More Silly Atheist Memes (REBUTTED) 

You can be summarized thusly: "I eat bits of dead Jesus at least once a week, and I do it without gaining weight!"

@@Jamienewman0 Nice try, but I actually am in Sin, I cannot receive communion.

​@@Jamienewman0tell me you don't understand Communion without telling me you don't understand Communion

@@Jamienewman0 understand transubstantiation before commenting, please. thanks

Right on

Good ol TK Micdrop

curious how there are thouands of books with christians each insisting that only their version is the right one.

@@velkyn1 if you are talking about christian denominations and their own version of the Bible, you might want to check how 'different' they are... even to the most Christians the different version will all looks and reads the same.

​@@velkyn1 And all but 3 of them cropped up in the 16th century

​@@velkyn1 if something mattered you, mattered more than life and death itself, and you saw people getting it nearly right but doing important but subtle things wrong wouldn't you want to argue your case?

Which is a sick one liner, but logically doesn't follow. Because Einstein was primarily a public figure. As we have seen from the last several years, one scientist speaking out against a public figure is indestinguishable from none

Really? It's moronic.

You 'chuckled' at that because you are clueless as to what is meant by survival of the fittest.

Survival of the fittest is not a moral position unless you are a theist

Social Darwinism would like to have a word with you.

@@wet-read Survival of the fittest is the idea that the strongest in nature survive. Altruistic things like a protective instinct has nothing to do with it

Well, if you'll notice, Genesis starts out, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." There's no mention of days. It's only after the universe came into existence that days are talked about. So, you can definitely argue that Genesis supports the idea that time only exists with the existence of the universe.

The Hebrew syntax between "In the beginning" and the earth being "formless and void," implies an indeterminate amount of time between the two. This has been recognized by scholars and theologians for 1000 years. "Formless and void" doesn't mean "without form and non-existent." The words are "tohu and bohu" When these words are found in scripture they always describe a chaotic or purposeless state. So, a wilderness, a bad king, a useless idol. What this implies is that God after an indeterminate time approached the earth which was in a chaotic and purposeless state. He then begins to assign meaning and purpose for the things on it over 6 literal days. So he doesn't just make the moon and sun but he makes them to mark the seasons. He doesn't just create trees but he creates them to bear fruit. Even the term "create" doesn't necessarily mean "creation ex nihilo." Nowhere else in the Bible does it have to mean that though some places it might. Instead we find that "create" or "bara" in scripture also tends to be about order and purpose...so... "Create in me a clean heart oh God." or "I create Israel for..." There is even more evidence of this in the verses at the beginning of chapter 2. We find something called a toledot which is a Hebraic literary formula that acts as a book end to story. Usually found in relation to genealogies. This implies that chapter 2 when Adam and Eve were created, was a sequel and not a parallel account. If this is what the toledot suggests then the creation of man on the 6th day is different then the "creation/bara" of Adam and Eve, meaning that mankind already existed before Adam and Eve. This makes sense with the story because Adam wasn't "created" in the garden which is what you would expect. Instead he was taken from somewhere and placed in the garden. When he was exiled from the garden he was placed back from where he was taken. Gen. 3:22. Even the creation of Eve isn't likely literal. The story begins by God putting Adam into a deep sleep. This phrase throughout the Bible is always used preceding a vision. So what likely happened is that God gave Adam a vision which explained the purpose and function of the marriage relationship and not an operation Even the word "good" in the ancient Hebrew carries the meaning of "functional." So when God says after each day that it was "good," its saying that "it was functional." It was working as ordered. It had purpose. So then the question is about the days. Why did God need 6 days to give meaning to things? Well, 7 was an ancient temple inauguration number. The temple to Baal was consecrated over 7 days. Solomon made 7 petitions at the opening of the Jerusalem temple and it was consecrated in 7 steps. So what does that mean? There is a good chance that the ancients were describing that the Earth was God's cosmic temple which was inaugurated over the course of 7 days and that Adam and Eve were chosen to be mankind's first representative priest/kings of God's creation. The garden of Eden is the Holy of Holies where man meets with God.

​@@blusheep2 started off strong. When you suggested that the creation story was counting a literal number of days, I realized that this was not going where I was expecting. You've possibly confused the cause and effect here, as well. Is it not possible that God's use of rhe number 7 is what led the followers of those false religions to do things with their temples using the number 7? Why does it have to be that the scribes of the creation story had to have imitated the number 7 from that?

@@461weavile _Is it not possible that God's use of rhe number 7 is what led the followers of those false religions to do things with their temples using the number 7?_ No, not at all, unless you are presupposing that the Genesis account is the original story that all the other Mesopotamian creation stories relied on. The use of 7 as a temple inauguration number is found throughout the fertile crescent and used for other gods. The point, anyway, is not to prove what I said but to show that there is a very reasonable and scholarly alternative to the Young Earth Creationist's literalism, that looks at the ancient authors and the ancient cultural river that they existed in. Do you want another one... not creation related? What do you think about God causing the sun to stand still in Joshua?

@@blusheep2 Well, you seem to have misread what I said, but that's alright. As for the sun in the story of Joshua, are you asking if I think the events of that story are literal?

ROFL

He said theism not atheism

@@Michaelsrandomnesswastaken yes, you're right. I guess I made a typo.

You are definitely not male. Men don't do this. 😂

He admitted the largest growing population globally are Muslims. As a Muslim it gives me satisfaction to know I am in the winning population.

Underrated comment

Same here

I'm also a non-denominational protestant, and that's how I interpret Genesis, the sun was just a vessel for the light.

@@TheStarshipGarage And how do you interpret the _firmament?_

Right there with you, although, I’m currently looking into orthodox.

​@@SergeantSkeptic686 magnetic field?

so, all you have is that a gay and a straight man gave us computers. Cool.

@@velkyn1 Low IQ Velkyn, back at it again

@@velkyn1 Alan Turing did not invent computer science so the base proposition is false anyways.

@@TheJman423Nobody said he did. You gonna keep trying to downplay a genius persecuted gay man because of your own religious tribalism? Pathetic.

@@shreddedhominid1629 except nobody here said anything to deliberately downplay his importance nor condone his persecution, they're just adding on to what was said in the video, which was only there to rebuke the pointless claim about Turing's contributions to computer science as if that random fact has anything to do with the truth or significance of theism

1 divided by 5000, that's 0.02% chance that you are correct. So you're probably wrong.

​@@garrysmodsketchesI don't care better than not choosing at all and all the other gods are immoral and god almighty isn't immoral

​@@tomasrocha6139according to wikipedia in 1980 when her son became Christian

@@tomasrocha6139 Please see "Ungodly : the passions, torments, and murder of atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair" by Ted Dragos, published in 2003 You can also find some interviews with her son William Murray (the one who converted) about it.

sounds like a lucky escape for the son

Dont forget that Madalyn was an avid antisemite

​@@grantbartley483indeed

They’re also proud, but the deadly sin kind and not the “i did good” kind

@@JesusIsKing_AlphaandOmega indeed

At least they are only doing that, during the medieval people who did not believe in your god were executed, and don't forget the Spanish conquistadors.

@@JuanManuel-ep8do “your people did this hundreds of years ago so I’m right”

I don’t claim to the Roman Catholic *EMPIRE.*

These are the equivalent of Moon-Landing denier or flat earth memes, it seems convincing if you don't do any research beyond looking at memes.

@@TheStarshipGarage Wait, I can't use memes to cite my work? CRAP

it's ironic that the "rational" people who accuse us of "not thinking" are far, faaaar more likely to outsource their thinking

It hurts me so much knowing that people can believe these are true in the slightest.

You are irrational if you believe in anything that can't be proven

Exactly, sources get very hard to come by around AD 600-900. I know this because this period was when the school systems collapsed and Arab invasions disturbed the classical world. Partially why the Romance languages were brought about.

in all fairness, athiests from reddit give christians ammo by being insufferable know-it-all neckbeards

The French anything, really.

@@461weavilefr

Not to mention the amount of Ad Hominem thrown around by them.

The Soviet Union…or anywhere Communism establishes itself?!

The Soviet Union…and anywhere Communism has established itself?!

"Not the ones I've seen mad at least" Oh? How do you know?

@@DarkMatter2525 Because I know a lot of athiests personally

You're lost buddy

​@@HorseloverFat1984It appears so 🤔 Come to think of it, that man on the screen doesn't exactly look like Donkey Kong from Donkey Kong Country for the SNES 🤔 (Don't know how I ended up here 😅)

@@kevindiamant415 Lmao

Thank you for supporting the channel! -Vanessa

Although that may reach a lot of people, they needn't necessarily explore Trent's long form videos. I've seen a lot of channels posting viral shorts with a lot of views but their normal long form content doesn't even get half of it most of the time.

@@ellisfrancisfarros3935 doesn't change the fact that it's still planting seeds

I've always wondered when what I'm supposed to do to for someone on the internet 1300 miles away from me who had a terrible accident. Send them money I don't have? If there was something I could do I would and prayers is something.

As a former atheist myself, all I can say is keep asking questions, and keep seeking answers!

you seem to recognize the good within christianity. I'm curious as to why you aren't yourself a believer.

How do you prove Christians or atheists volunteer more? When my house burnt down, I had ONE local church provide a donation. My own church did nothing (that is there decision). Yet, I know it seemed like a 1 to 1 private donations were atheist to Christians in my local area.

​@@ShiniGuraiJokerwhile that's regrettable of course you can prove that Christians as a whole give more by looking at the publicly available books of major charities. The catholic church is the largest, with other independent catholic groups in the top 100. Then you have all the other major church denominations, most of which also give very generously. I'm sorry about your home and the inaction of your church but the numbers are clear. It may be worth switching to that other church if your own congregation obviously had the means to help but chose not to, Christianity is inherently good and true but sadly not all "Christians" live the faith they profess.

""AtheistDad" literally made "Atheist" the first part of his name"And WHY do you think he did that? "It has pride of place" Nope wrong. Its a LABEL that he created to RESPOND with you clueless people like you. "But I guess he technically isn't "wearing" it." Correct he is not wearing it. He does NOT wear anything to identify him as an atheist in his day to day active. The religious however do it all the time.

But if it takes 100,00,000 books of religion to argue with one persons lack of belief in any god(s) I think I know what is valuable. You can see how meaningless this sounds right?

@@Dock284 ...no

That penguin is an imposter, anyway. Brian Williams chronicled the real thing; he was there!

another good one is History for Atheists.

He doesn't WEAR his account. His ACCOUNT was created because he normally does not talk about atheism and the ACCOUNT was created to addressed the bad arguments of theists. Its like you are trying to show how clueless you are.

@@darrylelam256 Don't matter, it's the same principle. If there's anything wrong with the simple act of wearing a cross, that logic should also apply to usernames.

​@@darrylelam256 Did you black out during the part where he was shown wearing a shirt affirming his atheism

What’s your quantification or “less charitable”

bs. religious people only give to the churches, not to people who need it

lol 2000 years of uninterrupted 'religious rule' and what we got was slavery, serfdom, brutal oppression and the denial of basic rights for anyone outside the very elites................. but hey, the king would toss coins to the beggers............. Now, in an age where we CAN actually fix things like 'poverty' through the power of the secular state.............. what party consistently votes AGAINST this sort of 'charity' ? Thats right, the party of guns, jesus and red trucker hats............... MEANWHILE the 'atheist' 'marxist' liberal democracies of europe, through the power of the state, distribute far more 'charity' than these good american christians would ever approve.................. in fact, they HATE the very idea of all that 'charity' How odd........................

​@@CaptainFantastic222doing less charity

@@crusaderforchrist try not using the word in the definition

I'm Lutheran too (though I'm exploring Catholic theology as well). Anyway, I will recommend also reading the Catholic philosphy professor Edward Feser on this subject - he has written a lot about it on his blog. For example check out his blogpost with the title "A further thought on the “one god further” objection" - it goes a step deeper than Trent does in this video. Feser has written lots of interesting texts about how we can know that God exist, simply by using reason. Some of his texts are more difficult to understand than others, especially if you aren't that used to reading philosophical texts, so you might want to read some texts more than once, or check his references to other posts he has written which explain what he means by various terms he uses. Anyway, I can highly recommend checking his blog out :)

More like the stupid fight.

a fine piece of evidence that Christianity can promote black-and-white, friend-or-foe thinking.

@@holyguacamole4058 I agree, Christ makes the path of what we know, can know, and should know straight and clear, and test the faith of believers through whatever ignorance we may have and any doubts that we may gain while moving forward on our journey. Also yes I know that you are trying to denounce Christianity, however it makes truth clear and obvious, I do not see any atheism resulting in a clearer morality, truth, and way of life. Also being a foe doesn’t make Christians hate you, if you believe that then you have never understood Christianity.

@@Gdjgcjvj do you love Satan?

you just wasted 10$ on a guy who did not respond. It's okay, he did that to me too...

This is blatantly false. "very few people have actually been atheists historically" is because the charge of atheism was routinely used to execute people. The real irony, since you seem to appreciate irony so much, is that the early Christians were executed under the charge of atheism (for rejecting the "actual" gods).

Most people group Deists, Agnostics...etc as "Atheist"

You’ve asserted a theism claim that god exists without any empirical evidence to back your claim. So did the atheists. Also, it’s called satire

@@SenorCinema here is the major problem with their logic, one assertion being incorrect does not inherently mean both are incorrect. For example, 2 men are accused of theft, one is innocent and the other is guilty. However, there is no evidence to prove either man committed a crime. Now, does the innocence of man #1 mean that man #2 didnt commit the crime? The second problem with the logic is that the author makes a faulty assertion that because the penguine is named "the god eating penguin" that means the penguine is actually cappable of actually devouring God. Thats not how names work. You cannot prove an attribute based off of a name alone. Nor is there any definition actually used to support this claim as the author states. And here is the problem with their entire premise, the events of the new testemant are supported by eye witness testimony that has been thoughoughly examined for 2000 years. The existence of this penguin is supported by nothing at all. Even the original poster never so much as claimed to have seen him. Essentially, the whole argument is filled with blatent logical fallacy.

@@SenorCinema "its called satire". No, it isnt. See, satire would be imitating something in a mocking manner, unless he was trying to movk the arguments atheists make, this isnt actually satire, its just someone who tried to act smart without thinking.

So what? That doesn’t mean anything.

Sovient Union created a society of where government was worshiped almost as a god.

@@CaptainFantastic222 Yes and that happens now in DPRK

@@SenorCinema It means very much. Especially when antitheists are proud that religion makes people dumb and they contributed to science the most.

@@alexanderkaminski exactly. That’s a perfect modern day example

People with no sense of the good use art that is not good. More at 11

This is why we don't talk about memes in religion and philosophy. It's pointless. They are memes with little to no actual value to the conversation. I mean they're MEMES for crying out loud.

@@Dock284 The meme culture absolutely changes and forms opinions though. The fact that they're low tier and people don't think very hard about them is why they're effective.

Nailed it.

What evidence do you have that the Canadian Church burnings or the unaliving of Christian schoolchildren were carried out by atheists?

@@newglof9558 Nah the Romans already nailed it.

​@@TheSpacePlaceYTYes, the Romans and Jews killed Christ, and He conquered death in his Resurrection. Very good.

Victim mentality of religious people is pathetic. Even when your goal is to impose authoritative religious theocracy on the world, you’ll still somehow claim that you’re the victim. LOL

Bitte

Pretty sure he was non-Trinitarian and therefore not Christian.

​@@renjithjoseph7135 He was certainly not trinitarian (according to some of his theological writings), but he was certainly no atheist.

Gravity wasn’t invented.

He was a Trinitarian dont misled people

@@randomapost8nobody said anything about inventing it, but nice try buddy.

The Dark Ages are refereed to as such because of the lack of proper historical records. The "barbarity" of the time was no more extreme than in the era that came before. No historian uses the term to describe western catholic Europe as a backwards society. The Christian Eastern Roman Empire was a superpower of the time. The Dark Ages were also not the Medieval era as a whole (which ended in 1492). The high and late Middle Ages saw many developments in art, poetry, architecture, science, etc. You are wrong. Do more research.

Secularism reduced "reason" to a worthless slogan.

@@mr.iankp.5734 🤣

Well, only 7% of the world is atheist, most of them are in China where religion is illegal. I think it is pretty simple.

@UCIJ_KIzIidFxsuWTILwCy9w Pretty cool to get a comment from ya. 1. Your insights into church history. I am thinking of your points about the real prescense of Christ in the Eucharist, for example, from very early on in the patristic era, as conceded by protestant scholars. 2. I have benefitted from your abortion debates, such as with Destiny or those calling in to Catholic Answers. I think you push people to the logical conclusions of their positions and expose their prejudices and cognitive dissonances against the pre-born. 3. Your recent clip regarding atheist memes was insightful. The true God is not finite as in the case of greek mythological deities, thus what atheists mean in reference to the lack of belief in all other gods proves to be disanalogous to what the Church asserts about God. 4. Your defenses of the ressurrection of Christ. I am thinking of the Dilahunty debate. His epistemology will not allow for the belief thereof based on testimony alone. 5. Your debates with Gavin Ortlund and Dr. White on Sola Scriptura/ purgatory have added to my understanding of Rome's apologetic. 6. I think you have a good command logic and philosophy. I like formal deductive syllogisms and I caught your modus tollens in your first argument in the most recent Sola Scriptura debate with Dr. White. 7. You're a class act.

@@SolaAndTotaScripturaHello there! I think you might have replied to a comment by a fake Trent Horn profile. It sometimes happens with videos like this that somebody creates a profile with the same name and picture as the channel that uploaded the video. Usually they want people to click on a link to some sort of scam website. But luckily, it seems like those replies have been removed now. Take care, brother!

@@herlocksholmes9369 Wow, thank you for mentioning this. Blessings.

@@SolaAndTotaScripturaNo problem :)

Civilizations like the ones in Egypt and the near east would be older than 6,000 years. This would be common knowledge among the educated. The Egyptians and Persians were to the Romans and Greeks how the Romans and Greeks are to us.

The irony. I started watching the show, The Big Bang Theory. I find it ironic because Sheldon is a vocal atheist and condemns religious thinking as essentially delusion. Yet, the show promulgates the Big Bang Theory as a marvel of modern secular science, going so far as to name the show after it and the theme music. The irony? The Big Bang Theory was devised by a Catholic Priest lol

​@@Joe-gi3nj there's an episode of Young Sheldon where Sheldon is eating dinner with his family. His mother asks him "Sheldon, would you like some water?" Sheldon responds: "why yes, Mother, I would quite like some dihydrogen monoxide" His father then beats him

@@Joe-gi3nj Ironically I don't think the show ever actually mentions the Big Bang Theory outside of its theme.

It's difficult to say considering the death penalty for apostasy in Islam. So I think it is much higher then we even think. Some studies show that 11 percent of Saudis are closet ex Muslims and its close to 60 percent in Iran.

Because we exist we would like to live in the best world possible so that our existence is more tolerable. That’s a pretty rational reason

@@SenorCinema No, that's silly. Eliminating poverty, wars and diseases in the 3rd world won't improve the wellbeing of any 1st world humanists - it will only make them think better of themselves, so they _feel_ better. That's an emotional reason, not rational.

@@damnedmadman working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness, which is a good thing. You can disagree but I don’t know why you would

@@SenorCinema I don't disagree, I just recognize the fact that it's irrational, which contradicts the atheist belief.

@@damnedmadman that’s not the atheist belief. Atheism only means not believing or worshiping in a god. Humanism is distinct from atheism

Social Darwinism, the view that survival of the fittest ought to be the rule of society, is a well documented philosophy. It’s true that empathy is well documented as a trait associated with fitness, but empathy to whom is an open question there. From a purely naturalistic standpoint, only empathy towards one’s tribe or social group seems particularly useful for survival. It obviously allows for greater cohesion which is important for humanity as we are political and social animals who can typically accomplish more while co-operating. Empathy towards tribes and social groups whose influence is opposed to you, however, is not useful evolutionarily. Resources are finite and humans are also selfish and individualistic to a large extent. We have our own philosophies and needs and those things inevitably come into conflict within and without our immediate tribal groups, due to this natural scarcity and intellectual diversity. Thus, being able to stifle empathy towards outside groups and do what you like to them in conflict is also an easy thing for mankind to do and justify to itself. That’s why it is so common throughout history. The notion of universal fraternity in contradiction to these darker tendencies is the product of Judeo-Christian philosophy, not evolutionary processes drawn out by survival of the fittest. This is actually demonstrated precisely by Social Darwinism. SD doesn’t posit that empathy is always bad. It posits, simply speaking, that utilizing societal resources to prop up the lives of people who posses little to no qualities that benefit their communities, from a survival standpoint, is essentially irrational. Empathy, in the eyes of SD, is meant to be spent on those who posses the potential to benefit you or society and that those who prove themselves unable to survive with some degree of independence lack this potential. Thus, following the normal course of evolution, they should be allowed to perish and society should reserve its compassion for others. This, generally speaking, is perfectly rational from an evolutionary standpoint. The only meaningful intellectual competition it gets is the Judeo-Christian worldview, which I am happy to say I subscribe to. While Trent’s commentary might be a bit heavy handed, I believe that this idea is what he was commenting on.

​@@robertdolcetti450Well summarized! Thank you.

@@robertdolcetti450 true! Also true that he didn’t say “social Darwinism”. That may be his intent, but was not his language.

I also find it weird how some want empirical evidence of a metaphysical Being.

​@fatstrategist .... you know, this metaphysical being supposedly constantly interacts with reality. You'd think it'll leave behind evidence of its existence. Assuming, of course, it wasn't hiding its existence. And if it is hiding its existence, then we don't have evidence for it existing. So I guess we should first establish if there's evidence of this supposed being.

I'm fine with you using reality to demonstrate your god does exist. Now are you going to actually tell me what the evidence is and how it points to your god or are you going to vaguely point at the trees and say that it is so beautiful that your god must exist? The latter is a really unconvincing argument and is definitely not sufficient evidence for the proposition.

@@Boundless_Borderyou just did literally exactly what he was talking about my guy

@@JesusIsKing_AlphaandOmega Which guy? I made two responses in this thread.

Why ? My country got fucked HARD by the soviets

uhhhhhhh I don't really understand what you just said @@MemeLordCrusader

@@Saintpaul752 Sorry i wasn't clear. I'm an Atheist and I HATE the soviet union. Because I'm Lithuanian and they tried erasing our language and traditions (most of which are pagan ironically).

Or the reign of terror in the French Revolution

Exactly. If you want to make a Hindu mad, call them a polytheist. They would repudiate you and say they only worship one god. Which in their viewpoint, they are. Ancient Greeks believed in a single supreme god as did the ancient Germanic religions, who they called All Father. It's a silly misconception by both Christians and Atheists who don't quite understand the nuances in different belief systems.

He did address this using the example of people hearing sounds. Trent was only demonstrating the meme fails to disprove the existence of God. Many primitive tribes in Australia and the Americas used to worship a father God and most Christian theologians won't have a problem with entertaining the thought that it might have been the same God.

They are not the true and living God

They are just human/myths ppl invented

@@Christisthetruce You already know the response to your comments, don't you? I don't know why you bothered typing them.

@@WhiteScorpio2 no pls answer them

@@Christisthetruce Everone thinks their god (or group of gods) is "true and living", and all have exacty zero evidence to present for their claims.

What an idiot then

Serpent was a Seraphim

@@Orthosaur7532 That would be your imagination.

@@jakegreen5081 Why are you liking your own comment?

@@Orthosaur7532 What's not to like

@@jakegreen5081 Your own comment. Why would you of all people like your own comment.