Suris the Skeptic vs Mike Winger vs Ocean Keltoi Debate Pt 1 

Christians dont feel safe when others do, they only feel safe when oppressing others

Suris is excellent at that kind of stuff.

@@OceanKeltoi what are your thoughts on debating aron ra? I used to fallow him and have come to find hin as an over all decent individual and a good debater. I'm used to seeing him debate monotheists but would find him debating in a wider spectrum of beliefs to be interesting. Err... I'm also enjoying listening to you debate as well and I like your approach. I think the two of you would make for an interesting conversation.

Nistzche UwU

Yes. It’s more of constructive criticism in a polytheistic sense, but it becomes a true paradox when you get a single Omni God

30 minutes in and I almost feel like Winger is here as a strawman. Christian apologetics CAN'T be this bankrupt of solid interlocutors. Surely the channel has a bias..... and then I think of all the atheist channels and all the arguments I've heard.... and I'm starting to think maybe the uncharitable approach here is bringing them into the battlefield at all when they are so ill equipped.

and for clarity if someone sees I'm wrong here let me know. I feel like I'm being an ass by effectively saying "maybe they should sit out real discussions on the matter" but I'm genuinely starting to think this is bullying.

Seems Mike Winger is out of his league.

I looked it up, and honestly I don't get what problem the Euthyphro Dilemma is supposed to be addressing. Is it addressing the nature of good and evil and how to define it? Or just the source of good and evil? It doesn't seem to me that the dilemma is attempting to solve anything in particular. Near as I can tell, it purports that if good is only good because that's what God says, then morality is arbitrary. But if the moral framework exists independently of divinity, then God isn't omnipotent. And both of those conclusions aren't necessarily correct, so...yeah, I don't get either. It doesn't seem like Plato wrote that dilemma to prove or disprove the existence of gods or religion, therefore it seems odd that they're using it for that.

I've just started watching Ocean's playlists on debates and I used to think that apologetic people were smart., since I myself came from Christianity, I am really starting to second guess that after hearing the LGBTQ argument. He is floundering and he can't stand it.

I have but they are mostly just hate preachers who have podcast

I think that comes from the the Christian thing of "Don't ask questions because asking questions is evil."

No, it's not just you.

Ignoring when Yahweh accepted a child sacrifice.

Ignoring that in his world view his God watches every baby that has ever been tortured for fun while doing nothing to intervene.

@@Control_alt_delete That's why the phrase "for fun" is in the apologetic. If he just said "tortures babies" is wrong, then he would call his god a monster for sending kids to hell. And he could never do that.

@@concretesandals4501 I said God watches as babies are tortured "for fun" and does nothing. I'm not seeing your point

@@Control_alt_delete He was referring to Mikes choice of words. He was agreeing with you too.

Cognitive dissonance in action

He didn't make a parallel argument... Just argued the homophobic preacher's favorite two points in parallel...

And that's just the body count in the literature, the implications of the body count the religion itself has from over the millennia!

That is why he refuses to see any other view, he just really doesn't want to.

I feel like monotheism is the one in between polytheism and atheism

He does when they get to the divine hiddenness, but through a sort of smug insinuation.