Anti-Theism: Ocean Keltoi vs Vaush (Ocean POV) This One Got SPICY 

If you want more info on my position here's some video suggestions: - Pluralism infographics by Chrissy Stroop: cstroop.com/infographics/ - Shannon Q's video I mentioned in the debate: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6lxSSzD_9HU.html - Intro to Heathenry Playlist: ru-vid.com/group/PLax7iUZLpeubDN8Odo1xpQaYUHzOXBCfi - Polytheist Philosophy playlist: ru-vid.com/group/PLax7iUZLpeuZCE69W2BWJkAJA1dtCYUy9 - Reciprocity: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-D2pCGqtfxZc.html - The Gods Playlist: ru-vid.com/group/PLax7iUZLpeua6oOU48wZrrksBfHpUhhX3 - Death and the Afterlife Playlist: ru-vid.com/group/PLax7iUZLpeuYfMDzf44tr2pXRDy3wP-tp - Heathen History: ru-vid.com/group/PLax7iUZLpeuYbjHf8muVcSJA76KSxbzxm

Very well done. I had to pause to applaud when you were like “Is your point here that changing people’s minds on religious issues is hard? I’ve been able to do it. Why haven’t you?” That’s what it comes down to. Vaush thinks there’s something unique about the epistemology of religious people that makes them immune to reason, and it’s clear he came to that conclusion from experience with extremist Christians. As you pointed out, anyone can be immune to reason and pointing to religion as a unique cause of that is essentialism. I’d like to suggest to him that the causal mechanism behind that irrationality is likely found in group dynamics (strong in-group thinking basically), not metaphysics. That’s actually why extremist Christians are such of good example of the type of thinking he points to. They, more than any other faith tradition in the US, are able to exist within ideological echo chambers where in-group-protecting rhetoric is encouraged and extreme out-group bias is praised. ANY ideology is capable of producing that kind of thinking if it has structure in place to thoroughly isolate its in-group. The ability to think critically is not found in a philosophical commitment to empiricism. It’s found in social settings diverse enough to challenge groupish thinking. This is why, as someone who does not believe in gods, I think pluralism is preferable. We literally require challenge from others in order to think critically. Simply having a specific set of beliefs does not allow us to do it on our own.

I find it so weird that on other issues Vaush loves to go as post-modernist truth questioning philosophy as needed for whatever gives him the easiest argument, but the moment it gets to religion he’s the herald of Enlightenment Objectivism.

In classic Vaush style, he'd move the goal posts whenever he thought Ocean was about to make a point.

Man. Ocean, you have the patience that I wish I had. I had a whole comment paragraph, but I'll just leave it be and not create more internet drama. Keep it up, man. You're doing awesome.

I don't even understand how he sees you as a friend. It was glaringly obvious he holds your beliefs in clownish contempt and has zero respect for you.

watched this insane debate live last night. to anyone just seeing this now, please remember to pause the video and get some water. take care of yourself. this one is a doozy.

This guy has so much Latent Christianity in his views. The way he talks about Mayan culture and generic rain dances feels like some supremacist talking about “lesser” peoples because it’s not his radical anti-all religion/spirituality narrative.

Okay so here's something Vaush fails to acknowledge with regards to the DSMV; dysfunction is a key point. Magical thinking it one symptom of various mental illnesses sure but they need to have a majority of symptoms, secondly the symptom HAS to cause harm to the person experiencing the symptom for it to qualify for a diagnosis. Magical thinking that causes no dysfunction to the person experiencing it wouldn't even qualify as a symptom.

Atheist here. I have no issue with others believing or practicing a non harmful faith. I don't see the point in being against it. I subscribe to this channel because I like to learn and understand other cultures and belief systems. Love your stuff Ocean.

You can pinpoint when he starts losing when he starts using the word cuck

This was a crossover I never imagined would exist

I loved Vaush’s “your gods basically make you incapable of changing your mind.” Then refusing to change his mind. Was pretty neat.

This is the type of atheist that would not have gods in their Dungeons and Dragons campaign.

I found it very interesting that the guy was attacking "toxic masculinity" and then decided to say "because they're cuckold" about scholars. Wouldn't it be topically masculine to degrade someone's argument through the means of calling them a cuckold?

Ocean, I think this just proves how well you keep your cool in stormy weather. I know I was losing my shit from the intro. I know you don't want to be known as the "debate" guy forever, and your other content proves how good you are at teaching. However, you are a fantastic debater and really showed your skills here.

Extremely thankful for the Ragnarok rant. You could feel a physical "Oh." From Vaush on that one Also my wife, who is very into her indigenous American heritage, only watched the first third of this stream. To say she was upset about the second eradication of her culture and beliefs that Vaush was alluding towards would be a massive understatement.

When Vaush says that religion opens up to non empirical information, because theists trust things based on faith while atheists "don't", really shows that he is totally not versed in Pure Mathematics. Because any logical construction has axioms which to their core, are ultimately based on belief. There are certain fundamental axioms/truths that are unprovable, and independent of empiricism. This is not debatable, it's a pillar of reality just as real as gravity. It's called *Godel's incompleteness theorem*. A theorem which states that in any mathematical system there will always be true statements that cannot be proven. And mathematics is the ultimate descriptive language of reality. Furthermore, any logical system can have horrible consequences, a logical system is a tool, including religion. For example, Special Relativity is a purely physical, empirical and mathematical construction, some physicists took this theory just like a religion or any other mathematical/logical construct and built a nuclear bomb and murdered hundreds of thousands of Japanese people.

Your ability to not throw things and say “f$&@ off” is impressive. I wanted to throw things and I wasn’t there.

I honestly hoped that this conversation would be so much more productive than it was. It felt like ya'all were talking past each other the whole time. I guess I hope this sort of lays the ground work for more productive convos in the future

As a Vaush subscriber and a you subscriber, I found this very informative. Sure, you didn’t get far in it, but it did raise a good amount of questions and some food for thought. This was lovely, thank you so much.

1:33:57 An hour and a half in, and he straight up admits he doesn't know what he's talking about this entire time

Ironically, Vaush is the fundamentalist in this debate. ("ALL religion/gods/spiritualism ALWAYS, EVERYWHERE bad".) 😄 And as Vaush said you can't logically engage with fundamentalists...😂

Found your channel from this debate and I just wanted to say your patience is impressive. You got Vaush to go so far as to admit he isn’t educated on religion and had no interest in learning more about it, which was self-evident to anyone watching. Excellent job, I’m glad I found a new creator who engages in thoughtful discussion. Keep up the great work!

This debate lasted way longer than it would have if I had been in it. Ocean, you are a much more patient man than I.

As a early baby pagan and someone who was born and raised in a Russian orthodox household…this was a wild ride around a circle that felt like a discussions kept falling short before a different (yet similar) arguments ensued. I’d love another “match” lol

"Dragons don't exist" Me: "Wait... What do you mean? I am right here!"

It's amazing how he keeps arguing against a strawman despite the actual argument being made in front of him.

Hey Ocean, I would be interested in some sort of post or video debunking many of the ahistorical claims Vaush makes in this video. For example his insistence that pagan people sacrificed humans so they can stop the gods from destroying their villages, you tried to say this was no the case but he cut you off. All and all his understanding of pagan faiths seems to be coming from old racist cartoons.

I was an infant heathen when this came out and I appreciated the conversation, but I've come a bit farther in my journey since then and I've revisited this debate. Vaush humiliated himself here, I am actually astounded by how disrespectful and arrogantly ignorant he is in every argument he tries to put forward. Ocean you absolutely handled this excellently.

Fun drinking game: take a shot everytime Vaush says empirical, it might help you get though this a little easier

The whole rain dance thing had me shouting at my screen tbh. Vaush deeply misunderstands the practice on a fundamental level, the ceremonies are performed when times are bountiful, when times are dire, and any particular time in between. It's not "we do the dance therefore the crops grow", it's a prayer for reciprocity and balance that in no way prevents/precludes human agricultural development; they work in tandem. There's still plenty of Hopi who perform the ceremonies, many of which are even modern farmers themselves and might see the continuous performance of the tradition as an inspiration for modern agricultural innovation. Anyways, I'm not a Vaush fan, I admit my bias, but I think you did a very admirable job of articulating your position while also pushing back against Vaush's misguided, and frankly anti-indigenous, ideas, so thank you Ocean 🌟

if a Peasant decided to not work they weren't threatened by their God but their King.

He is wrong about history: you have to assume that the past exists.

"This is the problem with consequentialism, not a problem with religious thinking. ... This is your position not mine at this point." You really got him there!! Nice one. I was dancing around the room haha

Finding this frustrating because he's blaming theism for personality flaws. A bad person is bad no matter what they believe as evidenced by history where people have been bad in spite of spirituality, politics, etc. and the same where people have been good in spite of any of these too.

Vaush: EMPIRICAL! Ocean: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Sorry, just watched "The Princess Bride" recently and 31:58 made me think of this.

Dude straight up called every religious person a schizophrenic and then started to back pedal when ocean called him out on it.

“Hit them in the head or give them ice cream or something” bro that’s definitely not the way to change someone’s mind about anything. Belittling people isn’t the way to go, partner.

Ocean, you mentioned a paper by an atheist about pluralist ethics. Could you add a link to that in your description, please? I'd be very interested in reading more about pluralist ethics.

This one took me awhile to get through, but was very enjoyable (if frustrating at times). Your patience was amazing and I need to go rewatch your other debates again. Well done!

Omg thank you for posting another debate! I can't wait to watch ♡ I can't get enough of these

I wish I hadn't been busy when you streamed yesterday, this would have been cool to see live. Might have to go check out the vod to see any discussion with chat before/after the debate! Unsurprisingly, you did great Ocean! I only wish you could have engaged with arguments that weren't clearly tailored to Christianity. In hindsight, I should have taken notes so I remembered everything I wanted to comment on. These are just some of my observations and takeaways: Vaush seems to be an egregious example of anti-theists addressing religion as a whole as though it were just Christianity. (Suitcase-Jesus in the outro is very on-point for this one.) Things like how Pagans don't (necessarily) subscribe to deities having the Omni- traits or root morality in divinity seem like foundational concepts for the basis of a proper discussion. Vaush clearly did not know these going in and I don't recall if he acknowledged them prior to the end of the debate. re: Rain Dances, etc. - The performance of a Rain Dance, of any ritual/offering/what have you, is not intended as a replacement for putting in the work to achieve the desired goal - crop yield to follow the example. It would be naive to stake something important on the whims of another when you haven't made effort towards the realization of that goal. Something like: _Freyr might bring the rain, but if no seeds are planted nothing can grow._ re: Aztec/Norse Human Sacrifice - This is where I noticed that Vaush was erroneously attributing the Christian origin of morality/ethics to all religions. I would hope that something as simple as clarifying the misattribution and highlighting that pluralism favors a human origin over a divine one would have made this part of the discussion go far smoother than it did. Between his, apparently limited to Christianity, understanding of religion, an unwillingness to separate the toxic and the good (or see any good) in religion, disrespect ("fucking Odin," scholars = cucks), and a self-admitted unwillingness to seek to understand nuances between religions (educate himself) Vaush came off as a debater of incredibly bad-faith. I don't mean to mischaracterize him (this is my first time hearing him speak) but this first impression did not paint a good picture.

Vaush completely gave the game away in the first five minutes when he said that he didn't like religion because he "can't argue people out of it." Above all else, all that matters to this man is that he's right, that he's smarter than other people

I would consider myself an anti theist, but this convo made me think a lot. I personally have had tons of positive experiences doing activism alongside religious people especially in the activist community for immigration reform, and I think there is tons of room for meaningful work to be shared on the left between those who think religion is too inherently problematic and those with deeply held religious beliefs. Maybe we could chat at some point. Much respect.

He treats pagan religion the same as abrahmic religion in quite some of his arguments...

I came across your channel only just yesterday and did a deep delve into a lot of your videos and conversations. I spent a grand total of 6 and a half hours while at work listening through your content. This is the first video that I find it hard to listen to straight through mainly if not only because of how many times he repeats himself causing you to have to do the same until finally you pull him to a new point. Overall I completely applaud how well you held this conversation with him.

I'm incredibly confused as to why the Anti-theist is trying to persuade the Pagan into human sacrifice. Something doesn't quite add up.

Vaush seems to think that empiricism must necessarily lead to a shared reality; the benefit of a shared reality is that discussions or debates are less likely to reach a point where they're impossible to progress. I don't think the history of mankind really bears this out. Scientists get into all kinds of fights because of how 'reality' allegedly works. That said, while I'm a skeptic, I think anti-theism is a red herring. As long as people value critical thinking skills, skepticism, and discussion of difference in value systems, then we'll probably be ok in the long run...whether or not one is theist. I think the anti-theism crowd thinks that anti-theism is an obvious unerring logical conclusion, but that gets into being prescriptive. Let's try to deal with being descriptive instead.

So much of Vaush's argument presupposes that theism has inherent flaws: that theists can't change their mind, that theism is inherently irrational so any conclusion drawn from it are also irrational (though perceived as rational by the believer), and that all theists are equally likely to fall into dogmatic, harmful, or superstitious belief. He doesn't prove any of these, but just presupposes them to be true and is completely closed off to any nuance in theism. Not to mention his complete misunderstanding of how polytheists view the gods. It seems obvious to me that his points are taking evangelical Christianity and assuming all of their pitfalls apply to all god-belief with no nuance at all. Many many theists have extremely beneficial relationships with the gods that don't negatively impact people at all but Vaush across the board assumes that theism is inherently a bad thing, which is a point that no theist (and many atheists) will not concede because it's not backed up, it's just how he feels.

the ironic reference to christian hell when he's talking to a germanic pagan, where that same word means something completely different

That was a really interesting debate and I do appreciate that, even though it got spicy y'all were still able to end on a friendly note. Would love to see more debates between you two

Do I watch bc it’s an Ocean video? Or do I not watch bc it’s also a Vaush video? This is truly one of the hardest questions I’ve had to face

Vaush's response to "when your end goal is entirely secular, that's effectively cultural genocide" is "yes". Their reply to "that's a colonialist position" is "sure". Wow, okay, you can't really argue with that sort of shamelessness. My hat is off - I'm not sure how I would have carried on that conversation for another _hour and a half_, never mind agree (sincerely or otherwise) to do it again. Ocean, you're a better person than I am. It's beyond infuriating how Vaush had clearly done zero research on Heathenry, or - apparently - who Ocean is or what they do, but they also seem to assume that all religions are fundamentalist American Christianity with different hats on. The way Vaush insisted that their interpretation of Heathenry and Heathen beliefs are correct, _while talking to a Heathen_, is almost unwatchably infuriating - I can't imagine how frustrating it must have been to actually sit through - and their notion that Vaush knows how all religious people think and relate to their gods, morals, and the physical world is weapons-grade arrogance (not to mention a logical fallacy). And, for someone who claims to be anti-toxic masculinity, they're really concerned with appearing 'weak' and not being 'cucked'; I keep being recommended their content and intrested in their deconstruction of toxic masculinity but, based on what I've seen here, they're illogical, irrational, and express a strong affinity for authoritatianism that I find deeply unpleasant. I'm glad I saw this before anything of theirs. 1:03:21 - Sums up the entire debate, IMO

Only about 23 mins in, but I really don't understand why people think Vaush is such a great debater. All he has done so far is state "I don't like religion" and "you can't change religious people's minds" over and over again. As an "empiricist," you'd think he'd be presenting some empirical evidence

I find this whole argument rediculous. Either you have something you believe in for good reasons or you don't. There's no choice involved.

*inflammatory comment that will inevitably increase interaction*

As an frequent watcher of both you and Vaush, I have been waiting for this debate ever since that first response vid you made toward him. Its unfortunate the actual debate didnt really get all that far, but it was interesting to see all the arguments made.

So funny to hear unironically Vaush arguing that “religion” creates belief that can’t be argued against while also very clearly maintaining anti theist views that can’t and won’t allow differing types of evidence rather than only logical-positivist type.

This debate exposed Vaush's hypocrisy and questionable ethics. And you just let it hang in the air, it speaks for itself. Good shit dude, you did the thing remarkably well.

I'm amazed that, after years of "practice", Vaush hasn't yet learned how to debate well

Been a fan of Vowsh for a long while, but he kinda showed his whole ass here, and I wasnt at all surprised. I’m glad he did too; I couldn’t think of a more respectable theist to hash it out with. This debate has made my whole week

To summarize Vaush's position. "I'd be a terrible person if I was religious, therefore religion bad"

Vaush listener here. Disclaimer, I never considered myself a “fan” but I do believe he does have some general broad positions that are ok and he has done good work. That being said, he lost this debate. His consequencalist “the ends justifies the means” bit was kinda sickening since I get the impression that he’d support something heinous if he was told the ends justifies the means. (Edit: Holy hell, Vaush’s “religion is mental illness” take was abhorrent)

Vaush does a great job of demonstrating how making empiricism your religion is harmful. To think that basing a society of off decision only made with empirical evidence would eliminate harm is childish. Listen to him speak- he can't help but have hate in his voice. Empirical... You keep using that word... I don't think it means what you think it means.. This is a man who knows little but speaks with the confidence of a scholar.

The Ben Shapiro of anti-theism.

Vaush: "You dont need to make metaphysical assumptions to study history." The underlying metaphysical assumptions: Causality and continuity

You won the debate once you brought up that pluralism better aligns with the goals Vaush expressed. At that point I realized he was just trying to win the debate

Vaush's human sacrifice argument sounded a lot like fundamentalist arguments against secular morality. Also, around 52 minutes, when he begins arguing about religious people never being able to change beliefs, there's a clear lack of understanding on how cognitive dissonance functions.

If I hear this guy say "Glory" one more time, I'm going to explode. "The point is that they're above you!" Like... So are most supernatural entities in this construction of the world, but you don't see them going 'Ah yes JOTUN STRONK MUST WORSHIP JOTUN!'.

I envy your patience ocean, if I was in your position I'd probably be losing it lmaoo! On a side note, I always enjoy this more long form content from you so this was a real treat. Keep up the good work! Cheers

Religion operates alongside many other social forces that also inform a person's psyche. I mean, prove to someone who is the human personification of empiricism that their mom loves them or that people are not just biological computers and that their lives matter. Vaush is not comparing a religious person with an empiricist person. He is comparing the Platonic ideal of a religious person to a normal empiricist person.

I'm convinced that, as much as Vaush is arguing for rationality and science, and whatever, he would be 100% advocating human sacrifice had he lived in ancient times because his "logical" and "rational" brain sees no other way. -Oh, my. Crops are not growing. -Quickly sacrifice the shit out of that guy! -Wait, let's first see if we can pray and dance, then w... -No, sacrifice, now! NOW!

“I’m not educated in religion at all” Then what’s the point of having this debate?! Wow Vaush, just wow.

Equating "sacrificial" hunting excavations to sacrifices made to deities got me rolling.

I'm so bummed I missed this live but glad it lives on here. Great job Ocean!

Watched the whole debate on Twitch, loved every minute. You did great Ocean!

1:01:38 ~ 1:02:03 "I've been able to do it, why haven't you?" my fucking sides lmao

if vaush is a utilitarian, wouldn't he think ending a miserable person's life is good anyway, reincarnation or no?

So I'm not very attentive at time stamping. But here's my read along review/opinion piece of this debate for anyone interested. I admit right here at the beginning that I give off a very strong bias in favor of Ocean due to the fact that I just couldn't align myself with anything Vaush said in this particular case: Execution from heresy different from political execution how? Both share supremacy narrative 00:43:00 in the human sacrifice argument is when Vaush truly starts floundering Ocean 00:49:00 raps his anti atheist rhetoric.almost in a bored fashion as he's most likely done countless times to others at this point. Someone needs to explain to Vaush that very few people are as fundamental in religion as he thinks they are. Only the loudest are heard and they trend towards fundamentalism as sad as that is. Gods don't always subjugate their followers "The gods are literally above you." So are police, presidents, kings, celebrities, corporate leaders. Yet that doesnt matter. History shows people standing up to authoritative figures all the time. At 1 hour Vaush starts being very defeatist in speech. He does back off a bit. "The groan" takes place at 1:03:00 and that groan meant buckle up because here it comes. All nervousness that Ocean may have had was replaced by a stoic patience that most people are incapable of keeping especially after beating against a brick wall of inability/want to understand an hour in to talking about any topic. At 1:14:00 Ocean really starts driving the points home. He's in his groove here on out. O:"Is the Crux of this that arguing against them (religious people) is hard?" O: "I have been able to do this." A form of this dig happens 3 times throughout the debate but this hit the hardest, imo. Vaush really needs to learn to steer his argument away from "all religious belief leads to the death of people". This was most damaging to him numerous times throughout the debate. Religion is the hole in the roof ignores reason. A reasonable person will rationalize that hole in the roof and unreasonable person will not. It only opens up unreasonable people to becoming succeptable to what Vaush subscribes as superstition and not all religious people are unreasonable. Vaush needs to replace religious people with fundamentalist to better solidify his points. 1:26:44 Ocean introduces Vaush to the idea of transitioning to a pluralistic viewpoint rather than anti-theism. Vaush disagrees and defends his stance by using a pluralistic viewpoint. Only because he refuses to accept any non toxic religiosity. Kinda Fundy sounding here. For as much as Vaush prescribes himself to morally positive and morally negative outcomes. He he sure tends to ignore it when it doesn't support his narrative. 1:30:20 Vaush gets very black and white here. Solidifying his inability to accept any positive religious outcomes. 1:31:50 brings another epic Ocean Groan. "No argument against religion is sufficient unless it addresses its roots" is such a bad take. We as a society have moved beyond "roots" in so many facets on ethical grounds. Why does religion have to be the exception? 1:33:35 Vaush admits defeat claiming he's not educated in religion at all. Ocean again introduced pluralistic views about knives but Vaush yet again refutes it on his own grounds of all religion bad and that knives in this case are only used for stabbing, no matter their intended use. Vaush touches on a hitchins argument that you don't need religion to have morals in kind of a weird way? I might be grasping here. 1:40:00 Vaush yet again fails himself with the human sacrifice argument. What a fitting end to this debate with Vaushs claim of "The Norse literally believing in ragnorak". I truly believe this here wraps his entire argument, stance, and understanding into a neat little bow. It showed his ignorance, axiomatic belief, and lack of education on religion entirely. Ocean then teaches. One thing about Vaush when he says he genuinely enjoys a conversation he truly means it. Overall ocean had an answer, source, and evidence to every counter argument and stance Vaush presented. Vaush spent more time back pedaling and defending himself than actually taking any offensive stance. Ocean overall was much more educational in his approach, which is no surprise, as that is his entire RU-vid career in educating the masses who are willing to listen. Ive never realized before how generalized vaushs speaking was before now. Ocean had the logos, the ethos and pathos to appeal to an audience in a way that made him far more credible sounding than Vaush. I've listened to Vaush and Ocean for roughly the same amount of time at two years or so and I knew tuning in would not disappoint. Ocean commanded the stage against a person who generally keeps control. I really hope we see more of these styles of debates from Ocean and I truly hope that Vaush takes the lessons he was given during this hour and 45 and tries to craft better arguments as to why he's anti-theist.

Omg it's up already yeeeeaaaaaaas

Loved the civil ending. Great discussion, both points were valid is different areas. Awesome work on staying civil and being a good representative of the religious side of things.

I follow Ocean on youtube and was super surprised to see this vid pop up! What am I missing out on? Was this a section from a twitch or patreon stream that I need to get in on next time? Thanks!

Gotta say I’m an atheist I find all mythology’s fascinating only recently got in to pagan norse mythology but the things this guy said says definitely seem extreme just found you channel but will definitely be checking out your channel to learn more about pagan norse mythology.

Man I tapped the shit out of the link lmfao

Ocean Keltoi that was an amazing video! The debate was next level. Great Job holding it to a high standard of discourse.

I like Vaush but I really don't think he's read enough on the theology throughout history to make a decent argument here.

So a few months ago a friend recommended me your channel. I subscribed to your channel but never actually watched a video. I was kind of worried when this video showed up on my feed. I still didn't know who you were and I didn't want to tell a friend that he's following bad people. So against better judgement I watched yet another video about this man. Turns out you're really cool and I'm definitely browsing more of your videos.

I love both of you guys so when I watched this live I was SWEATING

Pre-watch comment, I really dislike Vaush, but I enjoy Ocean Keltoi. It will make it hard to come into this discussion from a more neutral and objective perspective (separating emotion from rationality is always difficult), though it is something that I will try to do none-the-less.

Its a little ironic that Vaush considers all spiritual belief to lead to dangerous scenarios, when his viewpoint taken to its zenith amounts to cultural genocide. I also get the impression that he's dug his heels in at this point, contradicts himself, and similar to how he suggests you can't change the mind of someone whose morals might stem from spirituality, he is of exactly the same immovable position on the borderline fundamentalist athiest side. I enjoyed this video immensely anyway! thanks ocean

Great job Ocean, I wouldn’t have had anything near the patience you had here.

Why did he bring up human sacrifice in a conversation about rain dancing. Like 'ooh yeah boogie for the rain- HUMAN SACRIRICE 🤘👹' is such a leap

You are a pillar of patience and articulation, I'm boiling from the "rhetoric" practice of "brushing previous replies and responses aside without moving my needle" and I'm just listening to this discussion. The anti-theist laying down arguments *for* religious people in order to illustrate why they are fundamentally irrational, all the while ignoring the arguments of the religious person, is.. its own level of frustrating. I *get* that the response to the following is likely to be "well if a sufficient argument would have been displayed, his opinion would have shifted", but - it's ironic that he complains that for a logical person any opinion should be possible to shift given the correct argument, all the while not even changing the formulation of his arguments in respect to Ocean's responses.

The difference in comments between videos is crazy. Think you did a really great job in this!

Ocean, I'm rewatching this and I have to laugh at his dismissal of your counter that politics can be just as insidiously dangerous to thought. "It's different when a god tells you to kill someone" is insane. We literally have a term to show how we, as a people, refuse to accept such a way of interacting with authority figures - The Nuremberg Defence.

I haven't clicked a video that fast in so long

Hey ocean I am a bit of a new norse pagan and I love your videos I listened to your explanations and answers to my curiosity about modern day norse paganism and I love watching your videos and hearing your wisdom and knowledge and i love how you in a argument your always so calm and you hear the other person which society today doesnt seem to follow and wether they believe or disbelieve is not they should not listen, like really listen and this video for the first time i see you have to raise your voice at someone because the conversation turned into a game he had to win and i feel you were the true winner in the end for being able to put the work into the argument there is still so much i want to learn from you since i myself have a hard time seeing the whole picture as you guided my journey to the right direction and i thank you for it as you opened my eyes to so much and i only hope to see more of your content and see how to handle situations like this because sometime i will deal with stuff like this so again thank you

Ocean just keeps impressing me with how vast his knowledge and effective at opening up the vault and benchmarking it is amazing. I am biased as a pagan/heathen as well and a big fan of Oceans, but being athiest for most of my life, and then finding comfort in paganism/heathenism helps see both sides but ALSO can see how the atheist side in this debate is consistantly looking for a fight vs Ocean calmly roasting him lol

Great debate! For the algorithm!