acting like they were promised some six hour thesis about philosophy, theology and metaphysics from a learned scholar. In reality it’s just a meme that was probably more so intended to make his fellow Christians laugh than to piss off atheists. A meme that atheists have and do use all the time.
Not just lacking depth but also fallaciously argued and strawmanned to hell lol. This is not the video you want to defend bud. Even Christians are making fun of how bad this video is.
depth cant fix thr flawed reasoning used in this video and also, it seems pretty pointless for this video to be made in the first place if the arguments it gives arent in 'depth' enough to adequately answer the arguments
"teehee its just a meme/joke brah, you dont have to take us seriously at all teehee." -ifunny memejacker suffering from reduced gyrification Also very sad to pin this comment, coward tactics are to be shunned not supported. Be a man and own up to your arguments, however "intentionally" shallow they might be.
I'm a Catholic but sometimes *"I don't know"* is the only answer I can give. We don't have all the answers and to think so otherwise would be arrogance.
I am an atheist, and I completely agree. However, that stance seems to completely go against the idea of belief, and particularly against religious truth claims. I would say accepting the unknown exemplifies atheism. Could you explain how you reconcile these things together?
@@OKC_THUNDER_NUMBER1 I am not sure I understand what you mean. Let me double-check: are you saying, that you have an answer, which is "faith", but it is not satisfactory for atheists, so you have to resort to "I don't know" as the next best approximation. Is that correct, or did I misrepresent your stance?
@@peezieforestem5078 it's not that hard to understand, and you sound like you're trying to sound smart. you sound like the human personification of google, you don't have to go that deep into it.
@@bitonic589 I think you're intelligence is so vast, you struggle to comprehend how stupid some people can be. I am certainly not as smart as you are, and I literally do not understand how I can differentiate between these 2 possibilities. Whatever "depth" you saw in my comment -it's a reflection of your own thought processes - I was just asking a basic clarifying question. I also don't understand how you can tell what I sound like, or why does it matter (what I sound like)... I hope you're not using text-to-speech, but if you do, of course I would sound as a personification of Google, because Google is literally voicing my text. So, if you don't like how it sounds, try using Siri (from Apple) or Alexa (from Microsoft). (assuming you were using text-to-speech).
yeah i few of these were a little off. For example, "if you were born into a non christian country, then you wouldnt be christian", he just answered by saying "if you were born into another country, would you be atheist?". I feel like this doesnt really answer the original question. I interpret that question as saying "How is it ok to send people who have never heard of god to hell."
@@Syffx. I have a counter argument I am a Quaker and I think non Christian can go to heaven because we are all familiar with the same light of god, I’m a minority though there is only about 400,000 Quakers main stream Christian would probably rebut it by day isn’t it’s unfair that they won’t be saved but it’s also unfair that anyone ever was saved because we are inherently flawed and don’t deserve it(I don’t completely agree but that’s the majority argument)
@@philipcollins90I’m not a big fan of Christianity in general, but you Quakers are alright in my book. You guys are one of the only Christian groups who can say you were abolitionists in the U.S. before the stance was mandated by secular culture. I’m sure there are a billion things we’d disagree about, but that aspect of your religion at least deserves to be called out and commended.
2:46 exodus 21:20-21 "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property" Redeemed zoomer, please explain this verse to me
This is from the Old Testament. This shows God's will for progressiveness. For context, slavery was accepted as a normal practice in ancient society (but this is not an endorsement of slavery);, and God was showing people its time for progressiveness by regulating social behavior and justice. Morality progresses through time. The New Testament, particularly through the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, emphasizes love, equality, and justice, which surpass the Old Testament regulations.
Consider yourself for the sake of the argument, that you are a Christian slave. God has put in the bible that your master cannot kill you. This was written to give you hope and survival under harshness of slavery that can happen (or might happen, hopefully never again) to anybody. This verse wasn't really meant for the slave owner, it is meant for the slave. It was written to provide solace that there are laws that offer you, the slave, protection. If the master kills you, they will be punished. Finally, New Testament obviously does not endorse slavery. "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you" (Matthew 7:12) Why become a slave owner? Do you want to become a slave?
@@tigrederd So why did he ban everything else, but not this one thing? Also, the New Testament also allows slavery and the Bible never even hints at slavery being a bad thing, but it does condone it repeatedly
My grandpa died of cancer, he was the nicest man I've ever met Tell me that he died because he (or I) deserved it yet Pol Pot died peacefully at home in his sleep
depends on what you think happens after death. if you believe there is a god, there is an afterlife where there is fairness. your grandfather suffered, but then could have experienced a joy of being free from pain. death isn't such a terrible thing if you believe in a god, but if you don't believe in a god, you have to face the cold harsh realities of genetics and nature. he lived a good life, and died a terrible death and that's it? i would say that's more upsetting than to think he was taken by a god who knows how good and loved he was. it's not about who deserves what, it's how do you choose to live life? bitterly and walking the world alone, or believing there is a higher power beyond this life
@@luca16messa How about you just try actually reading or using critical thinking and not depend on a RU-vid video of a religious kid who doesn't know anything about atheism argue about it
@@rawkfist-ih6nk t'was a joke... -_- the arguments redeemed zoomer layed out aren't really in depth, and the whole video is meant to serve as a joke, honestly some atheists didn't get the memo, but I understand their interpretation also I wouldn't argue endlessly in the comment section if I were you, it would waste our time, so we can just agree-to-disagree and move on, yeah?
So what he is saying is that God causes pain and suffering just to make himself look good? How does he not realize that he just made God sound like an evil jerk
Funny how even Christians disagree with his statement. He makes the free will argument look compelling in comparison (despite the god of the bible being omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and does interact with his creation unlike a deistic god)
@@arthurjellybeanmorgan2160 God didn't make evil, evil is basically something that opposes God and his will. He did not make evil people, it's the things that we do that are evil. (Which is why the word "sin" can be a verb) Sinning against God is opposing God, which means opposing holiness. And God being the just God that he is, of course we deserve punishment for violating his commandments. But he also knows that as human as we are, imperfect and sinful, there is nothing we can do to reign victory over sin and evil (and its consequences). So that's where his love comes in, where he sent his only begotten son, Jesus Christ, to atone and intercede in behalf of the beginning to the last of us, so that we may be redeemed from eternal damnation, which supposedly is what we deserve. Jesus lived a perfect sinless life, and he wasn't going round condemning sinners, rather, giving us hope, showing a new perspective of life and a new way to be human. Also just so you know, Hell isn't just some place with lakes of fires in it, but is also eternal separation from God. Which is why there's eternal suffering, which we chose instead of holiness, because again, that's the consequence of sin, because again, sin causes you to be separated from God, because again, God is holy.
@@hertzzgames Dude's a Calvinist. The free will argument goes out the window in his book, which makes God look like a kid killing ants with a magnifying glass. "Why does evil exist?" Because if it did not, free will wouldn't either.
@@davidstanford9933why use a meme format if you are seriously trying to answer "all" atheist arguments? of course some people aren't going to take is seriously.
The best part is that according to Reformed's arguments, humanity will be destroyed when evil is destroyed Who will glorify God if humanity no longer exists?
@@matteabrown195 Free will isnt a valid reason either, are you suggesting that god is incapable of creating a reality where free will exists but evil does not? Does free will exist in heaven? If it does this means no evil and free will can coexist, if not then we are losing the supposed greatest gift from god by entering heaven, and becoming robots in the process.
@@calebmills6051 God created Adam and Eve to be perfect and made in his image. But he kept things like the knowledge of good and evil from them (hence the tree). In this state they could exist freely without temptation to do evil because they were not aware of it. By eating from the tree humans discovered the nature of evil and temptation (therefore sin). So God kicked them out. My assumption would be that God saw the fall of man and that the overarching narrative of the Bible is that humans must regain that. Since humanity was made in God's image, it leads me to believe humanity was God's pet project. This journey of redemption therefore must be undertaken willfully by humans to be like God. I'm an atheist but that's my interpretation of the narrative and how I would sell it if I was Christian This common Christian image of God as absolute perfection without flaw is contradicted heavily by the Bible itself and several alternative interpretations have been forwarded throughout history. It's pretty interesting really.
That was an issue of questioning the (Catholic) Church's authority since they saw it as somehow diminishing their place in the universe, it was never a general anti science stance like people say
Pope Urban VIII had been a patron to Galileo and had given him permission to publish on the Copernican theory as long as he treated it as a hypothesis, but after the publication in 1632, the patronage broke due to Galileo placing Urban's arguments for God's omnipotence, which Galileo had been required to include, in the mouth of a simpleton character named "Simplicio" in the book; this caused great offense to the Pope.
he picked the ones that can be explained in a brief 10 minute video. if you actually care then you can easily find more in depth explanations of the more complicated things on youtube
Ok I’m a Hindu and I believe in god fully; however I don’t seem to understand what his explanation is for why god exists. You can’t prove by converses because there are an infinite amount of cases. He didn’t elaborate at all about the science question. For example, I could ask why the Bible has the creation date of the earth so incorrect? He never proves god isn’t in the natural world using mathematics. He simply states it. As long as he can’t do the math, he can’t be correct.@@thug588
“Why can’t God destroy evil?” “He’ll do it eventually.” “Why can’t he do it now?” “Because he’ll destroy you.” “Why does he let bad things happen at all?” “We deserve it.” A masterpiece of how not to make an argument
there's no point in arguing with christians because they didn't arrive to that conclusion through evidence and research, but rather indoctrination, fear mongering, and hope.
@@Eeeeerrttr "we deserve to live in a world of sin because we sinnned. why did god allow the world to be full of sin? idk, something about defeating satan and letting my son die on earth just so that nothing changes anyways and in the end 95% of his creations die anyway, but that doesn't matter, because it's their fault for existing anyway"
@@jan-3356 he loves everyone and gives them a chance to accept, it talks about in the bible how jesus knocks at your door and gives you a chance to open it, its your choice hes not forcing you to make a choice
I must thank Redeemed Zoomer for this video. Without it I wouldn't have had all the laughs watching the countless atheist response videos. This one video has been a gold mine for atheist creators and has provided me hours of entertainment. Thank you Redeemed Zoomer!
You know a video is good when you have already seen 7 people debunk it and there are still other interesting ways to debunk it that you haven't seen yet
@@pythondrink I'll name some who debunked it. Alex O'Connor, Professor Plink, Rationality Rules, and Sir Sic. These are the ones I remember off the top of my head.
How unsearchable are His judgments and decisions and how unfathomable and untraceable are His ways! For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO HAS BEEN HIS COUNSELOR?
it almost sounds like God wasn't satisfied with a perfect world so he created evil (this allowing billions to die and suffer) so he could have some petty form of glory. Not a god I would want to worship.
NO evil = no free will. Only having one option (to do good) is the same has having no options. No freedom. For humans to be truly free, they must have not only seen evil, but experienced it to truly understand its nature and in order to truly appreciate the good. The Buddha began his path to enlightened because he went outside of his palace and saw the evils of poverty, disease, and crime. If he stayed inside his palace his whole life, and didn't experience any evil, he would never have evolved into an enlightened being who understands and appreciates the nature of the good. Its the same with Christianity. Had God not let Adam and Eve stray, they would've remain ignorant, and non-appreciative of what good is.
@@categories5066 God is omnipotent, so he could've created a world where simultaneously no evil can exist and people are free. Similarly to how he created a world where people have free will despite the fact that he knows ahead of time which actions they will take.
I was looking for actually good arguments to challenge my atheism, and after watching this video, I found none. The amazingly massive amount of logical fallcies and wordplay in this video is absolutely breathtaking.
are you a scientist? Or just an egoist who doesnt want to be dependent by something he doesnt understand. We all feel mighty and strong alone untill the day comes, the day when we die
@@doctormomentos2514 I can offer you something even better, and while my comment sounds sarcastical, it actually is not, so I ask you to take it seriously. Watch a video on the different types of logical fallacies. Alternatively, you can google them or ask Chat GPT to give you a list of them with a short explanation and example for each of them. I believe that this is important for everyone to do because afterwards, it is almost like you can view the world in a different way; you will start to see logical fallacies everywhere, as people like to use them to win an argument or make a point when they're out of ideas. It will help you see which politicans are lying to get your vote and which are more trustable. If you're ever in an argument with someone, being aware of logical fallacies will massively help you. You may also notice how you unintentionally use logical fallacies from time to time without knowing it. After being aware of them, discussions will become easier and you may avoid to fall for lies or false arguments. However, as to not ignore your initial request; I think the very first logical fallacy is that atheists are basicly depicted as soy boys/virgins, thus the content creator is already trying to downplay them. I believe it falls under the ad hominem fallacy.
@@doctormomentos2514 the detection of logical fallacies is something learnt and taught to people as early as highschool. I'll give you a few timestamps in this video, and let you train yourself on their identification! 0:00 to 9:04
This video has the energy of a commentary by a Reddit atheist turned tradcath who barely learned anything regarding logical fallacies and reinforcing his beliefs.
Saying that God let evil exist because he's glorified in defeating it is like starting your own war and then stopping it and being hailed as a hero, even though you directly caused all the suffering, so really you've just created evil.
well i mean i guess he simply got that wrong lol but in Christian theology, the allowance of evil is intricately tied to the concept of free will, a fundamental aspect of human existence. God's plan involves granting individuals the freedom to make moral choices, even if some choose to engage in wrongdoing. The existence of evil, therefore, stems from the exercise of free will rather than a direct act of God. The redemptive narrative in Christianity underscores the possibility of transformation, forgiveness, and the ultimate triumph over evil through divine intervention and human choices aligned with God's will.
the video said, essentially, 'good' is 'in accordance with the nature of God', and 'evil' is 'absence of the nature of God', and therefore God is inherently good
@@clash1505 but evil is not necessary at all for people to be free, if you kill someone and enjoy it that doesn't do anything good for anyone, it's a waste of a human life and there's already countless things one could do to get that same satisfaction that aren't evil... God has created evil either willingly or unwillingly.
As a Christian, I feel this piece falls a little short on the explanation side of things. While I (inner circle, regular Bible reader) can understand the meaning and context to most of the answers to each argument, I don't think the majority of "answers" really answered anything. It often just posited an opposing point, without sufficient supporting evidence. The answers with quotes from Church fathers and Bible quotes were the best responses. Every answer to each of these questions should tie back to those things in some way.
I'm not entirely sure that this was meant to bring atheists to God. This could be a building ground for us Christians to work upon and expand, just as a basic idea. However, I do agree with you. But if he had explained each one in depth it would have been days long. God bless!
This is such a powerful video. It has truly brought communities together. Atheists, Christians, Muslims. We all unite, and in many comment threads I can see love, reassurance, and support for our fellow man. To keep hope, to love one another. And we all do this... in spite of what an absolute trash fire this video is. I assume you made this for school, or for a teacher, or for a community. I don't blame you. Get your grades, get your paycheck, do what you have to do and keep strong... but once you hit an old enough age to comfortably assume you can reasonably stand on your own two feet..? Set out upon the world. Learn as much as you can. Put ALL of your original considerations about how things SHOULD be behind, and learn like a child would in these new communities. Don't go WITH your fellowship, don't go WITH a missionary team, don't let them contextualize everything you see and learn into what you should believe. Just learn it for yourself. Breathe through it, and rip the band-aid off. I had to, once. You can do it.
Denying Free will is the Greatest Evil, With Free will, Comes Evil You can choose to do Evil or Not, because, In not Letting Evil Happen in the first place, It denys us Free will, which inturn, makes us robot-like
@@D4rkslider Honestly, if I and my fellow humans had to go about life as robots in order to avoid a lifetime of suffering, I would be pretty okay with that. Plus, if God couldn't create humans without creating evil, why make humans at all? To quote Lord Farquaad, "Some of you may die, but it is a sacrifice I am willing to make." God's completely fine with humans suffering and dying as long as the ones that are still alive worship him. Not a good look in my personal opinion, but hey, you do you
@@queenraeisel6651 There is also another way to frame that last sentence. "God is not completely fine with ANY of His creation perishing as a result of sin 'evil'. However, He is justified in creating man (for fellowship) in spite of the many that will reject Him. It may not be fully satisfactory on an emotional level, but it's not an injustice for God to create men who would freely chose to reject Him & forgo that fellowship he would have with those who would embrace & love Him.
@@cheifdonkey149 I think You've got it wrong my man. We aren't judging his arguments in relation to full fledged rebuttals, they just aren't good even by the standard of short quips.
@@2007NissanAltima Atheists are normal people. Its culturs who are an embaressment when they have the full access to all human knowlage on the internet.
thank you for fighting for what is and against the world while the myopic and naive try to fight against you. thank you for your work and let's keep moving. we fight for all goodness that is our Lord Yahusha Hamashiach Jesus Christ.when we fight for Jesus, we fight for everyone. i love you brother. let's do this because we have forever to look back. we don't know where He will take us but He will take us through it
Honestly I think a better way to answer the “religion causes wars/evil” question is not to say non religious wars/evil happen more often, but that no matter your religious belief we are all intrinsically evil, and that religious people are not exempt.
While you have a valid point yourself I do not think it qualifies to replace the original point, but could be layered onto it after the original is stated for reinforcement. I say this because numbers are very powerful and when you have a strong statistic to illustrate in favor of your stance you should absolutely use it (and have your source ready to share, which they will definitely ask for). 3% of wars being caused by Christianity means the rest of the world is the cause for 97%. That is an extremely condemning number and is impossible to justify by an atheist.
@@johnwicksfoknpencil That is if you only see the world as Christian vs the rest of the world, that 97% is made up of billions of people, other nations, countries, and religions. If the 97% is divided up and percentages divided accordingly each group could say the same, now I dont know the % of Islam, but say its also 3% then they could say the same. But I would say it is much more complex. Statistics is a complex topic, while the main reason for most of the wars in history might not be cited as religious, the governments involved might be religious, and the reasons for their political stances might be religious...I'm not saying it is. After all only 20% of the world identifies as non-believers... I believe, Take America in the Middle East, the reasons will not be cited as Christian or religious, but are committed to by a Christian nation(arguably at least). Now I dont know the stats cited here, but I doubt the remainder is secular or atheist causes necessarily. It's probably political, nationalistic, etc. This might be a black-and-white fallacy where just because it's not (directly) Christian doesn't mean it's automatically atheistic causes. You wanting to pin the rest of the 97% solely on atheists is like me pinning the American civil war on Christianity, just because most people involved were Christian (dont know if they actually were just making a point) as the war itself has nothing to with that, so that would be ridiculous, it's the same the other way around. Just because a war is not because of Christianity doesn't automatically make it because of atheism, or even if it is between atheists doesn't mean it's because of atheism. There are a plethora of reasons and stances. The main point atheists make regarding this I believe, is that Christian or religious people aren't inherently more moral or good people, not necessarily (although some atheists probably hold this point) that all wars are because of religion.
Additionally wars mostly happen either to gain resources or influence. To say "oh it was religion" misses the mark to me as an excuse would be used to start it. Honestly, even the crusades (at least some of them) were simply to stop the aggressive expansion of muslim powers into Europe.
Atheists don't believe people are intrinsically evil. In fact, many don't believe evil even exists- but rather that morality is mostly gray. If you put a man who had never had any other human contact alone in a forest, they would simply do what is necessary to survive.
Because he literally just tries to use doublespeak to ask “well what is evil? It’s not a physical thing so…let’s move on to the next dumb question I think I’m answering.”
@@nate_mccallisteri am an atheist, and i agree that it is a bad response, but it is not doublespeak. what he's arguing is that "good" is god's will, like a vase whose mold conforms to the appearance and functions of god's nature. then "evil" is just the distortion of god's will and nature, so a vase whose appearance and function is distorted. but i'd argue it is a bad argument. since man himself, built on the image of god, creates appearance and function, then it is impossible to distinguish god's will from man's will. man is as much creator of worth as god, so either 1. god has given up all will to man, and therefore his judgement has become irrelevant (thus god does not exist in practice) or 2. god does not exist at all. if we cannot prove 1 then 2 proves itself either way.
@@lucca3113 This is terrible reasoning. "since man himself, built on the image of god, creates appearance and function" God created all things, including man. The created thing is not the creator. A man can program a computer to create an image, but that doesn't mean that "man has given up all will to the computer... and thus man doesn't exist in practice". It doesn't mean that man doesn't exist at all.
"Why do bad things happen?" "We deserve it" Okay tell that to the little girl that got raped did she deserve it?, the family's mother who was murdered? Do they deserve to live their life without their mother? How about the INNOCENT victims of all the serial killers in human history? Did they deserve to die?
psychology has shown that we tend to believe in just world, where justice generally prevails and people are eventually compensated for fortunes and misfortunes but this also means that we're prone to thinking that the unfortunate people must have done something to deserve their fate when study participants are asked to explain why there are poor people, raped victims, cancer patients, traffic accidents' survivors, people with congenital birth defects, natural disasters' victims they twisted facts, or invented reasons that people caused their misfortunes themselves... rather just being victims research suggests that this belief is a coping mechanism that derives from the belief in just world
You think we dont sin against him EVERYDAY?? Ever since the downfall of mankind, we have been sinning. God backed up a bit to make room because WE DIDNT CHOOSE TO OBEY HIM. And with that... Evil and sin ruled the world, along with the evil of man putting it on little girls. It is not Gods fault, its ours. It is by the sin of man that those happen. They had free will, free will which then they used it for evil. They sinned against that girl by their OWN WILL, not Gods.
@@weebwubb9569 how can you say "you love me" If in your To Do list is written that you planned to lock me up and torture me for eternity when you were rejected by me? the Godman you're promoting is too childish, he needs to grow up and be the real man
@@weebwubb9569 I studied psychology and it's easy for me to see that the concept of jealous Godman, that you Must worship one Godman derives from man's incapability of handling rejection from a girl, and also handling rejection from many things in life being rejected by others is quite difficult for men to handle, the concept of jealous Godman is just the manifestation of it. let's lock all the rejectors up in hell, for eternity several men that I rejected back in my college days were a gazillion better than the Godman you're promoting, they didn't proceed to lock me up and torture me for eternity🤭🤭🤭
@@weebwubb9569 God is only powerful and perfect because he keeps on and on and on creating imperfect things that are less powerful than him, what an insecure man with beard
Ibn al-Haytham was an early proponent of the concept that a hypothesis must be supported by experiments based on confirmable procedures or mathematical reasoning-an early pioneer in the scientific method five centuries before Renaissance scientists, he is sometimes described as the world's "first true scientist."
"Secular scholars don't agree on which quotes are fake so we can discard their opinions. It's totally okay that there's 5000 Christian denominations though because they agree on the essentials." Lmao.
@@CptDawner I'm aware that it was "addressed," did you even read my entire post? The point is the hypocrisy of saying "My enemies don't perfectly agree on everything so we can ignore everything they say, but it's okay that we do that." It's particularly hypocritical because you very much don't agree on the essentials, which is why there's 5000 denominations in the first place. If you agreed, you would only need one. Do you need to be baptized to get into Heaven? Yes and no. How should baptism be done? Sprinkling water on the head is enough, but actually its full immersion. Are you allowed to get a divorce? Yes and no. Are Christians still beholden to Old Testament laws? Yes and no. Does Purgatory exist? Yes and no. How many books are canon? 66 and 73. Is the bible inerrant and infallible? Yes and no. Prima scriptura vs. Sola scriptura. And many other things. Therefore, since none of you agree we can discard your opinions.
@@JohnDoe-nq5dt First of all, something cannot be "easy to answer" and "difficult to explain" at the same time, those are mutually contradictory. Second of all, I'm not sure what you're even talking about because there are no "atheist questions" in either of my posts. The initial claims from the video are: 1. Secular scholars don't 100% agree on every single thing, therefore all of their opinions are worthless. 2. Christians don't 100% agree on every single thing, but this is fine because they agree on the essentials. My first post is pointing out that saying both of these things at the same time makes you a hypocrite. CptDawner for some reason decides to reply with something I already mentioned, completely not understanding what I even said apparently, so I decided to point out that "we agree on the essentials" is not even true in the first place by listing various _Christian_ questions that Christians do not agree on. And according to the video's own logic, because this is the case, we can discard all Christian opinions. Thus, I don't know what "atheist questions" you're talking about. The only question _I_ asked was whether CptDawner actually read my post properly. If you'd like to actually have a proper conversation about the above issue, feel free to actually say something of substance. But popping in with "It's so easy to answer atheist questions, but I'm not going to because actually it's difficult to answer atheist questions," is just a waste of time.
listen to the argument. just because you dont want to doesnt make him wrong. Jesus even said this would happen. Jesus said the world would hate us for believing him.
@@deejaythedeejay Nah The whole point of logical fallacies is that if they are the only thing supporting an argument, it falls apart. This in itself is not a fallacy and my comment was about those.
This was made for biased Christians who wanted their beliefs to be approved by somebody for them to feel good about themselves, like all of these "Debunking Atheism😎" style videos.
I am a Christian and I DEFINITELY cringed because he took complex questions that have real and legitimate answers and reduced those to quick answer gotcha orthodox based Chad bring the West back styled memes. He’s not winning any Christians over just as the top 10 Christian argument videos published by atheists aren’t winning any deconverts.
I find it interesting how in this video, in response to the "Evolution disproves God" argument, you say that there have been religious thinkers in the past who have concluded that the Genesis story is not literal, but in a more recent video about heresies, you say that anyone claiming that the bible is not literal follows "liberalism" which is a heresy. So in order to answer the athiest argument, you had to use a heretical one. Again, very interesting.
As much as I love when people point out one's hypocrisy, I can't help but feel like even he doesn't believe or listen to the shit he says. Like, has he made an updated video, or responded to any of the arguments these comment bring up? He's either stoking the fire or, as his name suggests, a young kid who is struggling to make sense of our confusing world, and doing a poor job of it. Hell, I feel like the christian keyboard warriors here have a far more, albiet still flawed, understanding of this topic.
I feel like this should be a red flag to believers. Saying that Genesis is metaphorical just means that they're admitting they can't take the Bible at its word.
I love how he felt the need to lie about Hitler being atheist. If you have to edit the Wikipedia article, you know you’re in the wrong. Hitler was a critic of atheism💀
The religious beliefs of Adolf Hitler, dictator of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945, have been a matter of debate. During the beginning of his political life, Hitler publicly expressed favorable opinions towards Christianity, but later totally rejected it. Most historians describe his later posture as adversarial to organized Christianity and established Christian denominations. Hitler was born to a practicing Catholic mother, Klara Hitler, and was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church; his father, Alois Hitler, was a free-thinker and skeptical of the Catholic Church. In 1904, he was confirmed at the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Linz, Austria, where the family lived. According to John Willard Toland, witnesses indicate that Hitler’s confirmation sponsor had to "drag the words out of him … almost as though the whole confirmation was repugnant to him."
It's clear that Hitler manipulated Christian beliefs to support his worldview. As the above commenter mentioned, there is really nothing in Hitler's life that indicates a practicing Christian. Even per Wikipedia, and it's cited sources, "Hitler and the Nazi party promoted "Positive Christianity",[41] a movement which rejected most traditional Christian doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus, as well as Jewish elements such as the Old Testament.[42][43] " this is certainly NOT Christianity, and is absolutely heretical. The moment he rejects Jesus' divinity, which is a tenet of all basically all true Christian forms, with their beliefs outlined in the Nicene Creed (council of Nicea), then you cannot consider them as "Christians". Now, to claim Hitler as "atheist" is ambiguous. But again, you can see he would schrewdly approach religion, and use what fits best, he was pragmatic. Here's a quote for you: "BBC historian Laurence Rees characterises Hitler's relationship to religion as one of opportunism and pragmatism: "his relationship in public to Christianity - indeed his relationship to religion in general - was opportunistic. There is no evidence that Hitler himself, in his personal life, ever expressed any individual belief in the basic tenets of the Christian church".[44]" Truly ask yourself, was Hitler a deist? Very well could have been. Was he secular? Agnostic or atheist, that just manipulated religious teaching and customs to get what he wanted? Very well could have. But we don't know, clearly. But with his apparent disdain for Catholicism and other aspects of Judeo-Christian culture, it seems like this may have been the case. And to end off on this quote: "The historian Geoffrey Blainey wrote that Hitler courted and benefited from fear among German Christians of militant Communist atheism.[189] "The aggressive spread of atheism in the Soviet Union alarmed many German Christians", wrote Blainey, and with the National Socialists becoming the main opponent of Communism in Germany: "[Hitler] himself saw Christianity as a temporary ally, for in his opinion 'one is either a Christian or a German'. To be both was impossible."[189]"
Hitler was some weird pagan occultist or some shit, but Nazi Germany was mostly secular, they didn't really give a shit about your religion. Hell, they didn't even care about the Jewish religion, just the Jewish ethnicity.
@@deplorabledegenerate2630 _> Because they weren't prosperous until the 20th century?_ They weren't, buddy. They were quite poor. Do you think they invented eating surstromming because they were prosperous? 😆 Selling herring and taxing the trade between Russia and Europe through the Baltic sea were their primary sources of income before 20th century. E.g. before WW1, Sweden was deeply in dept. After WW1, Sweden was swimming in gold.
This may be one of the worst videos I have ever seen. Like his point on god being the uncaused causer is so hilarious. He just asserts it makes more sense for god to be an uncaused causer than the universe because he already agrees with it 😂
@Redeemed Zoomer Hey, I'm an atheist but still enjoy your videos, and I have a question - having watched a lot of your videos, there is one thing that I cant quite wrap my head around: When you counter a lot of these arguments for atheism it often ends up at a point where you go "yeah okay okay so science can explain a lot, but god is outside of the entire universe so science and god dont contradict each other". I get that argument, but at that point all we are really arguing about is the question "Is there a divine entity of any kind at all", and you argue "yes there probably is because etc etc". And that is great, I find those arguments interesting, but like, thats not what i came here for. I came here for "okay why is christianity, specifically, right". If we agree that a divine entity exists, then its again the 4000 and 3999 gods question, to which basically all religions (christianity included) say "yeah okay uhhhh... we think *we* are right
Why though? I mean yeah it was incredibly condenses but he still provided the basic foundation of both the questions and the arguments which can help people explore and debate by using this video and it's points as a foundation to educate themselves.
@@trapidtrap2612 In some questions he goes more in depth and actually explains in somewhat well. In others, he gives it to the viewer's faith and that's valid since that's part of religion anyway. But for most of the questions, he doesn't answer it and gives something completely far off. So that he doesn't lose to the strawman's arguments, he gives an answer that confuses the strawman and the audience. He relies a lot of fallacies to try to _"make a point"_ _And as a cherry on top, he has drawn himself as the based Chad while the cringe atheist is a soy Wojak. Truly one of the most convincing pieces for Christianity of all time_
Watching this was just so frustrating. As a former atheist, I don't think lot of theists understand that many of those in Gen Z know who Jesus is, and admire Jesus, its just the church and its people.
"Why did god let evil exist at all?" "Because he's glorified in defeating it" When I heard this I remembered the dialogue of Senator Armstrong in Metal Gear Rising- "I'm using war as a business to get elected"
I mean, it makes no sense. Is God so thin-skinned that he needs to be glorified? And if he does, he can't think of a better way to do it than to allow evil to flourish, and people to suffer as a result?
List of the fallacies(35) I found in this video. If I missed one or got one incorrect, feel free to drop a reply! 0:01 - Ad Hominem 0:19 - Red Herring 0:28 - Tu Quoque, Hasty Generalization 0:36 - Red Herring 1:02, 1:21, 1:22 - Appeal to Authority Also 1:22 - Ad Hominem 1:46 - The argument itself is an Assertion fallacy - the reply is Ad Hominem and Hasty Generalization 1:59 - Argument - Assertion, Reply - Circular, Assertion 2:49 - Special Pleading 3:10 - Red Herring, Special Pleading, Hasty Generalization 3:27 - Special Pleading 3:37 - Hasty Generalization 4:08 - Strawman? (It uses an argument by said Atheist that misconstrues the meaning of "Atheism" but idk) 4:27 - Appeal to Personal Incredulity 4:43 - Red Herring, Hasty Generalization 5:02 - Circular, Non-Sequitur, Begging the Question 5:27 - Appeal to Future 5:31 - False Dilemma 6:24 - Appeal to Consequences 6:33 - Non-Sequitur 6:37 - Begging the Question 6:48 - Red Herring 7:13 - Argumentum ad Lapidum 8:02 - Red Herring 8:13 - Argumentum ad Lapidum 8:23 - Red Herring Not posting this to be an ass, but firstly as practice for me to listen more carefully for illogical arguments, and hopefully as a reminder to others! I would be interested to see maybe a video this length on 2 or 3 topics, and then take the time to explain them in more depth.
@@drewww2472I very much could be wrong, but in this one I saw it as avoiding what the argument was actually talking about, Christianity’s spreading through military conquest, by just saying that it used to be illegal. It doesn’t actually address the argument and throws a misleading piece of information in the mix to do so
"Because he'd have to destroy you" is absolutely not a counter argument to "Why can't God destroy evil now?" If God can destroy evil but doesn't because I'm alive he has my full permission to send me to hell on the spot, that's just a basic trolley problem.
I think, my favorite part about this video are the questions you don't "answer" because of how ridiculous the argument is. I fully support totally ignoring bad ideas, they are merely strawmen and should be torched and ignored. Calling them reddit scholars was a nice touch.
Ignoring them in this video is okay, but it is important to know real answers to those questions because, although they're low hanging fruit, it's the low hanging fruit that's most often eaten by people who don't know better.
I'm not an atheist nor a redditor so I would've liked quite much if he did replied to those questions to the point where I'm not even sure if this an ironic video.
@@IridiumAxle exactly. athiests do believes some of these ideas that from an unbiased perspective are obviously convoluted and stupid but they dont see that, so we must show them rather than just ignore them.
“Why can’t God destroy evil?” “He’ll do it eventually.” “Why can’t he do it now?” “Because he’ll destroy you.” “Why does he let bad things happen at all?” “We deserve it.” The 2 month old baby that got diagnosed with stage 6 cancer:
I less lazy answer would be "the world is full of carcinogens in the food and environment because greedy people in power prioritize profit over health". A second, closer to the root answer would be; the world isn't our final destination, so realistically that baby just suffered for 2 months and then got to heaven way earlier than we will. Good for him. Living is hard. True Christians do not fear death.
it's been so long since i found myself falling down the christian vs. atheist debate youtube rabbit hole, but now i remember why i climbed out in the first place - videos like this one that are just overflowing with contradictions, strawman arguments, logical fallacies, etc. etc.. so thanks for reminding me that i don't actually want to be here. 👍
Love the attention to detail in the video title! It implicitly acknowledges that while it dors contains "answers", they aren't necessarily good, accurate, or convincing.
Exactly! I honestly feel a bit bad for him because he thinks he gave bulletproof responses here. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing... and a sad thing.
I had to stop watching immediately with the claim "Hitler is an Atheist." "It's true that Hitler's public statements opposing atheism should not be given too much weight, since they obviously served Hitler's political purposes to tar political opponents. However, in his private monologues, he likewise rejected atheism, providing further evidence that this was indeed his personal conviction. Perhaps even more significantly, he had complete faith that Providence had chosen him to lead the German people to greatness. It's clear through his personal monologues that he rejected Atheism, but while confessing faith in an omnipotent being of some sort, however, Hitler denied we could know anything about it. Source: Hitler's Religion by Richard Weikart (History Professor at California State University)
I really don't know, I'm reading a book about polish hero Pilecki who volunteered to Auschwitz nazi camp as a spy for polish ressistance and the West and in the concentration camp he asked sometimes Polish people for their religion, which surprised me, because that means in the 30' not all the Poles were religious, so in Germany also could be like that.
Alr let me debunk some of this bs. “most murderous people in history were not religious” That is because they came in a time where more people lived. If there were more people living say 500 years ago of course the number would change. Also saying that Hitler was an atheist is BS because even reading into the article itself says that “He also criticized atheism.[5]” “Science only deals with the physical world, and God is outside that natural world” Maybe but he sent his son down to earth, meaning that at least some part of him existed in the physical world, but we haven’t seen that since antiquity, and at most we can prove that he exists, there is a religion named after him and that he beefed with Romans and Jews like Eminem beefs with mumble rappers. “We deserve bad things to happen to us” Then why are people who have done very little other than exist be conquered by others? Look at Poland ever since the partitions. What have they done? At most they built an impressive empire for the standards of the time, yet they get conquered by their neighbours and disappear from the map for more than 100 years and meanwhile germany, Russia, and Austria was just shrunk. Is life unfair? Yes, I am not denying that. But does allowing the poles to be gassed by the thousands and meanwhile the countries that oppressed them get minor border adjustments sound like a good idea? “He can be glorified in defeating it.” Why do you need your populace to glorify you in such a convoluted way? There is a much simpler option: just control the minds of everyone to make them Christian. Saves lives, saves time, saves Jerusalem from being destroyed for the 69420th time. “Romantic experiences can cause brain chemicals, and it doesn’t mean your wife isn’t real” Yeah… no she isn’t. “People who have had nde’s and drug trips say they are different” Ok why are they taking drugs, and also the person never mentioned NDE’s so that point is moot. “Faith just means trust.” I guess that means I have none at all as someone overly paranoid. And you also missed one I have. “If there is a god why is there a need for more than one way to go against that? For example, any religion with multiple gods. Those already exist, why would an atheist patch exist? Most likely you’d be going to hell if those who believe not only In Christianity, but any abrahamic religion are actually correct. Why the need to add extra ways to go against him when you can just choose one and go with it?”
The argument isn't "Your geographical location influenced your belief, therefore your belief is false." The reason someone holds a belief has nothing to do with whether or not it is true. The argument is "If a god exists and reveals themself to all people, we would not expect geographical location to be the primary indicator for religious affiliation. Location _is_ the primary indicator for religious affiliation. Therefore such a god does not exist."
First of all, location is not the primary indicator for religious affiliation; there are a multitude of factors that may influence what someone believes, but it all comes down to what someone chooses to believe. If it wasn't so, we wouldn't have individuals or minority groups who go against the majority culture. Presenting one factor as the primary indicator for religious affiliation neglects the complexity of reasons for why people believe what they believe. Second, you're presenting a false dilemma: either everyone believes the same thing, or God doesn't exist. You're forgetting a third option. Yes, God has chosen to reveal Himself to all nations, either through Scripture, the human conscience, or the natural world. However, mankind still has the free will to reject God and create their own religions, because even though they don't want anything to do with the one true and living God, they cannot get rid of their need to believe in something. It would be akin to arguing that because there is a real Dollar, no counterfeit dollars could ever exist, but since we have counterfeit dollars, therefore there is no real Dollar. If anything, the existence of counterfeit dollars underscores the necessity for a real Dollar, because if there was no real Dollar, how would you know if it was counterfeit? You don't even need to use God to prove this. I bet that most people know that eating fast food is unhealthy and will kill you slowly if eaten excessively, yet they still do it. The problem is not that people don't have knowledge, but rather that you need to explain why people act a certain way in spite of what they know. TL;DR - False dilemma; even if God made Himself known 100%, people could still reject Him because of free will.
@@PppPlyr2 it absolutely IS the primary indicator. Almost all muslims are born or are recently decended from majority muslim countries, and the same goes for almost all Christians being born in the west.
@@Daniel-vl8zmSaying it's the primary factor doesn't account for the religious differences WITHIN the members of the various denominations, but of course leave it to atheists to generalize to the degree that individuals stop existing and only groups remain.
@@Daniel-vl8zm See? You yourself disprove your own position; you say "almost all Muslims" (emphasis on "almost all"). If location was the primary factor, wouldn't you expect 100% allegiance to whatever religion is prominent in that area? As an aside, even if location was the primary factor, what does that have to do with whether or not that religion is true or not? Truth remains true regardless of location, so you cannot assess the truthfulness of a religion based on where it came from. Also, I didn't see a response to my second point.
@@PppPlyr2you clearly don’t understand what “primary” means and that’s ok. No, location being the primary factor does NOT imply 100% at all, it literally means “almost all”. It wouldn’t be “primary” factor then, it would be the “only” factor
@@freshcarrot2253 lol that was an inside joke because of nameless's profile pic. there's nothing wrong with observing the other side and offering honest criticism...
I have some questions 1: where did all the water from the flood go after the flood was over 2: how did animals not go extinct from inbreeding after the flood 3: where did all the water from the flood come from 4: how did all aquatic animals not die from the mixing of fresh water and salt water 5: how did noah know the difference between the males and females of the animals where males and females look the same 6: how on earth did noah boat a boat big enough to fit two of every animal 7: how did noah manage to get enough food to last his family and all the other animals on the boat for nearly a year
Oh don’t worry. Those stories that can be easily debunked, those are _metaphors._ However everything else is literal until proven not, especially the clobber verses (Sodom and Gomorrah). This is why a “figurative interpretation” of the Bible is such a copout and it’s just Christianity trying to save face in the light of modern scientific discoveries that threaten it. Also I find it so hypocritical how some Christians will say John 8 (the “he who is without sin cast the first stone” story) doesn’t belong in the Bible because it wasn’t in the original Greek manuscripts, yet don’t say that about Matthew 28:19 (which openly mentions the Trinity) but it wasn’t in the manuscripts either.
How did Noah fetch the animals from all around the world and then return them to their homelands? What did the animals eat after the flood? Did the lions and tigers just eat fish that washed ashore or the rotting carcasses of former animals that died in the flood? How did Noah account for the different habitat needs of the animals? Most importantly: were there termites on the boat?
1. God got rid of the excess water. 2. God blessed them and removed any birth defects of their offspring. 3. God made it. 4. God blessed the water to make it good for them. 5. God gave him divine knowledge. 6. God helped him build it. 7. God gave it to him and blessed him and the animals to need less food.
fr i thought exactly the same, bro picked the weakest arguments and still failed to counter most of them. At this point most christians are just lying to themselves, they`re ignoring arguments and saying they won debates were they clearly lost
His bit about comparing Scandinavia to Communist China and saying that the former was rooted in Christianity was pretty funny. Other than the blatant cherry picking, it refutes nothing and makes the implication that Scandinavia would be in the same place as China without Christianity. It's a bit sad that people in the comments are taking him dead seriously.
That is like asking “The heater can only make heat so how is there cold?” A good thing doesn’t necessarily imply an incorruptible thing, those are two different attributes.
@@PatrickWDunne reading this just makes me think you're a monkey. The fact that you can't understand that free will exists even though you had the thought to type the comment and not God is actually absurd.
I hate how atheists ask: "Then who created god?" and think they just won. Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beggining and the End."
The entire thing for my fellow lazy ppl 1) I believe in science so that means god can't be real 2)I was raised Christian and I have trauma (they said not to sin) 3) look here is a violent Bible verse that nobody ever noticed before 4) there is contradictions in the Bible (that the Church has never noticed) 5) SKY DADDY 6) if God is real why don't I have a gg yet? 7) I don't need a god to know murder is bad (don't ask about abortion tho) 8) your god did a genocide in the flood he big meanie Timestamp: 0:06
Yesterday I saw Jesus skating in Miami Sea Beach...I not an Atheist anymore...Now I have turned to Jesus...We even drank wine together in his Golden Palace and talked about how the Business of Religion Works...Such an Amazing System he described... An Insecure God with one Hand holding a GUN and another hand holding REWARDS at you, creating you WITHOUT your consent and then forcing you into dancing according to his SONG as you have NO other Choice...Sounds like a Loving God to me !!
He’s a Calvinist, he doesn’t believe in free will, that mentality makes God seem narcissistic. Watch impact videos ministries, they have better arguments
@@UnidentifiedFlyingSquirrel Not just narcissistic, but it also makes God into some kind of arbitrary judge who's messing around with His followers (like what's even the point of the gospel, which is supposed to be good news, if God is essentially shooting love/grace arrows at random people at random times?). I hate Calvinist theology, but I love Calvinists, especially when they're actually showing fruits of the Spirit and focusing on the gospel, but their theology will sometimes get in the way of them being kind and loving towards others. Calvinism brings pride and arrogance. It's toxic.
@@I_hate_mortals Free will to choose but only one choice is apparently the *only* correct one while anything is eternal punishment? That's just an illusion of free will
Im an atheist and i agree that some atheist arguements are not very good, but for some of these I wish to counter your arguements, please keep in mind that I wish to only create peaceful debate. 0:49 this is not a sufficient counter agruement to me, just because something is not disprovable does not mean that it may be likely to be true, I could say that a different god controls the universe and argue for its existance simply by saying you can't prove its not real. 1:02 while these occourances may seem strange, it could be that they were exposed to certain information e.g. languages from films or holidays, which they could then make sence of from some event. They may also recall information from such events, even if they entirely forgotten it. 4:23 If you use the arguement that god was uncaused, why could i not then use that same arguement to say that existance was uncaused? 5:36 I would like some elaboration, but if this is because of Adam and Eve, why should we be punished for what they did? And also why does God sometimes not punish those who have done wrong, but sometimes punish those who have not done wrong? 5:46 This is stating that the idea of good has to come from a god, but evolution could explain how morals are naturally formed, because peoples need to help others leads to more surviving humans, causing our race to survive. 6:25 this says that a triumph over evil is greater than a lack of evil, but personally I believe this to be false, to this day there is so much unnecessary pain that leads to many innocents suffering or dieing. I personally belive that a world without evil would be a better than a world with evil which you need to defeat. 7:25 All these analogies are not the same as faith in God, in all of these examples we have reasons to believe these things, e.g. food would not be harmful because if it were there would be legal trouble for that company and it would harm business, or we can believe that your wife loves you due to previous interactions. 8:23 If there is so much disagreement on the bible, why doesn't god clarify? Wouldn't a all knowing god know that we would misinterpret it and clarify? I am open to discussion and I will be respectful. Also I made sure not to comment on arguements that either I didn't understand, didn't have enough knowledge on, or arguements from atheists that even I think are weak.
It all boils down to faith in the end. There is no way to actually prove most of the existential questions plaguing the human mind. An atheist simply refuses to believe any of the theories presented to him, because none of them really make sense. There are holes in every single theory out there, and I can live my life without choosing one. I understand some people have been conditioned into believing certain stories, and this is fine, because stories are a part of the human condition. I also know some people find joy in their faith as some people live in terrible conditions where hope for a good afterlife is all they have. They're simply satisfied with the shortcoming of their theories and chose to have faith, because that makes them happier and more comfortable. I chose not to have faith, because I don't gain anything from it. How the world came to be is not something I can answer and no-one has so far convinced me in any of their arguments. I only believe in science that can be proven, and will not judge if anyone disagrees with me. For if I cannot prove anything myself, who am I to do anything but disagree?
I too only wish for peaceful debate :). 1. You could say a different god controls the universe, but then that's not really an argument for atheism anymore. 2. True, though the whole argument isn't an argument doesn't directly address God's existence, just one aspect of God's impact; also, God doesn't exclusively work in supernatural ways -- most of the Bible is filled with God empowering people to act, or setting into motion perfectly normal things. 3. I would say that you can explain existence with God. You can't exactly presuppose why anything exists which exists in existence, so you must have some necessary thing (i.e. God) to explain it from outside the set of contingent things. 4. We deserve it because humans are inherently evil, because we all have inherited that evilness from our ancestors. Also, God punishes everyone. 5. Morals can absolutely be naturally formed -- for example, "killing Jews and homosexuals and gypsies and disabled people is good for the Aryan race by removing impurities" was a morality that was formed and genuinely believed to be righteous. In Christianity, God's morality is the most-good morality, though we're still not perfect as humans at following it. 6. Triumph over evil is a greater good in the eyes of God than a lack of evil. Also, I personally think evil is necessary for us humans to overcome otherwise we would always be stuck in the same state forever. If there were no evil, no adversity, why would we ever improve ourselves? 7. You have faith that they care about their business or laws/there isn't some interloper poisoning you. You have faith your wife hasn't stopped loving you/hasn't been pretending/whatever. 8. There is far more agreement than disagreement. Whether churches feature icons of God or not, or how the church is organised doesn't really matter to God so much as belief in the trinity, the resurrection, the nature of God, et cetera. Hope you enjoy reading and discussing.
@@emuannihilator5774human are inherently evil?? what??? Weren't we were given free will?? so if i do not use it to do any bad thing, i am still evil?? then how can God be called Just?? Also child cancer cannot be justified because they have not even able to use their free will.....what do u say about that(sry for my bad English)
@@emuannihilator5774you are saying evil is necessary as if we need to celebrate evil , because anytime anything evil happens that allows us to triumph over it..... in that case is Holocaust a necessary thing for the evolution of mankind as a moral being??? Did God intended to allow Holocaust in the first place for us to understand what is good and bad?? If thats the case, How is this God not a genocidal maniac????
@@jeppepuusfaith is a belief in something that cannot be fully proved, so as your truly relationship with your friend or whoever. You don't want to accept God's existence, because being christian is harder than being atheist, so no argument will make you think another way, because all people want easy life and do whatever they want to. So the problem is in you, not in God. The fact is that arguments about faith are useless, because christians know that God is real and atheists know that God is not real. God is about relationships, not about knowledge. You have to try the cake to say if it's tasty or not by yourself, no argument about its taste will make you 100% sure how good or bad it is just for you. Bless you!
The best argument this entire video provides is presenting the atheists as soyjacks and the theists as chads. As for the rest of the arguments, they're not quite as strong.
I don't think you understand what 'faith' means. Christians have faith that God will be there for them and help them and have faith that He'll answer their prayers, not faith that He exists at all.
@@lukebaker5135 how can Christians say that the existence of God in unfalsifiable but also say that their belief in God's existence isn't based on faith
It really isn’t most of you atheist don’t use your brain and cry in the comments if they don’t understand a simple thing😂😂. Remember this is a 10 minute video kid😂
@@user-dt2hp9wy5q the argument he provided was that religion starts wars. He then verified that that is sometimes true. I have never once heard an atheist say all wars are started by religion. This video is childish.
@@virtueschan like what/when? Where is your evidence, what are you talking about? if something goes against ur ideology dont just make a baseless claim to try and cover yourself, name specifics
As a shameless atheist (or at least agnostic) scumbag who got this video in my recommended, here’s my live rebuttal to the first quarter of the arguments here, as I watch it: 1. This is true, but it’s not a rebuttal against atheism (that God doesn’t exist), it’s a rebuttal against anti-theism (that belief in God is a net negative on society). I don’t think religion is necessarily evil, I just don’t think it’s logically justified. 2. See number 1: I want counterarguments to atheism, not anti-theism. 3. You just completely ignored the point of the argument here, and that a lot of people AREN’T atheist because of birth: they were raised religious, but realized there was no justification for their beliefs when they became an adult. Meanwhile, by far the most common reason for belief in Christianity is because one’s friends and family are Christian: it’s a tradition, not a logically-reasoned belief. 4. Atheists can’t know whether a specific worldview is true, but they can reason it out through logical reasoning and a cause-and-effect approach to morality. Meanwhile, there’s no logical reason why someone would believe in one religion over the other: like I said, it’s a tradition, nothing more. 5. That’s not an explanation, it’s just an excuse: “Well of course you can’t prove that an angry old man created the world, the 2000 year old book I got this information from specifically said no one can prove his existence!” By that logic, you might as well believe in the Tooth Fairy. 6. Do you have any source for the possession claims, other than a book filled with anecdotal evidence from someone who has every reason to lie about this? And the evidence of NDEs being real experiences is, to put it lightly, highly inconsistent: some people seem to accurately remember small details, others don’t even come close. 7. What about the literal factual inconsistencies in the Bible, like how it describes Goliath dying in two completely different ways (a contradiction so egregious that most translations retcon the second death into being Goliath’s brother)? 8. I would take any claims of early Christian knowledge with a massive grain of salt: there is very little evidence that people like St. Ignatius ever actually met the apostles, let alone were able to attest to the Gospels actually being written by them. As it stands, by far the most reliable interpretation of the Gospels is that they were written a few decades to a century after the events they claim to describe, and likely based on at least a couple earlier manuscripts (hence the large amount of near-identical passages). 9. Just because there’s a lot of debate over how the Gospels altered the story of the historical Jesus, that doesn’t mean that the Gospels are a completely factual account of events that actually happened (an idea that’s highly unlikely, to say the least). 10. That’s not proof that Jesus was actually God, it’s just proof that the Gospels wrote Jesus as if he was the son of God. You might as well say that Mark Zuckerberg founded Facebook due to being rejected by his girlfriend, when the only evidence of that is how Aaron Sorkin wrote it in The Social Network. I’m gonna stop here: my mobile RU-vid comment box can’t handle the wall of text I’m writing here, and I honestly don’t have the energy to write any more. Suffice it to say, if these are the brilliant arguments you’re starting off your hypothetical anti-atheist debate with, you need to find better arguments.
This is a tiktok level video and not an actual scholarly analysis. The claim atheist nations/leaders are the most murderous is insane. Many conflicts in history slaughtered 100% of their enemy. Just because more people existed in the 20th century isn't an argument for a higher rating on the murder scale.
This has to be higher up. Regardless of ones own beliefs the debate has to be in good faith with honest arguments instead of cherry-picking and strawmanning
Fellow atheist/agnostic scumbag here. I think the video and comments agreeing with its viewpoints are enlightening to read, but yeah, it's very hard to prove anything when it seems the two sides are drawing from very different bases of evidence. For instance, for atheists the Bible might not seem like a reliable source of information, while for some theists it might be irrefutable. Add to whether things are literal or metaphorical, and I find it's very hard to remain objective when objectivity itself is defined differently.
To 4 i would answer that you are wrong in there being no logical differences in religions. Theology is a real thing and the different branches of religion wager a real debate amongst themselves about who is interpreting the bible right. Wether you think jesus is the messiah or the nature of jesus soul the importance of muhammad and who his rightful successor was etc. it’s not just blind tradition but also a question who has the better arguments for their case and thus the resulting religious beliefs. To 5. Thats just the answer to the argument that science cant proof god. Are you saying he is misrepresenting the argument again ? Because the argument itself is refuted quite well by saying that science concerns and can only concern itself with the already existing material world. It can’t explain its ultimate origin
I understand that discussions about the existence of God can be challenging, and perspectives can vary. One specific point you mentioned was about the weakness of the arguments presented. Could you provide an example of a specific argument that you found weak? I'd like to explore it further and see if we can delve into the specifics. Keep in mind that the complexity of theological discussions often involves subjective interpretations, and what might seem weak to one person could be compelling to another."
@@HyperDriveHub-420 „Somewhere you are less likely to be Atheist” - No, somewhere you are more likely to be Discriminated as an atheist. „Religious wars are only 10% and it’s mostly Muslim.” - Christian holy wars were still destroying great cities, like Jerusalem, plundering all wealth and often g***ciding all populations.
‘If you were born someone else you wouldn’t be a Christian’ isn’t trying to dismiss your beliefs by arguing they’re meaningless because they’re shaped by environment. It’s arguing that the main factor in whether you got to heaven or hell is where you were born, which clearly isn’t moral or fair
Whether God is good is a completely different issue from whether or not God exists. When people start acknowledging their Creator, *then* we can have a discussion about how nice He is.
@@christopherbravo1813 what nonsense. Imagine this scenario: You’re only allowed to have an opinion at the election if you’re a party member, and if you’re not a party member you get tortured for eternity. Sounds like “free will” 😂
@@christopherbravo1813 Im just here for someone to prove he exists without bible cases, psychosis or reports that have no ability to be fact checked in even the most shallow ways.
3:56 What I understood from this part: "The most prosperous countries are atheist, not because atheism leads to prosperity, but because prosperity leads to atheism, since if the Earth is a Heaven, who needs God, right?"
