A Paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children (they dont have to have abused etc), and it has been shown to have biological factors. Why should he/she be denied their sexual expression? Is it not natures way?
@@ArcaneEther kiddies.... What is a child sir? When can a child give any consent. Today children as young as three are being aloud to identify as the opposite sex and pre-puberty take hormone blocker.... Is that not child abuse? When di you think a child can consent?
Ricky is not a theologian, he's a comedian. But his points have merit. He once said in an interview that if you got rid of science and religion, in a thousand years time religion would not be back "exactly" the same. Where as science would be as the facts are true, demonstrably.
What's good about him is that he's just a bloke talking about HIS views on religion, without having to rely on being an 'authority.' The layperson is entitled to their opinions, and a degree in theology is not needed to find it wrong.
@@the42year-oldhacker37 Just the fact that there currently are and have been multiple different religions in the past prove his point. It's ridiculous. Even within the same religion, it's interpreted differently. Why would a God make this the case? The imperfect nature of every religion makes a perfect God highly unlikely.
@@the42year-oldhacker37 The fact that different religions have popped up over the previous millennia, including most of that history where communication over long distances was difficult to achieve. It stands to reason that if a huge variety in religions have already been created, then if we were to wipe everything out and start over, another wide range of religions would pop up. Some might be similar to what we've got now, but it seems pretty logical that many would include significant differences.
@@the42year-oldhacker37 The point is that there's a trajectory of knowledge. Science has been trending toward a more accurate reflection of reality. Each failed hypothesis brings us closer to the one that proves the theory. Once we know the theory and have a high degree of predictive power, we can say with confidence that it's the truth. So, yes there has been (and will continue to be) variation in what people THINK they know in science, but because of a rigorous methodology that weeds out incorrect ideas, we see more and more truth being discovered. Because most scientific theories are falsifiable, they can be tested and proven to be true. Because NONE of religion is falsifiable, we have no reason to claim it's true; certainly not one over another.
I'm a former Mormon, current atheist. From the 'teachings' that was forced on me as a child, compared to the scientific learning I gained as an adult, to quote Ricky, 'Thank God I'm an atheist'
Well done *Matthew* & welcome to a happy, expanding & educated beam of light & reason. PS - One rule - We only eat babies on *Richard Dawkin's* birthday now!
@@pup1008 I never ate babies and I have never heard any community perform cannibalism other than 1800s Christians believing in a hypothetical vital force in human beings which can be gained by eating corpses blood etc.
14:58 “pop atheism” - a silly concept that seems to only have traction among religionists. A person’s non-belief in a deity does not require grounding in a PhD in theology to be valid or legitimate
I'd say I need to develop a PhD program in pop atheism to make a ton of money, but only the religious are gullible enough to fall for that one. Plus, profiting off the ignorance of others would surely bother me greatly once I actually tried.
I grew up in UK and went to a christian school. The fact we found logical holes in the bible and mocked it as nine year olds shows how easily debunked their holy script is.
@@cantonphantom My PHD professor friend mentioned this to me other day on the futility of debates "Debating someone is pointless as people are hopelessly attached to their respective emotional/vested interest, scientists communicate in papers outlining facts of their findings (more) absent of opinion or bias."
I feel Craig and Bertuzzi were being disingenious here by trying to latch on to the phrase "5 year old" in the hope that it would be difficult to find an example with such an age. But they should know that the exact age of the child is beside the point. Of course they didn't ask, "Who's telling their kid that they're going to hell if they are gay". They know there are demonstrable cases of this, e.g the people sending their teenage children for conversion thereby. Craig and Bertuzzi were only hiding behind the canopy of "5 year old". If it's a teenager rather than a 5 year old that this is done to, it doesn't make it any better.
@@the42year-oldhacker37 But in this case though, it can be argued that the Christian is not "misfiring" in some way when they exhibit homophobia. They are actually doing what their God wants when they do this. Meaning their God is homophobic and morally perfect at the same time, and very likely meaning that the existence of the Christian God is in fact false.
THEREFORE everything Craig has to say about the issue is null and void, the man is not well informed. Ivory tower thinker. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, the alternative is he's a sleezy hypocrit.
Leonardo da Vinci lived a life of celibacy and devoid of love and affection because he was so scared of being found out as gay. He was almost discovered when he was young and back then he would have been executed. A brilliant man, who lived in fear. I always though that was a tragedy.
Telling children that they are going to hell is absolutely child abuse, no ifs or buts. Don’t tell your children what to think, teach them how to think.
@@keithtorres5743, you say "if atheism is true" as though atheism is some sort of belief system. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in personal, interacting theist gods. A Theism - Against Theism, so there's no issue as to whether it's true, there's no "it" to be true. The issue is whether theism is true. Atheists don't believe it is, and rightfully point out that those making the claim that there are personal interacting theist gods, have the burden of proof. And of course there is none, or discussions like this would not take place. To suggest that rational humans see torturing children as simple as choosing between chocolate and vanilla ignores evolution. First, we have evolved a certain level of altruism, just like many other species. Yes, we are driven to survive within a particular environment, but altruism has turned out to be an evolutionary advantage. If taking care of another, rather than killing them because they are competition, improves the chance of survival within a particular environment, then those who take care of others survive, and those who fail to exhibit altruistic behavior are kicked out by the tribe to die, and their genes along with them. So we can't entirely help it that we have some degree of altruism - otherwise babies would be dropped on the ground and left to survive on their own... and the species would die out. Obviously, with the exception of some psychopaths, we all know that torturing children is not the same as choosing between vanilla and chocolate. Whether one has belief in imaginary invisible beings that live in the sky, or not, most of us have evolved to understand the difference. Hopefully you also see it that way, else you are a danger to the rest of us. And then there's the question of who does the most torturing of children - theists or atheists? I have no data on the subject, but I certainly have a guess.
Keith Torres I’m not sure inducing psychological trauma for the rest of your child’s life on something that is not true is subjectively okay. “If atheism is correct,” than there is literally only negatives to raising your child up as if they are going to hell for a part of them they don’t control. And something as holy as ice cream doesn’t deserve to be dragged into your homophobic mindset, and you pretend as though chocolate isn’t objectively better than vanilla.
@@keithtorres5743 When you say "I meant the dictionary definition of atheism, that there is no God.", I just saw the first 7 of the top search results for the definition, all from reputable dictionaries, and ZERO of them had "the dictionary definition" that you assert. Please support your claim, with evidence of these "dictionary definitions", that you cite, and I'll post oh, a dozen or so, dictionaries that disagree. You're trying to conflate "anti-theist" and "atheist" and it isn't working. www.learnreligions.com/atheism-and-anti-theism-248322
Keith Torres I would define negative (in regards to morals) as impacting someone in a non beneficial way, whether physically or emotionally. This is of course what you would be doing to your hypothetical child. Believe whatever you damn well please, it’s perfectly within your right to believe you will go to hell for being gay, however, you will impact that child negativity for telling them to believe that they are going to hell for being gay. Your child is a person too, and while you do keenly point out that individual people have the right to create their own moral codes, so does your child. And your child can’t help but love you and soak you up at first. And in this hypothetical situation which you created, atheism is correct; therefore, your child would soak up a false belief that they are somehow less than others and that they are going to burn all because of your morality, which they might never be able to sever from, because they can’t help but soak you up in those formative years.
Keith Torres and morality is certainly debatable as to its subjectivity if their is no god. I find cosmicsceptic and rationalityrules debate on this to be intriguing and worth a listen to see someone coming from an objective morality and atheism perspective
@@AntonioInnocente I think he asked you what you meant when you said "wiring going wrong". There's nothing wrong. Many species have gays, and they actually boost fertility and young ones survivability. At least in social species. Because a gay one can still help society with work and childcare and whatnot, without rivaling the other males' chances of getting a female. The fact that the more children a human gets, the more the chance for a gay child increases. At least if the children are male. For each male child, the chance of the next one being gay is increased by about 30%. That's no mistake. And siblings to gays tend to get more children. Interesting I think. That said, you're right that homosexuals and paedophiles don't do the same damage. One doesn't do damage, the other does. But it's no misinterpretation. That's what they mean when they do the comparison.
1. My grandmother threatened Hell for everything, and yes at 5 she would tell me "gays are going to Hell." 2. How long did it take you to get the camera almost perfectly centered between the shelves?
Smugness is a quality I have noticed in many of these self-convinced theologians. It is like they are so afraid of being shown evidence that will contradict and disprove the elaborate childish religious framework they have built around their mind, so they resort to a kind smugness as a self defense mechanism
The reason for this is because of the fact that he has some fancy degree that states that he's a world renown expert on Religion which he thinks now makes it impossible for anybody to argue with him on the subject, when we know that a doctorate in Grimm's fairytales would hold as much weight as his degree in Religious fairytales...
I love when they are responding to a comedian and saying that pop atheism is comedic and mockery. No shit, he's a comedian. He just makes really good points, and they can't see the forest for the trees
There is no pop atheism. This is like saying the popular way of not collecting stamps that no one collect. it's not that atheist comedy is popular because its atheistic comedy, it's because people know religion is dumb and it's becoming unpopular. You know, like the Kalam cosmological argument that basically has no logical ground in today's sphere of debate. And no, for WLC to say this is kind of baffling given the fact that atheism became exponentially more popular due to his debate with C Hitchens. And funny story, WLC hasn't come up with anything relevant since. It's same old low hanging fruit that he knows will influence his target audience, with complete disregard to what the conversations stands for on its own merit.
Cameron- "Who's telling their kid they're going to spend eternity in hell? Christians don't do that." Well, my pastor dad, and virtually every adult in my developing world said as much to me . . . so uh, yeah, they do that A LOT.
It's the same for Muslim kids too. And probably in many other religious families as well. I've had students, little 10-year-olds who's said their parents told them, if they fell in love before they were married, they'd get black spots all over their bodies. And also, that their family had to accept the person they were to fall in love in. That's not love, mate. That's control. They said wearing the hijab is voluntarily, but not wearing it means they'll be punished by god. What a choice... They also told me that killing gays was good. I mean, the amount of sickening things theists will fill (brainwash) their kids with is just awful.
M B That does not make it correct to do. You cannot dismiss something bad with the fact that other people also do bad things. It does not negate what is being done to harm others.
@@declaredjeans7555 Doooo youu realliiiiiize.... The sun doesnt go down....its just an illusiioooon cauuuused....by the wooooorld.....spinnin round nana nana nana nanaaa
Craig: "I don't know of any parent that says such a thing." From the same guy who said the killing of the Midianite children was a GOOD thing because their souls were then saved because if they would have grown up they would have deserved their damnation.
I've heard,with my own ears"christian parents" saying that very thing. And also kicking their young adolescents out of their homes,turning their backs on them. Or tortured them with the conversion therapy. Religion is the most dangerous thing ,imo,man has created. Craig is a worm.
Everybody dies sooner or later. Not every human has a soul. Everything has a purpose. God feels everything we experience along with us. Our pain, fear, joy, pleasure, anxiety and hopes. Nothing is unfair a it's part of a greater plan.
My older brother was told by my father's side of the family (we have different dad's) at just 5 years old that because he was born a bastard child he and my mother was going to burn in eternal pain and suffering. They told that to a child who has no choice in who theyre father is or if he's married to they're mom
Ok, that is one of the most fucked up things coming from modern christians that I have heard. With the gay children there is at least some "altruistic" reason behind it. They want to stop them from being gay so they do not go to hell. It is till bad, but it makes some sense from their point of view. However that "bastard child" and the mother can not change these things anymore, can they? So this only harm them psychologically without any good coming from it even from their point of view.
A BASTARDS CHILD IS A FATHERLESS CHILD WITH AN ABUSIVE MOTHER WHO IS NOT LOVE BY ANYONE. Your brother you speak of is loved by you and many other people therefore he is NO BASTARD and GOD WILL BLESS HIM. I WILL KEEP HIM ABD YOUR FAMILY IN MY PRAYERS
"Who's telling their kid they're going to spend eternity in hell. Christians don't do that." Have you ever heard of the tragedy of Bobby Griffith ? A man born in a very strict christian family who eventually commit suicide after being continuously rejected by his mother. The book and the movie are great and they perfectly sum up the issue of homosexuality and christianity
Kidnapped for Christ. Overseas organizations that Christian parents pay to BEAT the gay away. The film implied the children were being sexually abused as well, behind the doors of the punishment room they had no ability to record.
I remember quite distinctly being told in Sunday School or Wednesday night kids classes around the age of 8 or 9 that I would go to hell if I didn’t accept Jesus as my savior.
Guys you should decide if you are atheist or not. If you are, then there is no hell. If there is hell, then there must be some conditions to fulfill in ordet to get there. No point in questioning the conditions if there is no hell at all, right?
“We haven’t seen one argument for atheism” - that statement shows the problem with Christianity. You do not need arguments FOR atheism, you need arguments FOR God/Christianity - if someone finds those arguments insufficient, they settle at atheism. Classic shifting of the burden of proof...
Stanley Arun If you want to claim “There is no God” then by all means take up the burden of proof 👍 the point i made is that to say your an atheist is to say “i do not see sufficient evidence for a God” - this statement has no burden of proof
Stanley Arun i didn’t say i was an atheist - i’m just saying that we need to be fair to atheists that without sufficient evidence, the default position is atheism (unless something is proven, we should not believe in it)
"God doesn't send sinners to hell, unrepentant sinners send themselves to hell." This is comically similar to: "I didn't punch you in the face, you hit my fist with your face!" Well, I say it's comical, except when taken seriously (as Cameron and Craig do), it justifies abuse. "You brought this onto yourself!" How many unfortunate kids have heard that after getting the shit kicked out of them by their abusive parents? But I guess it's different when God does it, huh? 🙄
at best they argue for "baiting", god setting up a trap and gleefully waiting for the ignorant victims to set it off. Which kind of flies in the face of all claims of a "good" and "moral" god. Again, like so many other things.
@Ted Wilson But you had to add the 'for nothing', which is not in the original sentence. The original is very much 'I'm not an abusive husband, you just make me hit you because dinner isn't ready when I get back from work, you did this to yourself'. On top of that, of course, the law is indeed unjust. But christians need to create this cognitive dissonance to deal with it.
Craig is the perfect example of everything wrong with theology. I'm actually grateful to him for this. The dishonesty, smugness, the shallow, childish intellect hiding behind a pretense of legitimate expertise. Just look at his face in the thumbnail, he looks exactly like the troll face meme. Also I think he would make a good clown, you can't convince me otherwise
I would actually still hold him above actual trolls in terms of mindset. He is an utterly arrogant asshole who may very well be deliberately spreading lies and aggravating others for the sake of his paycheck - but that is _still_ better than doing such things for nothing but the sick pleasure of ruining other people's fun/days/lives/...
I disagree he’s incredibly intelligent guy, sometimes he does say stupid things, there are many brilliant people that say stupid things, and misunderstand people’s points, let’s not assume bad faith, and let’s not assume dishonesty if somebody miss somebody’s point. Are you willing to admit that there are atheists to do the exact same thing though, Who are completely dishonest, and incredibly smug and make no attempt to try to understand peoples points.
Craig: "I just want to say as well, I don't know of any christian parent who says to his child if you are gay then you're going to burn in hell..." Of course Craig, you can't know everyone in existence. However, I do know christian parent's who says that to their child as mine said that to me.
I've heard it!. Apparently I'm forever burning in hell.. because I don't want to lie to myself.. don't you love that? " just be straight ". Thats called lying. Id rather be fabulous and burn, than be miserable and go to " heaven"..
I expect they’re talking about “being gay” in the sense of having the orientation, rather than “being gay” in the sense of expression. It’s a fine line, but it’s a big distinction often made. Many Evangelicals don’t view orientations (and sexuality as a whole) as significant to wellbeing.
@@AurorXZ There's not much difference there. Being gay is part of who you are, and repressing it is something that causes psychological harm. It's abusive either way.
Just because he doesn't know anyone that does that, doesn't automatically mean that he doesn't condone a book that supports it. It's simply deflection of an immoral portion of his religion, and he can't accept that. His religion doesn't allow that.
He defends genoices... and moreover not just commited by humans in name of god but also genocides "commited" by the god of the bible, how can people like that walk on the street just like? They should be in jail
Reasoning is a skill; avoiding motivated reasoning is a choice made on the basis of that sort of skill and personal virtue. Craig is not bad at reasoning. He chooses to make it motivated reasoning.
William Lane Craig has a hypnotic way of making assertions that sound scholarly and wise - you sometimes have to pause for a couple of seconds before you realise he's talking crap.
its called being charismatic, literally the only good trait of a preacher. Ask me, my father was a pastor, and a complete piece of shit until we literally shunned him and he realized religion is fucking up all aspect of his life and others around him. The worst part, he was able to be a piece of shit and able to convince you he should be.
@@meusana3681 where is your evidence of Christianity was the cause of your father doing it, you can’t use guilt by association fallacy and say he was a Christian and he did these bad things, therefore it’s because of Christianity or he said it was therefore, it is. You have given me an example of somebody who claims to be a Christian who did something bad, what is this have to do with Christianity, if you’re gonna say oh well Christianity caused him to then I need evidence of that.
No I don’t think most of William Ln., Craig‘s responses were very good, and I feel like he missed a point on some of them, but come on I feel like most people in the common section are not being fair whatsoever, and there are points where he’s literally doing the same thing that atheists do when you guys can’t see that you do it as well.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 I don't need to prove my subjective opinion about my father. He denounced it himself. But sure, I'll indulge you. It's not a guilt by association fallacy. The things he did as a christian was told to him by christians, and that was the specific things that caused our family to fall apart. Is the robber bad because he's a robber, or is being a robber bad because the act of robbing is bad for others? Christianity literally robs people of their critical thinking, morality and self worth. Then offers rewards you could obtain by better means, and promises a reward that can't be promised. Con artistry at its finest. See, god never specifically said robbing people's free thinking is bad, in fact, he supports it. Something to think about, we are the agents of conversion. We are told to rob, and that robbing in this context is just. So I ask again, is being a robber bad because he's a robber, or is it bad because robbing is harmful to someone else? So, if someone tells you that you aren't worth being what you are, would you call that an attempt at robbing their self worth? If not, please explain, if so, then yeah... Here's my story: My mother makes about 10X what my father made at his peak, and she was treated like a piece of owned furniture. Misogyny made my mom hate my dad, and the bible told him to do this. Want proof. Go read Romans, because fck me you can't be seriously asking me this. Both explicit and implicit forms of misogyny is present throughout the entire bible. (You ask for proof that christianity caused this, ironically because christianity specifically asks for this, it's just that the rest of the world became better than to listen to this crap.) I started to hate my father when I first started at varsity, seeing what he does to my mother and how that's actually not how normal people function. I literally thought being a piece of shit to your wife was the way it's supposed to be. Then I started having mental health problems, and my dad being the "most important figure in the house" decided FOR me that I don't need therapy, instead he would instill more self hate to me through convincing me metal health issues are the result of devils entering my heart, and he destroyed my self worth completely by claiming this entire issue is of no other fault than my own. Mark 5. There is no mention of actual mental disease in the bible, none. Not a single reference to alzheimers, schizophrenia or even OCD. Nah, if you ain't right, it's cuz you ain't right with god. If you were schizophrenic, and lived in biblical times, one of two things would happen: You would either be stoned as a madman, or become a jester by someone else's accord. So fuck you for asking, my pleasure. You want my proof when the entire institution blatantly agrees with the accusations I just made. This is a joke right? So please don't give me the "christianity is worth reforming if there are bad apples" horsesht. Nothing in that religion is worth saving, nothing. Literally every good thing you can get out of christianity, are things other religions and societies have come up with first, and secular societies have done it better since. It's obvious you are better than the religion you prescribe to, otherwise you wouldn't even have brought up that contention to begin with. The modern world is better of than it was ages ago despite of religion, not because of it.
Simon the Likeable Imagine making a career out of either being so stupid that you can’t understand basic logical arguments, or lying for the sake of upholding an indefensible position.
@@jpconley5618 Ray Comfort's media company made four million dollars last year. He has been asking the same four questions since the '90s. To paraphrase George Carlin, realize 50% of religious people are dumber than the average religious person. (Disclaimer: It's a double edged sword though. There have been quite a few occasions where atheists have had their butts kicked round the block. Luckily, there is no "inerrant word of God" to adhere to in atheism so correction is easily assimilated.)
M B Because many well respected atheists typically have a vested interest in converting Christians to atheism because they see Christianity as a morally wrong position which causes great degrees of harm and suffering in the world. Well respected atheists also choose to argue with people like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham who are borderline mentally handicapped in their lack of basic reasoning skills. The ability of a theist to comprehend basic logic isn’t a deterrent for debate, it’s an opportunity for points scoring and in many cases an easy punching bag.
M B Then you’ve answered your own question. Why wouldn’t someone who is interested in the philosophy of religion be interested in discussing the philosophy of religion with someone who wants to discuss the philosophy of religion?
My jaw literally dropped to the table when I heard "Who is telling their five year old that they're going to hell if they're gay?" WHAT PLANET DO THEY LIVE ON omg ...
Really shows how Christians' beliefs and values are vastly different from each other throughout even just the country. Some people actually are that clueless.
@@GiubileiFernando Probably true for these guys. But sadly there are Christians out there who assume that no Christians even tell young children about hell because they don't tell theirs according to their own brand of Christianity.
@@GiubileiFernando Do you know a lot of atheists who would kill a person if they had subjectively moral reasons for doing so, and if they had the opportunity to do so in secret, without anyone knowing of the murder? If you say no, you're pretending. (just demonstrating your argument here)
8:56 While I may not have been literally 5 years old, I was told from a young age that I would burn in hell for being gay, and it got even worse when I came out. This isn't a freaking caricature.
yeah i saw such things, while being straight i could still see the wrong that religion has done to a lot of people that were otherwise good. How do you make good people do and say bad things ? one just needs religion
@@1man1bike1road what is good? One person thinks being good is killing off people to save the planet because of population crisis, another thinks not to kill is being good, who’s right? What’s truth?
@@ethan1268 At one moment God says that killing is wrong. Another moment God kills the first-born Egyptians for the crimes of the Pharoh. There are many moral systems out there, deontology, virtue ethics, variants of consequentialism, etc, but people disagree. The moral system of divine command is just 'If god says so, it is right'. This would mean that tomorrow, if God told you to kill all left handed people, the moral thing would be to obey. And the theist will tell you that without God, morality is opinion, missing the irony of their statement.
i love when i hear apologists say "if this is the best atheists have..." cuz you just know that the next thing out of their mouth will be a logical fallacy. *edit: 4min in to the video, WLC strawmans Stalin into the argument.....aaaaaaaannnnnd i was right. lol
If Stalin was religious, I think he would have found religious "reasons" for doing what he did. If Mohammad was an atheist, he would have found sufficient atheistic "reasons" for treating people in the way he did as the islamic prophet. Same for the leaders of the catholic church in the 1500s - if they had been atheists, they would probably have found sufficient "reasons" for treating people like they did. If we look at the teaching of Jesus, there are no morally sufficient reasons for killing people in the name of him, whatsoever. He says "Love your enemies, bless those who persecute you." If we look at barefooted atheism, materialism and naturalism, it would raise the question of why anyone would have intrinsic value, whether any act would be right or wrong ontologically (which should should not be confused with the fact that atheists do know of right and wrong actions, because they do!) - and thereby, there would not be morally sufficient reasons for not acting like a dick, when people either would not know about it (secrecy) or could not do anything about it (power).
mrwiswas Jesus invented thought crimes. This is insidious since no one can have "perfect" thoughts, it makes believers inherently unworthy of salvation and makes them utterly dependent upon the "grace" of Jesus to save them from eternal torture. It's kind of brilliant and evil at the same time. Doubt is the foundation of certainty.
mrwiswas and who are you to decide that in my „worldview“ life has no actual value and that I couldn’t know what is right or wrong? Who made you the gatekeeper for the knowledge of those things?
monika hug You are almost understanding the core of the gospel, Monica! Jesus’ point is that we are doomed, even if we think that we, by our selves, our good deeds and intentions, are or even can become good enough. He died for us, while we were sinners, not after we did anything to please him.
monika hug Please read my comment again, Monica! I did not claim that anyone cannot know what’s right or wrong - in fact, I mentioned that my comment should not be confused with that claim. 😊 Also, I never said that life does not have any actual value. I just mentioned that pure atheism, materialism and naturalism raises the question of intrinsic value. God bless you! ❤️
@@calebc2609 How long is too long? It took me about the time it took me to type it. You must be a William Lane Craig minion but I could be wrong. Anyway have a nice day.
I pick up a very 'gayish' vibe from the dude. Same with the current vice president Pence, I think people who feel threatened by homosexuality are often struggling with it themselves, while people who are comfortable with their sexuality just couldn't car less what others do in their bedrooms.
8:23 I'm gay and live in Utah and I can say firsthand that these guys have never met any Mormons in their life. I know 3 people personally who have cut ties with their family for being gay
Same here on both counts. And while my parents are not as anti-gay as most, they’re still noticeably homophobic. They clearly view the idea of same sex relationships as in some way disturbing and it is obvious to me that I will not be treated with the same amount of love and respect if I do come out as I am not having done so. And again that’s with parents who are by no means fundies. I’ve certainly heard stories about people being kicked out and reports from my parents about “discussions” they had with “extreme (biblically accurate)” fellow church parents about the apparent horrors and inherent disgust of homosexuality.
The whole "the sinner sends themself to hell" thing really brings my piss to the boil. Criminals don't send themselves to jail - the judge sends them to jail. Otherwise you would have to ask why only the ones that get caught send themselves to jail and the ones that don't are happy to remain free.
Right, it REEKS of submission to "narcissistic parent". God (the parent) is blameless. If he punishes you, it CAN'T be that he is unreasonable. No, it's you who are wrong, flawed, responsible. In fact, as one studies narcissistic-parent codependent-child relationships, it mirrors EXACTLY onto christians relationship to god. From the child recieving identity through being like the parent, to the child being flawed and the parent flawless, as percieved by the child - to the parent needing endless validation and worship. Interesting, to put it lightly.
It's just like an abusive relationship. "If you raise your voice to me, I'll hit you. You don't want me to hit you, don't you? Then dont disobey me. Don't *make me* hit you. " If the person gets hit, is it their fault? No, it's the abuser's fault. They made the rules and decided the punishment.
We have broccoli and cauliflower in the refrigerator. Now, if I see you eat the broccoli I will send you to hell. What, you don't like cauliflower? Then don't eat. Or go to hell. It's your OWN CHOICE
Without sounding sycophantic, I find it rather difficult to disagree with anything Ricky says about religion. He nails the arguments well while still being respectful of those who do believe. And WLC... Stalin... Come on. There's not enough facepalm memes to describe the idiocy of immediately falling back to that old chestnut. And, AND, every time I see a Cameron video, I want to know why he thought that lighting setup was a good idea.
Craig mentioning Stalin only shows he has no answer for secularism. The only way he can argue is with a strawman. If he can do this, then I can equate Hitler with Christianity.
"Who is telling a 5 year-old that that they're going to hell?" So does someone else want to tell Craig about the Westboro Baptist Church or should I start drafting an email? And yes, I know the denomination is different but it's all the same Bible and the same God. Good for the goose, good for the gander.
you don't at all have to even go that extreme. you can find easily documentable cases of it with any southern baptists, catholics, most non-denom megachurches, and most protestant churches. such practice is almost synonymous with christian belief, and whenever the 'nicer, more modern sects' just want to intellectually avoid it, the go into the 'hate the sin, not the sinner' nonsense. it's really cowardly and gross.
Or just ask literally any gay person what they've heard from religious family members when they were younger. Sometimes you still get told you're gonna burn while an adult. ( they do thus fake crying thing as if they're sad about telling you you're gonna burn).. like..Christian pitty party
I recently lost someone in religion... And I can't believe it happened to me, an atheist, my ex boyfriend was a trans guy but was brainwashed enough by his family and god to believe everything he was was wrong.. Now he identifies as she and is a hetero woman.. But she's so unhappy, she's convincing herself she's entirely giving herself to God and she will be rewarded when she goes to heaven.. I'm crying as I write this, I miss him so much... There's literally nothing left from what he used to be.. And it breaks my heart and I hate to have lost him to the hands of religion
@@efrikamaya yeah last time we talked she said she was making a big *sacrifice"for God and even if she was not happy she was gonna do it all for God(?)
@tony Schaapman Its a person that uses reality (proven science) to base his opinion on, thus excluding religion because its not based on reality (proven science). Wow, that makes sense!
@abelaustin86 People should be treated fairly and equally. I will treat people the way that I want to be treated. That is what I and most other people, base our morality on.
@abelaustin86 What do you base yours on the bible? summon bears to kill 50 kids for teasing a bold man? making a deal with God he helps you kill thousands if you kill your daughter? Slavery? the bible has the worst morals. Our morals are based on instinct (dna) and culture, the ultimate goal of our morals is to reduce suffering for conscious beings.
The gay subject shows just how much they are willing to lie to push their narrative. This is why I can't listen to apologists. If they are going to be dishonest (which they will for their god), then their opinions are valueless.
Christianity never teaches that anyone goes to Hell for being gay, or that anyone can say that someone else is going to Hell for any reason, regardless of evidence of what they've done, because we aren't fit to judge. Only God is fit to judge, and is also able to give grace where it needs. Having desire for the same sex isn't something you could help or change, and if you'd look into real Christian teachings (from a Catholic perspective here) on this topic, I think you'd be surprised by how we view gays... which is the same way we view any human being... which is a beautiful reflection of God's love and glory.
And what are some examples of lying apologists? I could name some good, reliable ones if ya want. At least in terms of not lying. I don't think I've heard any lying Christian apologists... and I'm assuming if that's true, these "apologists" probably aren't very renowned.
@@isaacduplantis1114 I grew up Christian and my church did teach that gay people are going to hell. And not just in my religion. I had a friend that came out as gay and his religion (Catholic) also taught that being game was a sin that damned him to hell. You can only lie to yourself when you say something that ridiculous.
I can't stand this absurd religious argument that says - God doesn't send you to hell, you choose to go there yourself. That's like a Bank Robber going to court and saying - I didn't steal the bank's money, the cashier chose to give it to me after I put a gun to her head.
Dude you really werent paying attention hes saying that god created us knowing what would happen now the fact that he gave us free will is the choice to choose to follow him or not and end up in hell its simple to make sense i dont see how you cqn debate against something that makes the most sense
@@mcrkproductions1569 A choice made under duress is no choice. "Worship me or I'll torture you forever" are not the words of someone who honours free will, they are the words of a Totalitarian Dictator. Like Christopher Hitchens says "A celestial North Korea"
No, it's like the bank robber knowing he is doing something illegal/evil and knowing that when caught, he will go to jail. You have a terribly bad analogy here.
I have a great-niece who, when she was very young, had to have psychological counseling because she was traumatized by what she was taught at the church her family attended: that she was born already sinful, and that if she didn't kowtow to the christian god, obey all its rules and commands, and pray daily for forgiveness that she would be tortured in "hell" for the entirety of her "afterlife." The documented facts that this is being done is reprehensible, and implying that it does not happen is an utter prevarication.
I don't know anyone with COVID-19, therefore COVID-19 is not real. I don't know anyone with HIV, therefore HIV is not real. I don't know anyone with Malaria, therefore Malaria is not real. Apologetics or whatever they're called, like most people with insane troll logic love those... I'm just gonna call them "Swiss Army Arguments". One argument fits them all. You can prove and disprove just about ANYTHING with it. I could say "I don't know god, therefore god is not real." and would be on the same level as them. In all seriousness though, I can't tell what their intention with this one is. Are they blind or are they willingly lying to make religion look not as rotten as it is? Or maybe they're just trolling? Idk.
Sorry y'all can't follow an argument. The point was made that Christians go around telling their kids they will go to hell if they are gay. Maybe that has happened somewhere. But Christians by in large dont do that. I know you like to create a strawman and beat it up. Your welcome to do so but you are decieving yourself. Incidently saying "I know someone who does X, therefore X happens all the time" is a prettty silly argument. Sorry to bust your bubble.
So craig think that homosexuality is definitely not "morally permissable". However well versed he is in philosophy and other things, statements like that makes me lose respect for him. And I understand he didn't say "I think it is not morally permissable", but everything else he said amounts to that position.
I think he's saying that while proclivities are not sinful, acting on them may be. But that flies in the face of a LONG history of "sinful thought" that still pervades Christianity. I think he's simply lying about that to seem more reasonable, but his own religion doesn't agree with it.
I'm still struggling to understand to know what is morally wrong with homosexuality to them?? Like you could argue about biology all day (even though that suggests all we're good for is procreation) but why tf is it immoral? Who's it hurting?
@@marinkelepolo5530 What's wrong? Nothing. It's just dogma that's part of a religion people follow and because of that they have to either reject their religion (or at least a part of it) or argue that homosexuality is indeed wrong which is what their religion says. It's a great example of how much people dislike changing their minds and how hesitant they're to admit being wrong. Either way the moment a community decides that they indeed want to act in accordance with their religion and start to condemn homosexuality is the moment that in most cases marks the end of thought about questioning this aspect of their religion. It becomes a part of the routine indoctrination process and people who experience it don't even realise that condemning homosexuality is a thing that you can opt out of doing. They never question it they never think about it and yet they have an opinion they willing to defend (often with their lives).
One of my friends is Gay before he came out his life was miserable now he is married and is as happy as can be and now has security,being able to talk about his true feelings and can laugh all because he came out. Now you tell me if that's morraly wrong.
The best arguments *against* *theism* are: 1) the argument from absence 2) the argument from confusion 3) the argument from the nature of nature 4) the argument from moral evil From strongest to weakest. And by the way, nobody's arguing FOR "atheism," just against theistic claims.
What's the argument from nature of nature? And isn't arguing against theism also arguing for atheism? Either you are a theist, or an atheist. To me it seems there is nothing in between. (And if you were thinking of agnosticism, many would argue it's orthogonal to theism/atheism)
You have to argue against a particular god or attribute of god. After all "the god of making the world exactly like it is" that many theists defend cannot be disproven.
@@the42year-oldhacker37 God is evil is a great rebuttal, but then Christianity is out. God is unknowable is a great rebuttal but then Christian belief is out. Do you have any rebuttal that doesn't destroy religion in the process?
@@the42year-oldhacker37 I *did* list the problem from evil as the weakest. And sure, a theist can tie themselves in metaphysical knots in order to counter these objections, but we can all see the contortionist on stage. If there were a god such as they imagine, then its existence *SHOULD* *BE* *AS* *UNEQUIVOCAL* *AS* *THE* *NOONDAY* *SUN!* No questions asked, no arguments to be made. Their theism is its own best refutation.
@@wcbuerste7 the nature of nature is not in line with the theistic god claims. It's commonly referred to as the problem from natural evil, as distinct from that of moral evil. I could say it many ways, but try this: _why_ _does_ _the_ _botfly_ _exist_ ? I can do more if you think you have an answer . . .
In regard to being gay, to be totally accurate, Craig and the interviewer were not denying the Christian view on homosexuality, they were saying no-one tells their five year old they will burn in hell. Perhaps they wait until they are six. Typical weakness from believers in the face of obvious and genuine criticism. Craig never misses the point. He is a very intelligent man. What he does is deliberately misconstrue and twist arguments to make his point. It is not error, it is dishonesty.
I agree he is a very intelligent man - in fact anyone is that's in a profession that brings in a lot of coin, a profession that is protected by all forms of Government (even in secularism) and which never has to undertake any official scrutiny.
@@johnlove2954 Hi. I'm not sure what point you are making. My comment was aimed at highlighting the hypocrisy of the people in the interview, who tried to focus on the single issue of talking to a child and not the overall problem of Christian teaching.
@@Outspoken.Humanist The point is that you are just defending what Ricky said. If the focus should be on the problem of Christian teaching, why would you want to bring the issue of child? The point is that Ricky was using the imagery of child to use emotions of people to push his narrative and you are defending him by arguing people to overlook what he said, as if he is not responsible for what he says.
@@johnlove2954 OK, thank you. You are correct that Gervais was using a shocking example to make his point but the point itself remains valid. Christian teaching is based on faith and not evidence. What it teaches is opinion and belief, not truth or fact. Therefore, to teach anyone, not just children, that heaven and hell exist, there is life after death and some of us understand God's plan is to tell lies. I was sent to Sunday school every week for years and at no point were we told, this is what some people believe. We were taught that the Bible is a true history and that Jesus really existed, performed miracles, was the literal son of God and came back from the dead and that God loved us.
5:52 If you had good arguments for your specific religion it would be the world only religion. /Thread Because an allmight god that plays hide and seek and then punishes you with eternal damnation for not seeing him is not benevolent at all.
“Hitler and Stalin were atheists”. Dawkins dealt with this quite well, by retorting: “They both had moustaches as well.” [edit: Hitler _was_ in fact a Catholic, lmao]
Neither one was atheist! Hitler belief god and he meantion this many times. Stalin almost become a priest! He also give more liberties orthodox church and rely faith in the war time.
Almighty Bunny exactly! •Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that he believed he was doing “God’s will in persecuting the Jewish people” •the belt buckle of every nazi soldier read “God on our side” in German •Hitler’s birthday was celebrated from the pulpit of the churches until I believe 1945(?) (though I could be wrong on that date as historical chronology isn’t my strong point) •the first treaty Hitler ever signed was with the Catholic Church where they agreed for the dissolution of the Catholic centre party in order to give the Nazi party a clear run Anyone who claims Hitler’s regime was “atheistic” is a deluded MORON who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
Almighty Bunny yet the religious still cling to this pathetic idea that atheism was what made people like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc do what they did. Of course it’s utter nonsense. Absence of belief in a supernatural being would have no way of influencing that kind of behaviour. They can’t defend their religion because they know how much blood is on its hands, so they have to clap back with this pathetic argument that means nothing.
Just want to say that I noticed that you have Craig's book on the Kalam Cosmological Argument in the background, which goes to show how respectful you are in crafting your rebuttals - keep up the good work bro
Took a seminar course for my bachelor's called "the meaning of life", my atheist professor had us read a paper by Craig. Never in my life had I ever felt like my intelligence has been offended so bad. Craig is a philosopher the same as I am an aerospace engineer.
My daughter provides counseling and support services for homeless LBGTQ young people, the vast majority of whom are homeless precisely because their "Christian" parents kicked them out. You can't tell me Christian parents don't engage in abuse as a result of their beliefs!
8:46 I see someone has never taken a tour of "The Bible Belt". Not only is it a description of the geographic location, but a favored method of child discipline in that area.
Raised in the Bible Belt, and have definitely heard a lot of it. Between Pentecostal and southern baptist churches, I heard so many conflicting views that I eventually couldn’t keep believing blindly.
I love how he says his belief in Christianity is because he has "good arguments" for it (and let's just forget for a second that most, if not all arguments of his can be used for other religions) and in turn implies all other religions such as his example, Islam, don't have those arguments. yet one of his favorite arguments is the kalam cosmological argument which was put forth by al-ghazali. A Persian Islamic philosopher. He's very intelligent and well read. so I don't know whether this was an honest mistake or not But I don't think it was
The man doesn't have an honest bone in his body, the kalam is a nonsensical argument that does not even get you to god let alone Jesus, Craig makes me really mad because he is clearly a smart guy, somehow he is able to compartmentalize his brain, I would be surprised if he actually did believe what he claims
@@ARoll925 sounds like a good guess... there is this group, this special subset of intellectuals, that do not believe, yet are desperate about the possibility of being wrong. Pascal's Wager is born out of such a conflict of knowledge and belief... even if HE may not be "saved" at least he can talk others into it and that way at least do good. Maybe even get a "get out of hell free" card? Who knows? WLC would not the only one "at least save others less intelligent than me" person in this world. And it actually would explain some about his sophistry when he should use pure, clear philosophy, his wordplays instead of rational arguments.
@Classical Theist00 first of all I didn't say that is his only argument, never even implied it, I was commenting on kalam because that is what he is known for using and he continues use it, if he has better arguments he should lead with those, and stop using kalam because it has been debunked many times, by many people, it's a bad argument and doesn't convince anyone with half a brain cell what he is trying to convince them of, this is not a dishonest argument, his other arguments which if as you say they are about resurrection then they aren't better arguments I think your final paragraph was meant for the poster above me but I'll respond, I would argue there aren't good arguments for any type of theism but I'll give WLC and you that for argument sake, how do we tell which on is right?, If we are trying to figure which argument is true and the same "good" argument can be used for two opposing sides, how do we get to truth?, If a supposed "good" argument can get you to two "truths" how can it possibly be a good argument? That is fucking asinine If either of us has an uncharitable argument of the other it is you, you applied stuff to me I didn't even say, and tried to strawman what I did say, I guess like dr.craig you can't be honest with yourself when presented an opposing view, and have compartmentalize so badly you come off like an arrogant asshole
@@Ugly_German_Truths the cognitive dissonance going on in their heads must be bizzare, I almost respect WLC, if he wasn't spreading such dishonest nonsense, if he could be honest with himself and others instead of clinging to his bullshit, I would respect him more, he to me is a good example of the sunken cost fallacy, where you have already invested so much time, money and study believing and spreading something you just continue doing it, in his case the god stuff, I agree with you about the intellectual non believers being so caught up in Pascal's wager, it actually makes me sad for them
"Ooh no, I would never tell my kids that! Although luckily I won't have to because there's nothing wrong with my kids, obviously." ~ Just about any modern Christian, especially an American one. 🤯
M B I dissagree with your critic of then being bad. Firstly (as I’m certain you’d agree) judging a toothpick as a cotton-swab is going to yield bad marks. Thats what they did for half. This playlist they “received.” Was cut out of context and contained indirect rhetoric against Christianity which if they had a problem with, they should have rejected the invitation to address them in favour of better spent time. But more importantly those videos were all comprised of legitimate Rhetoric against the make up of Christianity which are elements of constitution to Yahweh’s claim to existence-supporting the Lightest claim of atheism (lack of belief). All of them directly address the pillars of christianity’s (as a practice) most common failures, highlighting its incoherence & its contradictions. Rhetoricians do this chronically and it should take 2-to-maybe-10 braincells for Christians to put that together. They deliberately dodged the opportunity to respond to very legitimate rhetoric and lied (as made obvious with their comments on “Homosexuality not being condemned.”) and demonstrated the Dunning Kruger effect by pretending that Alvin Fricking Plantinga, (a fricken christian apologist) is the arbiter of what contention exists between religion and science to substantiate their rhetoric against Neil Degrassi Tyson’s literacy in the subject matter. Those were NOT bad arguments. Craig & Bertusi are just idiots. And I mean Bertusi is literally an idiot. I haven’t seen someone that braindead and incompetent since the host of Unbelievable.
M B 1. No it doesn’t. 2. If its a joke they shouldn’t have posted it. This is a real discussion with serious implications all throughout history and the future. 3. Both of those clowns mirrored these sentiments about atheists, atheist rhetoric, and their arguments against god(s) so there is nothing to infer as “joking.”
He’s not a liar, again I don’t think he gave great responses for the most part, but you guys are not being fair with your criticism whatsoever, at least most of you in the comment section, you’re jumping to ridiculous conclusions, and again I agree with some of your points, but you guys are not fair whatsoever and you would not give this treatment to your own side, he didn’t lie about anything somebody misunderstanding something it’s not the same thing as them knowing the truth and intentionally misleading somebody.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 He has had a PhD physicist explain that the math supports an eternally existing energy/matter. WLC keeps saying that is impossible, without ever refuting the mathematics. So he is lying.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 It's not a "conclusion". It's proven mathematically that eternal energy is mathematically consistent. WLC offers no refutation of that, yet claims it is impossible using nothing but analogies. WLC is an educated man, he definitely knows better.
Considering the Jewish, Islamic and Christian gods are the actually the same god (he comes from the same root source), why would he say he doesn't believe in the Islamic god?
Funny thing. I tested the "can you choose your sexual orientation" on one of my classes many years ago. They were 10 years old at the time. I don't remember how we came to the discussion, but someone said they had chosen it. So I asked how many believed they might have chosen to be gay. Some thought so. I asked them if they knew what they fancied. They all said yes. At 10 years of age, they all knew what they liked. I asked, do you recall thinking about whether you would like to prefer boys or girls, if they remember actually making a choice? They all said no. I asked them if they would choose to become gay, if they knew they risked being beaten, killed, ridiculed, and told they were bad. They all said no. (And yes, they knew before the topic came up those things happened). I asked, if you could choose, would anyone make a choice that could harm them? They said no. Then I asked again, how many think they chose it? None of them said yes again. They got it. Kids ain't dumb. But they can be taught dumb shit.
@@SysterYster I got that, you'll find gay people in countries where it is often the case they'll be beaten if found out. If it would be a choice, like ice cream or tiramisu, it would take a strange person to choose the one for which you'll get a beating afterwards...
The thing is, a parent doesn't even have to say ANY words about hell and homosexuality, the words PERMEATE THE ENTIRE RELIGION and unless the parent actively refutes that belief (and how can they, it's written in black and white, and preached from the pulpit) then they will know that this is what their parents believe - SAME OUTCOME. I had a front row seat to this as I watched my much younger my cousin grow up, idolizing his grandfather (as the patriarch of a Christian family) and tear himself apart because of the words he couldn't say and the desires he couldn't express. Suicide was a very real risk for years! His grandfather eventually passed, and once the pain of the loss had eased enough, he came out to the rest of his family (with most of us already being pretty sure already). The man he is today is almost unrecognisable from the shell he was as an adolescent. Even unspoken, the religious prejudices of his grandfather nearly killed that kid.
I'm fascinated with theists constantly asking for "proof that atheism is right", even their Omnipotent God couldn't do that. Oh, is ti still omnipotent then???
Stalin wanted all the power, the church has a lot of it, so he had to cross them or share it with them. Hitler shared for a while, but seems to have had plans to take it from them too.
Looking for arguments FOR atheism is clearly missing the train. Atheism is a default position with no burden of proof unless someone claims to have proof of no god or gods existing. I don't have to argue FOR my lack of belief in unicorns.
You are using the exact same argumentation as the hardcore catholic church in the 1500s. I am sorry to say this, but your argument for atheism sounds pretty damn religious to me.
@1misanthropist Okay, here is what happened: You claim my world view to not be rational. I ask you a question which I think would demand an answer based on rationality. Instead of engaging in a rational discussion, you just mock me instead. You claim to speak in the name of rationality, yet you cannot engage in a rational discussion. What a pity.
@@mrwiswas You're asking a moral question, not a rational one. A rational question, based on logic would be: Does it make sense to kill a person just because no one will know about it? Or rather, is it a sufficient reason to commit murder simply the awareness that no one will be aware of this murder? If you look at the psychological profiles of murderers, this is not the case, they always have very personal and different reasons for carrying out a murder, even when convinced nobody would find out. So the premise that "nobody will find out" is not sufficient reasoning to actually commit murder. This then implies, is it necessary to know murder is wrong morally, to actually refrain from commiting it? Well again no, even psychopaths which have no such morals as "it is wrong to kill" still don't go around killing everyone they actually can get away with murdering. What prevents them from "sparing" the others if they have no such morals? Again, it's due to the fact that being able to get away with murder is not a sole reason to perform said murder. Since we can conclude that morality isn't the sole root of a person's actions, we cannot infer whether a person will actually commit a murder just based on their morality and on whether someone will find out about it, so answering your question doesn't actually tell us anything rational, or rather it does not provide enough logical reasoning to come to a conclusion only using the premise you have presented. To address your original moral question, consider this scenario. If you can kill someone before they kill a loved one or you, where you know for a fact they will carry out their intendent murder unless you kill them first, in a scenario where you are also aware their body will never be found and no one will know it was you, what do you do? If the answer to your original question is always "yes", then congrats, you just saved yourself/your loved one. If the answer to your question is always "no", then congrats, you or your loved one is dead. If it's anything in between, like "no, but in special cases yes", you saved them/yourself but then your morality is not absolute and your actions cannot solely be attributed to your morals either. Remember, your question is a general question and must apply to every scenario where you know you can get away with murder, independent of whatever the actual details of the scenario are. I presented an unlikely, but not an impossible and unreasonable scenario. If the answer must depend on details, then you cannot assert an absolute black and white morality and the question in itself is worthless and you can't actually gauge anything about that person. To conclude, I ask you this concerning morality in theism: Do I absolurely need a religious text to tell me murder is wrong in order to refrain from a murder no one will find out about? And why does rejecting some religious beliefs necessarily imply also rejecting all of the moralities they teach? Is this truly rational reasoning?
It has always mystified me why some consider Craig an intellectual. I have heard hours worth of his arguments and I can't think of a single one, that wasn't undermined by its own implications. Implications he seems oblivious of or uncaring about. I honestly think the man is woefully incompetent and only held up by those whose beliefs he affirms, using philosophical language.
Is it because he's the best they got? He might be the most impressing Christian apologetic I've heard and that says more about the rest than about him. So his smug comments about "the best arguments for atheism" is at least on a high level of irony...
@@the42year-oldhacker37Even if your question is for Jacob it mystifies ME that a very smart and mature man can make so stupid claims. And even if Cosmic Skeptic is 50 years younger he is much smarter and far more mature than Craig.
@@the42year-oldhacker37 Not really. One of the reasons that I like him as a content creator, is how respectful he is and always seems to tackle the strongest version of the opposing argument. Even when they don't deserve it. Also, I don't think Craig is stupid either. When your arguments are that shitty, but you still manage to establish yourself as some best apologetics has to offer, it wasn't by accident.
"Well, how about Stalin..." it's start of hist "arguments" and he already pull Stalin card 🤦♀️ And they keep saying it like Atheism is a belief system
Craig is showing he has the intellectual integrity of a wet napkin when he is talking among people who have a inherent confirmation bias leanings and as result are more easily mislead then a prominent opponent!
Here's my best "atheist argument", no theist has presented sufficient good evidence to rationally justify belief in a supernatural god or gods. My argument could be easily destroyed by simply presenting good evidence for the existence of a god or gods, but no theist seems interested (capable) in doing so.
Here's mine: christians both behave abhorrent for a group that should be scared shitless of causing the displeasure of the temperamental dictator of heavens and earth - and their god does nothing to stop them ... and their words tell us all these things about god's love and magnamitude, but the stories their book shows, support the opposite. Would a god exist, his fanclub CLEARLY would be made up out of the most honorable, honest and trustworthy of humans and his book / autobiography would show actual love and power instead of all these scare-stories meant to frighten primitive bronze agers into compliance with the social standards of their time. It also could show much more "foreknowledge" than vague and often unfulfilled prophecies, where it does not even contain SOAP or Aspirin recipes which would be EASY to follow even back then.
There is no such thing as an argument "for" Atheism, because Atheism is not a position. It is simply a term used to describe someone who is not a Theist. Atheism doesn't require arguments because it is not claiming anything. It makes more sense to use Naturalism in opposition to Theism, because that is a world view with claims that directly oppose Theism. That is the real divide - Theism vs Naturalism.
@@TheFuzzician I agree with what you're saying, that's why I put "atheist argument" in quotes, because it's not really an argument, I was just using the terminology that was used in the video.
Are they lying if they are truly convinced of it? I think WLC's brain has been so stuck in this circular apologetic limbo he can't even conceive it's even plausible his world view isn't "the one".
You claim a lie...where is your proof? What did they lie about? If you unable to demonstrate they lied...then calling them liars is dealing unfairly with their responses OR an indictment of your comprehension.
Living in Utah, I can tell you that there is a segment of the population known as “lost boys.” Thrown out for many reasons, including homosexuality. I encourage anyone interested to look it up. In my twenties I fostered late teens in this conundrum. Giving them a place to live close to their work, and helping them move forward in their lives. It had basically no impact on any important part of my life, outside of helping provide food, power, and shelter. They were able to work and save and find themselves a home. Independence is what they wanted and needed. They worked hard to get it. And recovered quickly.
Fun fact, Utah has the highest consumption of porn and even more fun, gay porn in the U.S. most months. Edit: Needed to add per capita otherwise the stick up my butt would bother me for hours.
Hi Stephan! All I want too say having watched your excellent video is "WELL DONE!". Your arguments are clear and lucid, you do not descend to personal vitriol, and you present your case with great diction. GREAT!
Completely disingenuous of both CC and WLG when it comes to parents talking to kids about being gay. I've had enough students come out to me out of earshot of classmates telling me they don't know who to talk to about being ostracized by their families and pastors for being gay. I was so angry when this clip was played. F*ck it, HOW DARE YOU!!!
I had 2 nieces come out on their 18th birthday. Now they are in their 30s and have husbands and kids. So much for born that way. Bruce Jenner came out when he was 65 ? Bruce Jenner had 6 kids and then decided he was a woman ? Please open your eyes
@Him Bike I known many homosexual couples who have adopted children, been in long healthy relationships, and some older couples that have been together until parted by death. Your sampling of the LGBT community is very small and anecdotal... so I would actually implore you to “please open your eyes.”
WLC is one of the most difficult apologists to determine whether or not he's a charlatan. But I'm tending to think more and more that he is, given how unquestionably intelligent he is, and how much he jettisons that intelligence when, and only when, if comes to defending his own faith-based claims.
If you waste your time watching all of his debates in chronological order, you will see that he accepts that his points are refuted in one debate only to bring up the same point again in the next.
At 5:30, Craig contrasts the god of Islam with the god of Christianity. Huh? It's the same god, the Abrahamic god of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and several other cults.
Ricky *makes a statement of fact* The other guys "nuh uh, that's not true. And you smell" *high five each other* RR "those guys weren't actually listening to what Ricky said"
Stanley Arun There is no burned of proof required for the claim “I don’t believe in god.” There is a burden of proof when saying “I believe there is/isn’t a god,” but atheism doesn’t make that claim. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, which does not have a burden of proof
Jaden Halstead So ‘lack of belief in God’ Can I rephrase like... ‘I know there is a God but I don’t feel like believing that God’ ????? Cos the problem seems to be the belief and not in the existence of God part...
I found this so enjoyable and insightful that I wished it could've gone longer. However, I think you would've soon grown tired of repeating the phrase, "Once again, Craig misses the point."
My favourite WLC moment? The chat he had with Sir Roger Penrose. WLC trots out his usual glib line of prepared patter whilst Sir Roger endeavours to explain his thoughts about the origins of the Universe in plain terms that even I can grasp ( if somewhat tenuously ). He is eventually forced to tell WLC as gently as he is able that what he's saying is just too vague. We should bear in mind thatl one of them is a Nobel prize winning scientist who has a mind that has travelled to the very edges of time and space, whilst the other a purveyor of word salads. Vague? Too bloody right.
![ผัวเถื่อน - ยูริ โตเกียวมิวสิค [ OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P08ORRVDGl8/mqdefault.jpg)
The fact that he can't make a difference between a CHILD and a CONSENTING ADULT, scares me
Haveing eyes that far apart one cant expect more from him.
Exactly. Scares me too.
A Paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children (they dont have to have abused etc), and it has been shown to have biological factors. Why should he/she be denied their sexual expression? Is it not natures way?
@@justinshadrach829 Let me put it this way: DON'T DIDDLE THE KIDDIES.
@@ArcaneEther kiddies.... What is a child sir? When can a child give any consent. Today children as young as three are being aloud to identify as the opposite sex and pre-puberty take hormone blocker.... Is that not child abuse? When di you think a child can consent?
Ricky is not a theologian, he's a comedian. But his points have merit. He once said in an interview that if you got rid of science and religion, in a thousand years time religion would not be back "exactly" the same. Where as science would be as the facts are true, demonstrably.
He studied philosophy at university. That's probably why he's a little better at using atheist arguments in comedy.
What's good about him is that he's just a bloke talking about HIS views on religion, without having to rely on being an 'authority.' The layperson is entitled to their opinions, and a degree in theology is not needed to find it wrong.
@@the42year-oldhacker37 Just the fact that there currently are and have been multiple different religions in the past prove his point. It's ridiculous. Even within the same religion, it's interpreted differently. Why would a God make this the case? The imperfect nature of every religion makes a perfect God highly unlikely.
@@the42year-oldhacker37 The fact that different religions have popped up over the previous millennia, including most of that history where communication over long distances was difficult to achieve. It stands to reason that if a huge variety in religions have already been created, then if we were to wipe everything out and start over, another wide range of religions would pop up. Some might be similar to what we've got now, but it seems pretty logical that many would include significant differences.
@@the42year-oldhacker37 The point is that there's a trajectory of knowledge. Science has been trending toward a more accurate reflection of reality. Each failed hypothesis brings us closer to the one that proves the theory. Once we know the theory and have a high degree of predictive power, we can say with confidence that it's the truth.
So, yes there has been (and will continue to be) variation in what people THINK they know in science, but because of a rigorous methodology that weeds out incorrect ideas, we see more and more truth being discovered. Because most scientific theories are falsifiable, they can be tested and proven to be true. Because NONE of religion is falsifiable, we have no reason to claim it's true; certainly not one over another.
I'm a former Mormon, current atheist. From the 'teachings' that was forced on me as a child, compared to the scientific learning I gained as an adult, to quote Ricky, 'Thank God I'm an atheist'
Well done *Matthew* & welcome to a happy, expanding & educated beam of light & reason.
PS - One rule - We only eat babies on *Richard Dawkin's* birthday now!
@@pup1008 I never ate babies and I have never heard any community perform cannibalism other than 1800s Christians believing in a hypothetical vital force in human beings which can be gained by eating corpses blood etc.
‘Thank god I’m atheist’ is a great, lighthearted exMormon podcast. Love those guys
As a FKA Mormon myself, it's refreshing to be out of the cult.
Thank Zeus and Odin
14:58 “pop atheism” - a silly concept that seems to only have traction among religionists. A person’s non-belief in a deity does not require grounding in a PhD in theology to be valid or legitimate
I'd say I need to develop a PhD program in pop atheism to make a ton of money, but only the religious are gullible enough to fall for that one. Plus, profiting off the ignorance of others would surely bother me greatly once I actually tried.
It's a way to trivialize anyone else's sincere concerns and give validation for his audience. Which we know aren't atheists.
I grew up in UK and went to a christian school. The fact we found logical holes in the bible and mocked it as nine year olds shows how easily debunked their holy script is.
@@samedz3966 yes but have you considered
*insert bullshit apologetics*
Craig isn't missing the point. He's ignoring it.
Is this any different from most religious people? Furthermore, is it any different from any person debating on something without a shred of evidence?
@@cantonphantom Not a bit.
He has to, his livelihood and job depend on it lol
Craig's ability to "listen" to any point extended just far enough for him to build a strawman to attack.
@@cantonphantom My PHD professor friend mentioned this to me other day on the futility of debates "Debating someone is pointless as people are hopelessly attached to their respective emotional/vested interest, scientists communicate in papers outlining facts of their findings (more) absent of opinion or bias."
"Who's telling their 5-year-old kid that they're going to Hell if they're gay?"
TOO MANY PEOPLE, CAMERON
Hehe, Barbar right?
I feel Craig and Bertuzzi were being disingenious here by trying to latch on to the phrase "5 year old" in the hope that it would be difficult to find an example with such an age. But they should know that the exact age of the child is beside the point. Of course they didn't ask, "Who's telling their kid that they're going to hell if they are gay". They know there are demonstrable cases of this, e.g the people sending their teenage children for conversion thereby. Craig and Bertuzzi were only hiding behind the canopy of "5 year old". If it's a teenager rather than a 5 year old that this is done to, it doesn't make it any better.
@@the42year-oldhacker37 But in this case though, it can be argued that the Christian is not "misfiring" in some way when they exhibit homophobia. They are actually doing what their God wants when they do this. Meaning their God is homophobic and morally perfect at the same time, and very likely meaning that the existence of the Christian God is in fact false.
My parents!
Only dumb, fool, or ignorant people would say God approves of homosexuality.
I was one of those 5yo kids told I would burn in hell if I was gay, actually. And I've met a lot of other gay adults who were taught the same things
THEREFORE everything Craig has to say about the issue is null and void, the man is not well informed. Ivory tower thinker. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, the alternative is he's a sleezy hypocrit.
I'm sorry anyone is told such nonsense; it can do so much harm! Hope you're surrounded by more accepting and loving adults now. :-)
@@tkenglander6226 I have, thank you.
Sorry to hear that. 😢
Same.
Leonardo da Vinci lived a life of celibacy and devoid of love and affection because he was so scared of being found out as gay. He was almost discovered when he was young and back then he would have been executed. A brilliant man, who lived in fear. I always though that was a tragedy.
Telling children that they are going to hell is absolutely child abuse, no ifs or buts. Don’t tell your children what to think, teach them how to think.
@@keithtorres5743, you say "if atheism is true" as though atheism is some sort of belief system. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in personal, interacting theist gods. A Theism - Against Theism, so there's no issue as to whether it's true, there's no "it" to be true. The issue is whether theism is true. Atheists don't believe it is, and rightfully point out that those making the claim that there are personal interacting theist gods, have the burden of proof. And of course there is none, or discussions like this would not take place.
To suggest that rational humans see torturing children as simple as choosing between chocolate and vanilla ignores evolution. First, we have evolved a certain level of altruism, just like many other species. Yes, we are driven to survive within a particular environment, but altruism has turned out to be an evolutionary advantage. If taking care of another, rather than killing them because they are competition, improves the chance of survival within a particular environment, then those who take care of others survive, and those who fail to exhibit altruistic behavior are kicked out by the tribe to die, and their genes along with them. So we can't entirely help it that we have some degree of altruism - otherwise babies would be dropped on the ground and left to survive on their own... and the species would die out.
Obviously, with the exception of some psychopaths, we all know that torturing children is not the same as choosing between vanilla and chocolate. Whether one has belief in imaginary invisible beings that live in the sky, or not, most of us have evolved to understand the difference. Hopefully you also see it that way, else you are a danger to the rest of us.
And then there's the question of who does the most torturing of children - theists or atheists? I have no data on the subject, but I certainly have a guess.
Keith Torres I’m not sure inducing psychological trauma for the rest of your child’s life on something that is not true is subjectively okay. “If atheism is correct,” than there is literally only negatives to raising your child up as if they are going to hell for a part of them they don’t control. And something as holy as ice cream doesn’t deserve to be dragged into your homophobic mindset, and you pretend as though chocolate isn’t objectively better than vanilla.
@@keithtorres5743 When you say "I meant the dictionary definition of atheism, that there is no God.", I just saw the first 7 of the top search results for the definition, all from reputable dictionaries, and ZERO of them had "the dictionary definition" that you assert.
Please support your claim, with evidence of these "dictionary definitions", that you cite, and I'll post oh, a dozen or so, dictionaries that disagree. You're trying to conflate "anti-theist" and "atheist" and it isn't working.
www.learnreligions.com/atheism-and-anti-theism-248322
Keith Torres I would define negative (in regards to morals) as impacting someone in a non beneficial way, whether physically or emotionally. This is of course what you would be doing to your hypothetical child. Believe whatever you damn well please, it’s perfectly within your right to believe you will go to hell for being gay, however, you will impact that child negativity for telling them to believe that they are going to hell for being gay. Your child is a person too, and while you do keenly point out that individual people have the right to create their own moral codes, so does your child. And your child can’t help but love you and soak you up at first. And in this hypothetical situation which you created, atheism is correct; therefore, your child would soak up a false belief that they are somehow less than others and that they are going to burn all because of your morality, which they might never be able to sever from, because they can’t help but soak you up in those formative years.
Keith Torres and morality is certainly debatable as to its subjectivity if their is no god. I find cosmicsceptic and rationalityrules debate on this to be intriguing and worth a listen to see someone coming from an objective morality and atheism perspective
Why do they ALWAYS, without fail, compare homosexuality to paedophilia ?
They need to go visit some catholic(?) churches perhaps :P Have a chat with them. They should be able to tell them about pedophilia. Ugh.
@@AntonioInnocente "wrong"?
@@azuregriffin1116 lol just needs a rewire mate, do it tuesday.
@@AntonioInnocente you're saying that it's something going wrong in the brain.
@@AntonioInnocente I think he asked you what you meant when you said "wiring going wrong". There's nothing wrong. Many species have gays, and they actually boost fertility and young ones survivability. At least in social species. Because a gay one can still help society with work and childcare and whatnot, without rivaling the other males' chances of getting a female. The fact that the more children a human gets, the more the chance for a gay child increases. At least if the children are male. For each male child, the chance of the next one being gay is increased by about 30%. That's no mistake. And siblings to gays tend to get more children. Interesting I think. That said, you're right that homosexuals and paedophiles don't do the same damage. One doesn't do damage, the other does. But it's no misinterpretation. That's what they mean when they do the comparison.
1. My grandmother threatened Hell for everything, and yes at 5 she would tell me "gays are going to Hell."
2. How long did it take you to get the camera almost perfectly centered between the shelves?
ahah good observation
The smugness of WLC is simply unbearable.
I completely agree on that. Sitting there looking down his nose like some supercilious viper. He's quite disgusting to be honest.
Smugness is a quality I have noticed in many of these self-convinced theologians. It is like they are so afraid of being shown evidence that will contradict and disprove the elaborate childish religious framework they have built around their mind, so they resort to a kind smugness as a self defense mechanism
@Mueed U His smug arrogance keeps reality at bay.
The reason for this is because of the fact that he has some fancy degree that states that he's a world renown expert on Religion which he thinks now makes it impossible for anybody to argue with him on the subject, when we know that a doctorate in Grimm's fairytales would hold as much weight as his degree in Religious fairytales...
Ricky Gervais tends to come off as quite smug to. He's very funny though in the office so I give him credit there.
I love when they are responding to a comedian and saying that pop atheism is comedic and mockery. No shit, he's a comedian. He just makes really good points, and they can't see the forest for the trees
There is no pop atheism. This is like saying the popular way of not collecting stamps that no one collect. it's not that atheist comedy is popular because its atheistic comedy, it's because people know religion is dumb and it's becoming unpopular. You know, like the Kalam cosmological argument that basically has no logical ground in today's sphere of debate.
And no, for WLC to say this is kind of baffling given the fact that atheism became exponentially more popular due to his debate with C Hitchens. And funny story, WLC hasn't come up with anything relevant since. It's same old low hanging fruit that he knows will influence his target audience, with complete disregard to what the conversations stands for on its own merit.
Cameron- "Who's telling their kid they're going to spend eternity in hell? Christians don't do that." Well, my pastor dad, and virtually every adult in my developing world said as much to me . . . so uh, yeah, they do that A LOT.
Yeah an absurdly obvious "No true scotsman" from the two overcontent "Philosophers"...
It's the same for Muslim kids too. And probably in many other religious families as well. I've had students, little 10-year-olds who's said their parents told them, if they fell in love before they were married, they'd get black spots all over their bodies. And also, that their family had to accept the person they were to fall in love in. That's not love, mate. That's control. They said wearing the hijab is voluntarily, but not wearing it means they'll be punished by god. What a choice... They also told me that killing gays was good. I mean, the amount of sickening things theists will fill (brainwash) their kids with is just awful.
@@SysterYster wait you're telling me religion just exists to control people. shocked!
Similarly, my very-Christian parents said the same thing. I'm not gay, but they were clearly very concerned about it when I was younger.
@@DruNature Indeed! Quite a revelation, right! lol
_"Who's telling their 5-year-old kid that they're going to Hell if they're gay?"_
Umm...Yikes...
zoinks...youch...ouch...
Didn't Ted Haggard tell his congregations that? ;)
@@the42year-oldhacker37 His point had nothing to do with whether it is true or not. It has to do with morality and not harming others.
Many, many, people
M B That does not make it correct to do. You cannot dismiss something bad with the fact that other people also do bad things. It does not negate what is being done to harm others.
I don't think these two go to Christian churches or talk to Christian people.
The commentator repeatedly says that Craig misses the point, but Craig is an intelligent man and he doesn't miss the point, he avoids it.
"I from now on, believe in Ricky Gervais".
Cool. I pray to Joe Pesci, and he answers me about 50 percent of the time. I also worship the sun, but not at night of course.
He is not the Messiah, he's a naughty naughty boy.
@@declaredjeans7555 Doooo youu realliiiiiize.... The sun doesnt go down....its just an illusiioooon cauuuused....by the wooooorld.....spinnin round nana nana nana nanaaa
@@declaredjeans7555 50 percent? That's better odds than any supernatural deity has done.
Ricky is awesome and a very smart man
Craig: "I don't know of any parent that says such a thing."
From the same guy who said the killing of the Midianite children was a GOOD thing because their souls were then saved because if they would have grown up they would have deserved their damnation.
Hang on. Let us not misrepresent his point. He was specifically talking about parents saying such things to their own children.
I've heard,with my own ears"christian parents" saying that very thing. And also kicking their young adolescents out of their homes,turning their backs on them. Or tortured them with the conversion therapy. Religion is the most dangerous thing ,imo,man has created.
Craig is a worm.
Craig conveniently forgets the Westboro Baptist church, for a start.
@@Sal3600 The thing is, his point is pointless.
Everybody dies sooner or later. Not every human has a soul. Everything has a purpose. God feels everything we experience along with us. Our pain, fear, joy, pleasure, anxiety and hopes. Nothing is unfair a it's part of a greater plan.
Apologetics: A willingness to defend a deeply-held belief to the point where you sacrifice your integrity.
Great quote. Is it yours? May I use it?
Apologetics: Decide your conclusion and then construct premises to lead to it.
M B I’m not sure most people could become an atheist without integrity.
@@the42year-oldhacker37 Yes it does. It's a pity for you that it has nothing to do with being a nonbeliever.
@@the42year-oldhacker37 Mja.. to bad I have no believes.
I have knowledge.
Before accepting something you have to show me EVIDENCE.
My older brother was told by my father's side of the family (we have different dad's) at just 5 years old that because he was born a bastard child he and my mother was going to burn in eternal pain and suffering. They told that to a child who has no choice in who theyre father is or if he's married to they're mom
Exact same thing I have been told multiple times
Ok, that is one of the most fucked up things coming from modern christians that I have heard. With the gay children there is at least some "altruistic" reason behind it. They want to stop them from being gay so they do not go to hell. It is till bad, but it makes some sense from their point of view. However that "bastard child" and the mother can not change these things anymore, can they? So this only harm them psychologically without any good coming from it even from their point of view.
A BASTARDS CHILD IS A FATHERLESS CHILD WITH AN ABUSIVE MOTHER WHO IS NOT LOVE BY ANYONE. Your brother you speak of is loved by you and many other people therefore he is NO BASTARD and GOD WILL BLESS HIM. I WILL KEEP HIM ABD YOUR FAMILY IN MY PRAYERS
"Who's telling their kid they're going to spend eternity in hell. Christians don't do that."
Have you ever heard of the tragedy of Bobby Griffith ? A man born in a very strict christian family who eventually commit suicide after being continuously rejected by his mother. The book and the movie are great and they perfectly sum up the issue of homosexuality and christianity
Kidnapped for Christ. Overseas organizations that Christian parents pay to BEAT the gay away. The film implied the children were being sexually abused as well, behind the doors of the punishment room they had no ability to record.
Maybe he hasn't. I think he may be dishonest though.
@Bill Hill English isn't my first language. Thanks for the correction
I remember quite distinctly being told in Sunday School or Wednesday night kids classes around the age of 8 or 9 that I would go to hell if I didn’t accept Jesus as my savior.
Guys you should decide if you are atheist or not. If you are, then there is no hell. If there is hell, then there must be some conditions to fulfill in ordet to get there. No point in questioning the conditions if there is no hell at all, right?
“We haven’t seen one argument for atheism” - that statement shows the problem with Christianity.
You do not need arguments FOR atheism, you need arguments FOR God/Christianity - if someone finds those arguments insufficient, they settle at atheism.
Classic shifting of the burden of proof...
Why not FOR atheism???
Why not take up the burden of proof ??
Stanley Arun If you want to claim “There is no God” then by all means take up the burden of proof 👍 the point i made is that to say your an atheist is to say “i do not see sufficient evidence for a God” - this statement has no burden of proof
Lymer What kind of evidence you are looking for that is not sufficient???
Stanley Arun i didn’t say i was an atheist - i’m just saying that we need to be fair to atheists that without sufficient evidence, the default position is atheism (unless something is proven, we should not believe in it)
Lymer yeah I hear that quite often..
But still puzzled what that evidence they’re looking for would look like...
"God doesn't send sinners to hell, unrepentant sinners send themselves to hell." This is comically similar to: "I didn't punch you in the face, you hit my fist with your face!"
Well, I say it's comical, except when taken seriously (as Cameron and Craig do), it justifies abuse. "You brought this onto yourself!" How many unfortunate kids have heard that after getting the shit kicked out of them by their abusive parents? But I guess it's different when God does it, huh? 🙄
Hipocrocy at it's finest
at best they argue for "baiting", god setting up a trap and gleefully waiting for the ignorant victims to set it off.
Which kind of flies in the face of all claims of a "good" and "moral" god. Again, like so many other things.
@Ted Wilson But you had to add the 'for nothing', which is not in the original sentence. The original is very much 'I'm not an abusive husband, you just make me hit you because dinner isn't ready when I get back from work, you did this to yourself'. On top of that, of course, the law is indeed unjust. But christians need to create this cognitive dissonance to deal with it.
It was a vile statement and was said so casually. Disgusting.
Hardly analogs one is an act another is not
“Those that deny logic cannot be reasoned with.”
“Never argue with an idiot, as they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
Craig is the perfect example of everything wrong with theology. I'm actually grateful to him for this. The dishonesty, smugness, the shallow, childish intellect hiding behind a pretense of legitimate expertise. Just look at his face in the thumbnail, he looks exactly like the troll face meme. Also I think he would make a good clown, you can't convince me otherwise
I would actually still hold him above actual trolls in terms of mindset. He is an utterly arrogant asshole who may very well be deliberately spreading lies and aggravating others for the sake of his paycheck - but that is _still_ better than doing such things for nothing but the sick pleasure of ruining other people's fun/days/lives/...
I disagree he’s incredibly intelligent guy, sometimes he does say stupid things, there are many brilliant people that say stupid things, and misunderstand people’s points, let’s not assume bad faith, and let’s not assume dishonesty if somebody miss somebody’s point. Are you willing to admit that there are atheists to do the exact same thing though, Who are completely dishonest, and incredibly smug and make no attempt to try to understand peoples points.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Of course
@@crowstakingoff i’m glad.
Craig: "I just want to say as well, I don't know of any christian parent who says to his child if you are gay then you're going to burn in hell..."
Of course Craig, you can't know everyone in existence. However, I do know christian parent's who says that to their child as mine said that to me.
A lot of gay people with religious parents can in fact attest to the fact that WLC doesn't know what he is talking about.
I've heard it!. Apparently I'm forever burning in hell.. because I don't want to lie to myself.. don't you love that? " just be straight ". Thats called lying. Id rather be fabulous and burn, than be miserable and go to " heaven"..
I expect they’re talking about “being gay” in the sense of having the orientation, rather than “being gay” in the sense of expression. It’s a fine line, but it’s a big distinction often made. Many Evangelicals don’t view orientations (and sexuality as a whole) as significant to wellbeing.
@@AurorXZ There's not much difference there.
Being gay is part of who you are, and repressing it is something that causes psychological harm. It's abusive either way.
Just because he doesn't know anyone that does that, doesn't automatically mean that he doesn't condone a book that supports it. It's simply deflection of an immoral portion of his religion, and he can't accept that. His religion doesn't allow that.
I'm amazed that William Lane Craig can have a PhD in philosophy and yet be so bad at ethics/morality.
He defends genoices... and moreover not just commited by humans in name of god but also genocides "commited" by the god of the bible, how can people like that walk on the street just like? They should be in jail
Reasoning is a skill; avoiding motivated reasoning is a choice made on the basis of that sort of skill and personal virtue. Craig is not bad at reasoning. He chooses to make it motivated reasoning.
A PhD from a Christian "University"...
@@mattyspaghetti449 his PhD is from the University of Birmingham in England.
Well at least his PhD is not a product of the American public college system
William Lane Craig has a hypnotic way of making assertions that sound scholarly and wise - you sometimes have to pause for a couple of seconds before you realise he's talking crap.
I think the mental gymnastics Craig does are intentional. A very dishonest being.
its called being charismatic, literally the only good trait of a preacher. Ask me, my father was a pastor, and a complete piece of shit until we literally shunned him and he realized religion is fucking up all aspect of his life and others around him. The worst part, he was able to be a piece of shit and able to convince you he should be.
@@meusana3681 where is your evidence of Christianity was the cause of your father doing it, you can’t use guilt by association fallacy and say he was a Christian and he did these bad things, therefore it’s because of Christianity or he said it was therefore, it is. You have given me an example of somebody who claims to be a Christian who did something bad, what is this have to do with Christianity, if you’re gonna say oh well Christianity caused him to then I need evidence of that.
No I don’t think most of William Ln., Craig‘s responses were very good, and I feel like he missed a point on some of them, but come on I feel like most people in the common section are not being fair whatsoever, and there are points where he’s literally doing the same thing that atheists do when you guys can’t see that you do it as well.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 I don't need to prove my subjective opinion about my father. He denounced it himself.
But sure, I'll indulge you. It's not a guilt by association fallacy. The things he did as a christian was told to him by christians, and that was the specific things that caused our family to fall apart.
Is the robber bad because he's a robber, or is being a robber bad because the act of robbing is bad for others? Christianity literally robs people of their critical thinking, morality and self worth. Then offers rewards you could obtain by better means, and promises a reward that can't be promised. Con artistry at its finest. See, god never specifically said robbing people's free thinking is bad, in fact, he supports it. Something to think about, we are the agents of conversion. We are told to rob, and that robbing in this context is just. So I ask again, is being a robber bad because he's a robber, or is it bad because robbing is harmful to someone else? So, if someone tells you that you aren't worth being what you are, would you call that an attempt at robbing their self worth? If not, please explain, if so, then yeah...
Here's my story:
My mother makes about 10X what my father made at his peak, and she was treated like a piece of owned furniture. Misogyny made my mom hate my dad, and the bible told him to do this. Want proof. Go read Romans, because fck me you can't be seriously asking me this. Both explicit and implicit forms of misogyny is present throughout the entire bible. (You ask for proof that christianity caused this, ironically because christianity specifically asks for this, it's just that the rest of the world became better than to listen to this crap.) I started to hate my father when I first started at varsity, seeing what he does to my mother and how that's actually not how normal people function. I literally thought being a piece of shit to your wife was the way it's supposed to be. Then I started having mental health problems, and my dad being the "most important figure in the house" decided FOR me that I don't need therapy, instead he would instill more self hate to me through convincing me metal health issues are the result of devils entering my heart, and he destroyed my self worth completely by claiming this entire issue is of no other fault than my own. Mark 5. There is no mention of actual mental disease in the bible, none. Not a single reference to alzheimers, schizophrenia or even OCD. Nah, if you ain't right, it's cuz you ain't right with god. If you were schizophrenic, and lived in biblical times, one of two things would happen: You would either be stoned as a madman, or become a jester by someone else's accord.
So fuck you for asking, my pleasure.
You want my proof when the entire institution blatantly agrees with the accusations I just made. This is a joke right?
So please don't give me the "christianity is worth reforming if there are bad apples" horsesht. Nothing in that religion is worth saving, nothing. Literally every good thing you can get out of christianity, are things other religions and societies have come up with first, and secular societies have done it better since.
It's obvious you are better than the religion you prescribe to, otherwise you wouldn't even have brought up that contention to begin with. The modern world is better of than it was ages ago despite of religion, not because of it.
I honestly can't tolerate watching this video because almost everything that came out of William's mouth just annoyed me.
Kent Hovind: allow me to introduce myself
@@emeraldwarrior588 Ken Ham: allow us to introduce ourselves.
lol it is Cameron that drives me nuts.. soooo damn smug
@@magicker8052 I totally agree. He has this arrogant attitude that isn't charismatic like Hitchens'.
@@lordpredator8855 Ben Shapiro: Hey, guys! Wait for meeeeeeee!
Cameron Bertuzzi fails to understand the arguments presented to him in literally every video I’ve seen. It’s embarrassing.
"It's a living."
He has stated on many occasions that his project is to support his family through his TH-cam channel.
Simon the Likeable
Imagine making a career out of either being so stupid that you can’t understand basic logical arguments, or lying for the sake of upholding an indefensible position.
@@jpconley5618 Ray Comfort's media company made four million dollars last year. He has been asking the same four questions since the '90s. To paraphrase George Carlin, realize 50% of religious people are dumber than the average religious person. (Disclaimer: It's a double edged sword though. There have been quite a few occasions where atheists have had their butts kicked round the block. Luckily, there is no "inerrant word of God" to adhere to in atheism so correction is easily assimilated.)
M B
Because many well respected atheists typically have a vested interest in converting Christians to atheism because they see Christianity as a morally wrong position which causes great degrees of harm and suffering in the world. Well respected atheists also choose to argue with people like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham who are borderline mentally handicapped in their lack of basic reasoning skills. The ability of a theist to comprehend basic logic isn’t a deterrent for debate, it’s an opportunity for points scoring and in many cases an easy punching bag.
M B
Then you’ve answered your own question. Why wouldn’t someone who is interested in the philosophy of religion be interested in discussing the philosophy of religion with someone who wants to discuss the philosophy of religion?
My jaw literally dropped to the table when I heard "Who is telling their five year old that they're going to hell if they're gay?"
WHAT PLANET DO THEY LIVE ON omg ...
Really shows how Christians' beliefs and values are vastly different from each other throughout even just the country. Some people actually are that clueless.
@@joshuaneal7552 They're not clueless, they're pretending, they know that a lot of Christians are homofobic because of their faith
@@GiubileiFernando Probably true for these guys. But sadly there are Christians out there who assume that no Christians even tell young children about hell because they don't tell theirs according to their own brand of Christianity.
@@GiubileiFernando Do you know a lot of atheists who would kill a person if they had subjectively moral reasons for doing so, and if they had the opportunity to do so in secret, without anyone knowing of the murder?
If you say no, you're pretending.
(just demonstrating your argument here)
@@mrwiswas It's highly unlikely they haven't heard of Christian homofobia as it's very common, unlike secret atheist psychos.
8:56
While I may not have been literally 5 years old, I was told from a young age that I would burn in hell for being gay, and it got even worse when I came out. This isn't a freaking caricature.
Sorry that stuff happened to you! It shouldn't have - you deserved better!
yeah i saw such things, while being straight i could still see the wrong that religion has done to a lot of people that were otherwise good. How do you make good people do and say bad things ? one just needs religion
@@1man1bike1road what is good? One person thinks being good is killing off people to save the planet because of population crisis, another thinks not to kill is being good, who’s right? What’s truth?
I guess some people dont want to accept the reality of the matter!! Remember youre valid and very strong for coming out!!
@@ethan1268 At one moment God says that killing is wrong. Another moment God kills the first-born Egyptians for the crimes of the Pharoh.
There are many moral systems out there, deontology, virtue ethics, variants of consequentialism, etc, but people disagree. The moral system of divine command is just 'If god says so, it is right'. This would mean that tomorrow, if God told you to kill all left handed people, the moral thing would be to obey. And the theist will tell you that without God, morality is opinion, missing the irony of their statement.
i love when i hear apologists say "if this is the best atheists have..." cuz you just know that the next thing out of their mouth will be a logical fallacy. *edit: 4min in to the video, WLC strawmans Stalin into the argument.....aaaaaaaannnnnd i was right. lol
If Stalin was religious, I think he would have found religious "reasons" for doing what he did. If Mohammad was an atheist, he would have found sufficient atheistic "reasons" for treating people in the way he did as the islamic prophet. Same for the leaders of the catholic church in the 1500s - if they had been atheists, they would probably have found sufficient "reasons" for treating people like they did.
If we look at the teaching of Jesus, there are no morally sufficient reasons for killing people in the name of him, whatsoever. He says "Love your enemies, bless those who persecute you."
If we look at barefooted atheism, materialism and naturalism, it would raise the question of why anyone would have intrinsic value, whether any act would be right or wrong ontologically (which should should not be confused with the fact that atheists do know of right and wrong actions, because they do!) - and thereby, there would not be morally sufficient reasons for not acting like a dick, when people either would not know about it (secrecy) or could not do anything about it (power).
mrwiswas Jesus invented thought crimes. This is insidious since no one can have "perfect" thoughts, it makes believers inherently unworthy of salvation and makes them utterly dependent upon the "grace" of Jesus to save them from eternal torture. It's kind of brilliant and evil at the same time. Doubt is the foundation of certainty.
mrwiswas and who are you to decide that in my „worldview“ life has no actual value and that I couldn’t know what is right or wrong? Who made you the gatekeeper for the knowledge of those things?
monika hug You are almost understanding the core of the gospel, Monica! Jesus’ point is that we are doomed, even if we think that we, by our selves, our good deeds and intentions, are or even can become good enough. He died for us, while we were sinners, not after we did anything to please him.
monika hug Please read my comment again, Monica! I did not claim that anyone cannot know what’s right or wrong - in fact, I mentioned that my comment should not be confused with that claim. 😊
Also, I never said that life does not have any actual value. I just mentioned that pure atheism, materialism and naturalism raises the question of intrinsic value.
God bless you! ❤️
Dr William Lane Craig is dripping with sleezy, slimey sanctimonious sophistry.
James Brown, sounds like someone got ahold of Mommy’s thesaurus. How long did it take you to come with that one? Too long, probably...
@@calebc2609 How long is too long? It took me about the time it took me to type it. You must be a William Lane Craig minion but I could be wrong. Anyway have a nice day.
Yeah, a but like Jordan Peterson does.
@@bovinicide think you used words with to many letters in them mate, confused the poor guy.
I pick up a very 'gayish' vibe from the dude. Same with the current vice president Pence, I think people who feel threatened by homosexuality are often struggling with it themselves, while people who are comfortable with their sexuality just couldn't car less what others do in their bedrooms.
8:23 I'm gay and live in Utah and I can say firsthand that these guys have never met any Mormons in their life. I know 3 people personally who have cut ties with their family for being gay
Same here on both counts. And while my parents are not as anti-gay as most, they’re still noticeably homophobic. They clearly view the idea of same sex relationships as in some way disturbing and it is obvious to me that I will not be treated with the same amount of love and respect if I do come out as I am not having done so. And again that’s with parents who are by no means fundies. I’ve certainly heard stories about people being kicked out and reports from my parents about “discussions” they had with “extreme (biblically accurate)” fellow church parents about the apparent horrors and inherent disgust of homosexuality.
The whole "the sinner sends themself to hell" thing really brings my piss to the boil.
Criminals don't send themselves to jail - the judge sends them to jail. Otherwise you would have to ask why only the ones that get caught send themselves to jail and the ones that don't are happy to remain free.
Right, it REEKS of submission to "narcissistic parent". God (the parent) is blameless. If he punishes you, it CAN'T be that he is unreasonable. No, it's you who are wrong, flawed, responsible.
In fact, as one studies narcissistic-parent codependent-child relationships, it mirrors EXACTLY onto christians relationship to god. From the child recieving identity through being like the parent, to the child being flawed and the parent flawless, as percieved by the child - to the parent needing endless validation and worship.
Interesting, to put it lightly.
It's just like an abusive relationship.
"If you raise your voice to me, I'll hit you. You don't want me to hit you, don't you? Then dont disobey me. Don't *make me* hit you. "
If the person gets hit, is it their fault?
No, it's the abuser's fault. They made the rules and decided the punishment.
@@satoru7601 Darkmatter2525 made this comparison in a vid.
We have broccoli and cauliflower in the refrigerator. Now, if I see you eat the broccoli I will send you to hell.
What, you don't like cauliflower? Then don't eat. Or go to hell. It's your OWN CHOICE
Apart from 'bless your boiling piss',
All I want to say is *THIS* ⬆️
Without sounding sycophantic, I find it rather difficult to disagree with anything Ricky says about religion. He nails the arguments well while still being respectful of those who do believe.
And WLC... Stalin... Come on. There's not enough facepalm memes to describe the idiocy of immediately falling back to that old chestnut.
And, AND, every time I see a Cameron video, I want to know why he thought that lighting setup was a good idea.
I like the lighting. Looks crisp :)
Doesn't help the content, though
It's moody and brooding. 😉😁
Also, I agree with your comment about Gervais. So far, unflappable points from what I've seen.
@@FakingANerve haha brooding??😂😂 LOL that was epic
Craig mentioning Stalin only shows he has no answer for secularism. The only way he can argue is with a strawman. If he can do this, then I can equate Hitler with Christianity.
"Who is telling a 5 year-old that that they're going to hell?"
So does someone else want to tell Craig about the Westboro Baptist Church or should I start drafting an email?
And yes, I know the denomination is different but it's all the same Bible and the same God. Good for the goose, good for the gander.
you don't at all have to even go that extreme. you can find easily documentable cases of it with any southern baptists, catholics, most non-denom megachurches, and most protestant churches. such practice is almost synonymous with christian belief, and whenever the 'nicer, more modern sects' just want to intellectually avoid it, the go into the 'hate the sin, not the sinner' nonsense. it's really cowardly and gross.
@@DanielBoonelight .
Or just ask literally any gay person what they've heard from religious family members when they were younger. Sometimes you still get told you're gonna burn while an adult. ( they do thus fake crying thing as if they're sad about telling you you're gonna burn).. like..Christian pitty party
I recently lost someone in religion... And I can't believe it happened to me, an atheist, my ex boyfriend was a trans guy but was brainwashed enough by his family and god to believe everything he was was wrong.. Now he identifies as she and is a hetero woman.. But she's so unhappy, she's convincing herself she's entirely giving herself to God and she will be rewarded when she goes to heaven.. I'm crying as I write this, I miss him so much... There's literally nothing left from what he used to be.. And it breaks my heart and I hate to have lost him to the hands of religion
Don't lose hope, your boyfriend may one day confount who he really is.
What an awful story. I'm very sorry to hear it.
What makes youbtgink she's unhappy 🤨
Did she tell u that?
@@efrikamaya yeah last time we talked she said she was making a big *sacrifice"for God and even if she was not happy she was gonna do it all for God(?)
@@lluviach6745 awful to hear. X
A religious person denying reality, wow who would have guessed. 🤯😂
@abelaustin86 what do you base yours on? Do you think people should be killed for mowing their lawn on the sabbath?
@abelaustin86 empathy and how I feel
@tony Schaapman Its a person that uses reality (proven science) to base his opinion on, thus excluding religion because its not based on reality (proven science). Wow, that makes sense!
@abelaustin86 People should be treated fairly and equally. I will treat people the way that I want to be treated. That is what I and most other people, base our morality on.
@abelaustin86 What do you base yours on the bible? summon bears to kill 50 kids for teasing a bold man? making a deal with God he helps you kill thousands if you kill your daughter? Slavery? the bible has the worst morals. Our morals are based on instinct (dna) and culture, the ultimate goal of our morals is to reduce suffering for conscious beings.
The gay subject shows just how much they are willing to lie to push their narrative. This is why I can't listen to apologists. If they are going to be dishonest (which they will for their god), then their opinions are valueless.
Well,lying for god is ok ,in their eyes
Christianity never teaches that anyone goes to Hell for being gay, or that anyone can say that someone else is going to Hell for any reason, regardless of evidence of what they've done, because we aren't fit to judge. Only God is fit to judge, and is also able to give grace where it needs. Having desire for the same sex isn't something you could help or change, and if you'd look into real Christian teachings (from a Catholic perspective here) on this topic, I think you'd be surprised by how we view gays... which is the same way we view any human being... which is a beautiful reflection of God's love and glory.
And what are some examples of lying apologists? I could name some good, reliable ones if ya want. At least in terms of not lying. I don't think I've heard any lying Christian apologists... and I'm assuming if that's true, these "apologists" probably aren't very renowned.
@@isaacduplantis1114 I grew up Christian and my church did teach that gay people are going to hell. And not just in my religion. I had a friend that came out as gay and his religion (Catholic) also taught that being game was a sin that damned him to hell. You can only lie to yourself when you say something that ridiculous.
@@isaacduplantis1114 As for apologists that lie. Watch the video.
I can't stand this absurd religious argument that says - God doesn't send you to hell, you choose to go there yourself.
That's like a Bank Robber going to court and saying - I didn't steal the bank's money, the cashier chose to give it to me after I put a gun to her head.
All the people that I have argued this, counters with the argument of free will.
Dude you really werent paying attention hes saying that god created us knowing what would happen now the fact that he gave us free will is the choice to choose to follow him or not and end up in hell its simple to make sense i dont see how you cqn debate against something that makes the most sense
@@mcrkproductions1569 A choice made under duress is no choice.
"Worship me or I'll torture you forever" are not the words of someone who honours free will, they are the words of a Totalitarian Dictator. Like Christopher Hitchens says "A celestial North Korea"
@@Jurassic56 "A celestial North Korea" This is incredibly witty and funny😂😂😂
No, it's like the bank robber knowing he is doing something illegal/evil and knowing that when caught, he will go to jail. You have a terribly bad analogy here.
Lol I joked that I might be gay in middle school and my barely religious father “whooped me” saying he didn’t want me to go to hell.
I have a great-niece who, when she was very young, had to have psychological counseling because she was traumatized by what she was taught at the church her family attended: that she was born already sinful, and that if she didn't kowtow to the christian god, obey all its rules and commands, and pray daily for forgiveness that she would be tortured in "hell" for the entirety of her "afterlife." The documented facts that this is being done is reprehensible, and implying that it does not happen is an utter prevarication.
"I dont know anyone who does X, therefore X doesn't happen." Always a sound argument.
I don't know anyone with COVID-19, therefore COVID-19 is not real. I don't know anyone with HIV, therefore HIV is not real. I don't know anyone with Malaria, therefore Malaria is not real.
Apologetics or whatever they're called, like most people with insane troll logic love those... I'm just gonna call them "Swiss Army Arguments". One argument fits them all. You can prove and disprove just about ANYTHING with it. I could say "I don't know god, therefore god is not real." and would be on the same level as them.
In all seriousness though, I can't tell what their intention with this one is. Are they blind or are they willingly lying to make religion look not as rotten as it is? Or maybe they're just trolling? Idk.
Yeah, these guys wouldn’t know an “argument from ignorance” fallacy if it came up and slapped them in the face.
anecdotal evidence rules the uninformed mind.
Sorry y'all can't follow an argument. The point was made that Christians go around telling their kids they will go to hell if they are gay. Maybe that has happened somewhere. But Christians by in large dont do that. I know you like to create a strawman and beat it up. Your welcome to do so but you are decieving yourself. Incidently saying "I know someone who does X, therefore X happens all the time" is a prettty silly argument. Sorry to bust your bubble.
@@Depressed_Spider Yeah ... I know someone with Covid, therefore everyone has covid ... real clever.
So craig think that homosexuality is definitely not "morally permissable". However well versed he is in philosophy and other things, statements like that makes me lose respect for him.
And I understand he didn't say "I think it is not morally permissable", but everything else he said amounts to that position.
I think he's saying that while proclivities are not sinful, acting on them may be.
But that flies in the face of a LONG history of "sinful thought" that still pervades Christianity. I think he's simply lying about that to seem more reasonable, but his own religion doesn't agree with it.
I'm still struggling to understand to know what is morally wrong with homosexuality to them?? Like you could argue about biology all day (even though that suggests all we're good for is procreation) but why tf is it immoral? Who's it hurting?
I have yet to watch the video, but he may be talking about the morality of society as it is, not as it should be or what she should aim it to be.
@@marinkelepolo5530 What's wrong? Nothing. It's just dogma that's part of a religion people follow and because of that they have to either reject their religion (or at least a part of it) or argue that homosexuality is indeed wrong which is what their religion says. It's a great example of how much people dislike changing their minds and how hesitant they're to admit being wrong. Either way the moment a community decides that they indeed want to act in accordance with their religion and start to condemn homosexuality is the moment that in most cases marks the end of thought about questioning this aspect of their religion. It becomes a part of the routine indoctrination process and people who experience it don't even realise that condemning homosexuality is a thing that you can opt out of doing. They never question it they never think about it and yet they have an opinion they willing to defend (often with their lives).
@@marinkelepolo5530 It's hurting the bakers who are forced to make wedding cakes for gay couples. Apparently...
One of my friends is Gay before he came out his life was miserable now he is married and is as happy as can be and now has security,being able to talk about his true feelings and can laugh all because he came out. Now you tell me if that's morraly wrong.
The best arguments *against* *theism* are:
1) the argument from absence
2) the argument from confusion
3) the argument from the nature of nature
4) the argument from moral evil
From strongest to weakest.
And by the way, nobody's arguing FOR "atheism," just against theistic claims.
What's the argument from nature of nature?
And isn't arguing against theism also arguing for atheism? Either you are a theist, or an atheist. To me it seems there is nothing in between. (And if you were thinking of agnosticism, many would argue it's orthogonal to theism/atheism)
You have to argue against a particular god or attribute of god. After all "the god of making the world exactly like it is" that many theists defend cannot be disproven.
@@the42year-oldhacker37 God is evil is a great rebuttal, but then Christianity is out. God is unknowable is a great rebuttal but then Christian belief is out. Do you have any rebuttal that doesn't destroy religion in the process?
@@the42year-oldhacker37 I *did* list the problem from evil as the weakest. And sure, a theist can tie themselves in metaphysical knots in order to counter these objections, but we can all see the contortionist on stage. If there were a god such as they imagine, then its existence *SHOULD* *BE* *AS* *UNEQUIVOCAL* *AS* *THE* *NOONDAY* *SUN!* No questions asked, no arguments to be made. Their theism is its own best refutation.
@@wcbuerste7 the nature of nature is not in line with the theistic god claims. It's commonly referred to as the problem from natural evil, as distinct from that of moral evil. I could say it many ways, but try this: _why_ _does_ _the_ _botfly_ _exist_ ? I can do more if you think you have an answer . . .
In regard to being gay, to be totally accurate, Craig and the interviewer were not denying the Christian view on homosexuality, they were saying no-one tells their five year old they will burn in hell. Perhaps they wait until they are six. Typical weakness from believers in the face of obvious and genuine criticism.
Craig never misses the point. He is a very intelligent man. What he does is deliberately misconstrue and twist arguments to make his point. It is not error, it is dishonesty.
I agree he is a very intelligent man - in fact anyone is that's in a profession that brings in a lot of coin, a profession that is protected by all forms of Government (even in secularism) and which never has to undertake any official scrutiny.
So, why would you defend saying the age is five? Well, just to get emotional points for using a child, right?
@@johnlove2954 Hi. I'm not sure what point you are making. My comment was aimed at highlighting the hypocrisy of the people in the interview, who tried to focus on the single issue of talking to a child and not the overall problem of Christian teaching.
@@Outspoken.Humanist The point is that you are just defending what Ricky said. If the focus should be on the problem of Christian teaching, why would you want to bring the issue of child?
The point is that Ricky was using the imagery of child to use emotions of people to push his narrative and you are defending him by arguing people to overlook what he said, as if he is not responsible for what he says.
@@johnlove2954 OK, thank you.
You are correct that Gervais was using a shocking example to make his point but the point itself remains valid.
Christian teaching is based on faith and not evidence. What it teaches is opinion and belief, not truth or fact. Therefore, to teach anyone, not just children, that heaven and hell exist, there is life after death and some of us understand God's plan is to tell lies.
I was sent to Sunday school every week for years and at no point were we told, this is what some people believe. We were taught that the Bible is a true history and that Jesus really existed, performed miracles, was the literal son of God and came back from the dead and that God loved us.
I really wanted someone to make a response video when I saw Craig's criticism on Cameron's channel. My wishes have come true. Thank God!!😉
"God" in godless channel?, hmm..
@@ekadria-bo4962 It was a joke,man...😂😂
Haha, Gotcha me 😂, it"s why you note is mocking masterfully of Graig's argument..
@@ekadria-bo4962 😁
@@rationaloutlook5772 Indian ex Christian?
My argument for atheism is ...
"I don't believe you."
5:52 If you had good arguments for your specific religion it would be the world only religion. /Thread
Because an allmight god that plays hide and seek and then punishes you with eternal damnation for not seeing him is not benevolent at all.
Two of the most obnoxiously smug pseudo intellectuals that qualify as Christian “thinkers”
I thought Billy Craig was supposed to be a heavyweight intellectual apologist. I found out today that I was wrong.
Billy?
Compared to all the others they have he is a heavyweight. Just image how lightweight all the others are.
Erik Gumeringer today? 🤣 he’s been a clown since the begining.
Erik! What are you doing?
Never admit you're wrong.
Have you learned nothing from Billy?
He is a heavyweight. But being on the factually wrong side of an argument is going to expose you eventually
if apologists were as good at achieving victory as they are at declaring victory, there would be one religion and everyone would belong to it
“Pop atheism” 🤔 I kinda like that concept. I think I’m going to use “pop Christianity” lol makes it sound less legitimate!
Christian pop is very real, and very bad. dont listen to it.
@@joshuavd5194 Christian rock, on the other hand, can be quite good. Its the lyrics that throw me off, else I would have been a fan
“Hitler and Stalin were atheists”.
Dawkins dealt with this quite well, by retorting:
“They both had moustaches as well.”
[edit: Hitler _was_ in fact a Catholic, lmao]
Neither one was atheist! Hitler belief god and he meantion this many times. Stalin almost become a priest! He also give more liberties orthodox church and rely faith in the war time.
Almighty Bunny exactly!
•Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that he believed he was doing “God’s will in persecuting the Jewish people”
•the belt buckle of every nazi soldier read “God on our side” in German
•Hitler’s birthday was celebrated from the pulpit of the churches until I believe 1945(?) (though I could be wrong on that date as historical chronology isn’t my strong point)
•the first treaty Hitler ever signed was with the Catholic Church where they agreed for the dissolution of the Catholic centre party in order to give the Nazi party a clear run
Anyone who claims Hitler’s regime was “atheistic” is a deluded MORON who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
@@LifeOfRy
Yes it was ideology not atheism.
Almighty Bunny yet the religious still cling to this pathetic idea that atheism was what made people like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc do what they did. Of course it’s utter nonsense. Absence of belief in a supernatural being would have no way of influencing that kind of behaviour. They can’t defend their religion because they know how much blood is on its hands, so they have to clap back with this pathetic argument that means nothing.
@@LifeOfRy well they did in the name of atheism. Truth hurts ahh
“If there is a God, she approves of jousting.” 😝
Dead.
Not sure what to make of your comment, but to say God is good. Have a good day.
@HomoTriSapien Clearly, right? God bless you, and have a good day.
@HomoTriSapien Thank you.
Felix Rodriguez
Which god is good? There are thousands, and I would not call most of them good.
@@taowaycamino4891 How is (your) God good? Does that mean all the things (your) God has does are good?
“who tells their five year old……?” (Shhh - We wait till they are 6 - I didn’t lie!)
Craig's main tactic is start every response with a strawman he can hide behind. I had no idea just how unprepared and fragile he is.
Just want to say that I noticed that you have Craig's book on the Kalam Cosmological Argument in the background, which goes to show how respectful you are in crafting your rebuttals - keep up the good work bro
Took a seminar course for my bachelor's called "the meaning of life", my atheist professor had us read a paper by Craig. Never in my life had I ever felt like my intelligence has been offended so bad.
Craig is a philosopher the same as I am an aerospace engineer.
He's as much a philosopher as I am the queen of England.
@@SuperHuscarl
My honor, m'lady
@@AllHailDotHack. Oh, you're too kind to me, love.
(I'm not English, nor a woman, lol)
@@AllHailDotHack
A whole seminar on the meaning of life?
Any fool can tell you the answer.
......... 42.
... are you an aerospace engineer?
My daughter provides counseling and support services for homeless LBGTQ young people, the vast majority of whom are homeless precisely because their "Christian" parents kicked them out. You can't tell me Christian parents don't engage in abuse as a result of their beliefs!
Seems hell is here on earth according to some parents.
8:46 I see someone has never taken a tour of "The Bible Belt". Not only is it a description of the geographic location, but a favored method of child discipline in that area.
The Bible Belt 😆 nice. Hadn't heard that one
Raised in the Bible Belt, and have definitely heard a lot of it. Between Pentecostal and southern baptist churches, I heard so many conflicting views that I eventually couldn’t keep believing blindly.
@@marlymcfly1991 The Bible Belt is a part of the southern US I think.
I love how he says his belief in Christianity is because he has "good arguments" for it (and let's just forget for a second that most, if not all arguments of his can be used for other religions) and in turn implies all other religions such as his example, Islam, don't have those arguments. yet one of his favorite arguments is the kalam cosmological argument which was put forth by al-ghazali. A Persian Islamic philosopher.
He's very intelligent and well read. so I don't know whether this was an honest mistake or not
But I don't think it was
The man doesn't have an honest bone in his body, the kalam is a nonsensical argument that does not even get you to god let alone Jesus, Craig makes me really mad because he is clearly a smart guy, somehow he is able to compartmentalize his brain, I would be surprised if he actually did believe what he claims
@@ARoll925 sounds like a good guess... there is this group, this special subset of intellectuals, that do not believe, yet are desperate about the possibility of being wrong.
Pascal's Wager is born out of such a conflict of knowledge and belief... even if HE may not be "saved" at least he can talk others into it and that way at least do good. Maybe even get a "get out of hell free" card? Who knows? WLC would not the only one "at least save others less intelligent than me" person in this world. And it actually would explain some about his sophistry when he should use pure, clear philosophy, his wordplays instead of rational arguments.
@Classical Theist00 first of all I didn't say that is his only argument, never even implied it, I was commenting on kalam because that is what he is known for using and he continues use it, if he has better arguments he should lead with those, and stop using kalam because it has been debunked many times, by many people, it's a bad argument and doesn't convince anyone with half a brain cell what he is trying to convince them of, this is not a dishonest argument, his other arguments which if as you say they are about resurrection then they aren't better arguments
I think your final paragraph was meant for the poster above me but I'll respond, I would argue there aren't good arguments for any type of theism but I'll give WLC and you that for argument sake, how do we tell which on is right?, If we are trying to figure which argument is true and the same "good" argument can be used for two opposing sides, how do we get to truth?, If a supposed "good" argument can get you to two "truths" how can it possibly be a good argument? That is fucking asinine
If either of us has an uncharitable argument of the other it is you, you applied stuff to me I didn't even say, and tried to strawman what I did say, I guess like dr.craig you can't be honest with yourself when presented an opposing view, and have compartmentalize so badly you come off like an arrogant asshole
@@Ugly_German_Truths the cognitive dissonance going on in their heads must be bizzare, I almost respect WLC, if he wasn't spreading such dishonest nonsense, if he could be honest with himself and others instead of clinging to his bullshit, I would respect him more, he to me is a good example of the sunken cost fallacy, where you have already invested so much time, money and study believing and spreading something you just continue doing it, in his case the god stuff, I agree with you about the intellectual non believers being so caught up in Pascal's wager, it actually makes me sad for them
SW: "Once again, Craig has missed the point."
That is not accidental. It is an important tool in Craig's sophistic toolbox.
"Ooh no, I would never tell my kids that! Although luckily I won't have to because there's nothing wrong with my kids, obviously."
~ Just about any modern Christian, especially an American one. 🤯
Craig on atheists: "there are no substantive reasons for what they believe." ....well that's awkward coming from a Christian
I shuddered when he said that. As an atheist I don't "believe" i "disbelieve"
@@SalisburyKarateClub Apparently they all believe in Stalinism.
@@jackarmstrong5645 Yeah drag out the old faithfuls
@@SalisburyKarateClub I believe one of the central tenets of atheism is a love of everything Stalin and Mao did. That's what some Christian told me.
@@jackarmstrong5645 That christian was wrong. I'm an atheist and I don't accept tenets of Stalin or Mao.
That video they did, was such a fake strawman group of “arguments for god” it was such a TRANSPARENT LIE.
M B I dissagree with your critic of then being bad. Firstly (as I’m certain you’d agree) judging a toothpick as a cotton-swab is going to yield bad marks. Thats what they did for half. This playlist they “received.” Was cut out of context and contained indirect rhetoric against Christianity which if they had a problem with, they should have rejected the invitation to address them in favour of better spent time.
But more importantly those videos were all comprised of legitimate Rhetoric against the make up of Christianity which are elements of constitution to Yahweh’s claim to existence-supporting the Lightest claim of atheism (lack of belief). All of them directly address the pillars of christianity’s (as a practice) most common failures, highlighting its incoherence & its contradictions. Rhetoricians do this chronically and it should take 2-to-maybe-10 braincells for Christians to put that together.
They deliberately dodged the opportunity to respond to very legitimate rhetoric and lied (as made obvious with their comments on “Homosexuality not being condemned.”) and demonstrated the Dunning Kruger effect by pretending that Alvin Fricking Plantinga, (a fricken christian apologist) is the arbiter of what contention exists between religion and science to substantiate their rhetoric against Neil Degrassi Tyson’s literacy in the subject matter.
Those were NOT bad arguments. Craig & Bertusi are just idiots. And I mean Bertusi is literally an idiot. I haven’t seen someone that braindead and incompetent since the host of Unbelievable.
M B
1. No it doesn’t.
2. If its a joke they shouldn’t have posted it. This is a real discussion with serious implications all throughout history and the future.
3. Both of those clowns mirrored these sentiments about atheists, atheist rhetoric, and their arguments against god(s) so there is nothing to infer as “joking.”
M B You’re repeating yourself. Gunna let you reread my first post. ✌️
*M B* Misrepresenting/missing the point, (as was pointed out several times) isn't debunking an argument.
frank whelan wow M B deleted his comments and ran. Not surprised.
Craig is, and has been for many years, a liar. Simple as that.
Well Craig does dismiss anyone who questions the Hollyco$t as AnTi$eMiTiC so perhaps you're correct.
He’s not a liar, again I don’t think he gave great responses for the most part, but you guys are not being fair with your criticism whatsoever, at least most of you in the comment section, you’re jumping to ridiculous conclusions, and again I agree with some of your points, but you guys are not fair whatsoever and you would not give this treatment to your own side, he didn’t lie about anything somebody misunderstanding something it’s not the same thing as them knowing the truth and intentionally misleading somebody.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 He has had a PhD physicist explain that the math supports an eternally existing energy/matter. WLC keeps saying that is impossible, without ever refuting the mathematics. So he is lying.
@@harrycooper5231 that doesn’t make him a liar, if he comes to a different conclusion than you do therefore he’s a liar.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 It's not a "conclusion". It's proven mathematically that eternal energy is mathematically consistent. WLC offers no refutation of that, yet claims it is impossible using nothing but analogies. WLC is an educated man, he definitely knows better.
Considering the Jewish, Islamic and Christian gods are the actually the same god (he comes from the same root source), why would he say he doesn't believe in the Islamic god?
Funny thing. I tested the "can you choose your sexual orientation" on one of my classes many years ago. They were 10 years old at the time. I don't remember how we came to the discussion, but someone said they had chosen it. So I asked how many believed they might have chosen to be gay. Some thought so. I asked them if they knew what they fancied. They all said yes. At 10 years of age, they all knew what they liked. I asked, do you recall thinking about whether you would like to prefer boys or girls, if they remember actually making a choice? They all said no. I asked them if they would choose to become gay, if they knew they risked being beaten, killed, ridiculed, and told they were bad. They all said no. (And yes, they knew before the topic came up those things happened). I asked, if you could choose, would anyone make a choice that could harm them? They said no. Then I asked again, how many think they chose it? None of them said yes again. They got it. Kids ain't dumb. But they can be taught dumb shit.
Being gay is not a choice and it's not a disease.
@@marcdecock7946 That's literally what I just said.
@@SysterYster I got that, you'll find gay people in countries where it is often the case they'll be beaten if found out. If it would be a choice, like ice cream or tiramisu, it would take a strange person to choose the one for which you'll get a beating afterwards...
@@marcdecock7946 Indeed. People need to stop claiming it's a choice and accept reality. Nobody would choose it and risk being beaten and even killed.
@@SysterYster My niece runs the family restaurant, she's a great person, lesbian, married to a woman, and she has a son that happens to be straight.
The thing is, a parent doesn't even have to say ANY words about hell and homosexuality, the words PERMEATE THE ENTIRE RELIGION and unless the parent actively refutes that belief (and how can they, it's written in black and white, and preached from the pulpit) then they will know that this is what their parents believe - SAME OUTCOME.
I had a front row seat to this as I watched my much younger my cousin grow up, idolizing his grandfather (as the patriarch of a Christian family) and tear himself apart because of the words he couldn't say and the desires he couldn't express. Suicide was a very real risk for years! His grandfather eventually passed, and once the pain of the loss had eased enough, he came out to the rest of his family (with most of us already being pretty sure already). The man he is today is almost unrecognisable from the shell he was as an adolescent.
Even unspoken, the religious prejudices of his grandfather nearly killed that kid.
Ugh.. William's smug self-satisfaction is nauseating.
I'm fascinated with theists constantly asking for "proof that atheism is right", even their Omnipotent God couldn't do that.
Oh, is ti still omnipotent then???
Stalin didnt send people to the gulag; the people sent themselves to hell
Stalin wanted all the power, the church has a lot of it, so he had to cross them or share it with them. Hitler shared for a while, but seems to have had plans to take it from them too.
WLC is such a smug git!
With one of the most punchable faces in the history of punchable faces.
It's that cadence of his... it's nauseating.
Looking for arguments FOR atheism is clearly missing the train. Atheism is a default position with no burden of proof unless someone claims to have proof of no god or gods existing.
I don't have to argue FOR my lack of belief in unicorns.
You are using the exact same argumentation as the hardcore catholic church in the 1500s. I am sorry to say this, but your argument for atheism sounds pretty damn religious to me.
1misanthropist What do you mean by “the opposite of religious is rational”?
@1misanthropist Let's demonstrate rationality :-)
Is it wrong to kill a person, even if nobody would know about it?
@1misanthropist Okay, here is what happened:
You claim my world view to not be rational.
I ask you a question which I think would demand an answer based on rationality.
Instead of engaging in a rational discussion, you just mock me instead.
You claim to speak in the name of rationality, yet you cannot engage in a rational discussion. What a pity.
@@mrwiswas You're asking a moral question, not a rational one. A rational question, based on logic would be: Does it make sense to kill a person just because no one will know about it? Or rather, is it a sufficient reason to commit murder simply the awareness that no one will be aware of this murder?
If you look at the psychological profiles of murderers, this is not the case, they always have very personal and different reasons for carrying out a murder, even when convinced nobody would find out. So the premise that "nobody will find out" is not sufficient reasoning to actually commit murder.
This then implies, is it necessary to know murder is wrong morally, to actually refrain from commiting it? Well again no, even psychopaths which have no such morals as "it is wrong to kill" still don't go around killing everyone they actually can get away with murdering. What prevents them from "sparing" the others if they have no such morals? Again, it's due to the fact that being able to get away with murder is not a sole reason to perform said murder.
Since we can conclude that morality isn't the sole root of a person's actions, we cannot infer whether a person will actually commit a murder just based on their morality and on whether someone will find out about it, so answering your question doesn't actually tell us anything rational, or rather it does not provide enough logical reasoning to come to a conclusion only using the premise you have presented.
To address your original moral question, consider this scenario. If you can kill someone before they kill a loved one or you, where you know for a fact they will carry out their intendent murder unless you kill them first, in a scenario where you are also aware their body will never be found and no one will know it was you, what do you do?
If the answer to your original question is always "yes", then congrats, you just saved yourself/your loved one. If the answer to your question is always "no", then congrats, you or your loved one is dead. If it's anything in between, like "no, but in special cases yes", you saved them/yourself but then your morality is not absolute and your actions cannot solely be attributed to your morals either.
Remember, your question is a general question and must apply to every scenario where you know you can get away with murder, independent of whatever the actual details of the scenario are. I presented an unlikely, but not an impossible and unreasonable scenario. If the answer must depend on details, then you cannot assert an absolute black and white morality and the question in itself is worthless and you can't actually gauge anything about that person.
To conclude, I ask you this concerning morality in theism:
Do I absolurely need a religious text to tell me murder is wrong in order to refrain from a murder no one will find out about? And why does rejecting some religious beliefs necessarily imply also rejecting all of the moralities they teach? Is this truly rational reasoning?
WHY is Craig propped up as some sort of strong intellectual? I DO NOT GET IT.
It has always mystified me why some consider Craig an intellectual. I have heard hours worth of his arguments and I can't think of a single one, that wasn't undermined by its own implications. Implications he seems oblivious of or uncaring about.
I honestly think the man is woefully incompetent and only held up by those whose beliefs he affirms, using philosophical language.
Is it because he's the best they got? He might be the most impressing Christian apologetic I've heard and that says more about the rest than about him. So his smug comments about "the best arguments for atheism" is at least on a high level of irony...
@@the42year-oldhacker37Even if your question is for Jacob it mystifies ME that a very smart and mature man can make so stupid claims. And even if Cosmic Skeptic is 50 years younger he is much smarter and far more mature than Craig.
@@the42year-oldhacker37 Not really. One of the reasons that I like him as a content creator, is how respectful he is and always seems to tackle the strongest version of the opposing argument. Even when they don't deserve it.
Also, I don't think Craig is stupid either. When your arguments are that shitty, but you still manage to establish yourself as some best apologetics has to offer, it wasn't by accident.
"Well, how about Stalin..." it's start of hist "arguments" and he already pull Stalin card 🤦♀️
And they keep saying it like Atheism is a belief system
Craig is showing he has the intellectual integrity of a wet napkin when he is talking among people who have a inherent confirmation bias leanings and as result are more easily mislead then a prominent opponent!
No matter how many times you debunk their claims about Hitler, Stalin and North Korea being atheist, they will just keep saying it
Here's my best "atheist argument", no theist has presented sufficient good evidence to rationally justify belief in a supernatural god or gods. My argument could be easily destroyed by simply presenting good evidence for the existence of a god or gods, but no theist seems interested (capable) in doing so.
Here's mine: christians both behave abhorrent for a group that should be scared shitless of causing the displeasure of the temperamental dictator of heavens and earth - and their god does nothing to stop them ... and their words tell us all these things about god's love and magnamitude, but the stories their book shows, support the opposite.
Would a god exist, his fanclub CLEARLY would be made up out of the most honorable, honest and trustworthy of humans and his book / autobiography would show actual love and power instead of all these scare-stories meant to frighten primitive bronze agers into compliance with the social standards of their time. It also could show much more "foreknowledge" than vague and often unfulfilled prophecies, where it does not even contain SOAP or Aspirin recipes which would be EASY to follow even back then.
There is no such thing as an argument "for" Atheism, because Atheism is not a position. It is simply a term used to describe someone who is not a Theist. Atheism doesn't require arguments because it is not claiming anything.
It makes more sense to use Naturalism in opposition to Theism, because that is a world view with claims that directly oppose Theism. That is the real divide - Theism vs Naturalism.
@@TheFuzzician I agree with what you're saying, that's why I put "atheist argument" in quotes, because it's not really an argument, I was just using the terminology that was used in the video.
No atheist argument could destroy their beliefs because they don't follow logic. Checkmate atheists!
@@Ugly_German_Truths if the bible was written in the way you wanted people still would easily find problems with it, especially back in the bronze age
This level of lying is so cold and deliberate that I don't understand how their brain doesn't implode.
Are they lying if they are truly convinced of it? I think WLC's brain has been so stuck in this circular apologetic limbo he can't even conceive it's even plausible his world view isn't "the one".
You claim a lie...where is your proof?
What did they lie about?
If you unable to demonstrate they lied...then calling them liars is dealing unfairly with their responses OR an indictment of your comprehension.
Living in Utah, I can tell you that there is a segment of the population known as “lost boys.” Thrown out for many reasons, including homosexuality. I encourage anyone interested to look it up. In my twenties I fostered late teens in this conundrum. Giving them a place to live close to their work, and helping them move forward in their lives. It had basically no impact on any important part of my life, outside of helping provide food, power, and shelter. They were able to work and save and find themselves a home. Independence is what they wanted and needed. They worked hard to get it. And recovered quickly.
Fun fact, Utah has the highest consumption of porn and even more fun, gay porn in the U.S. most months.
Edit: Needed to add per capita otherwise the stick up my butt would bother me for hours.
Hi Stephan! All I want too say having watched your excellent video is "WELL DONE!". Your arguments are clear and lucid, you do not descend to personal vitriol, and you present your case with great diction. GREAT!
Craig has the biggest conman smile. It is so forced and fake.
Something about his lips really bothers me.
It is easy to recognize that "conman smile" look in people.
Completely disingenuous of both CC and WLG when it comes to parents talking to kids about being gay. I've had enough students come out to me out of earshot of classmates telling me they don't know who to talk to about being ostracized by their families and pastors for being gay. I was so angry when this clip was played. F*ck it, HOW DARE YOU!!!
Bruh, there’s a reason I haven’t come out to my parents...
Just saying...
I had 2 nieces come out on their 18th birthday.
Now they are in their 30s and have husbands and kids. So much for born that way.
Bruce Jenner came out when he was 65 ?
Bruce Jenner had 6 kids and then decided he was a woman ?
Please open your eyes
@Him Bike
I known many homosexual couples who have adopted children, been in long healthy relationships, and some older couples that have been together until parted by death. Your sampling of the LGBT community is very small and anecdotal... so I would actually implore you to “please open your eyes.”
WLC is one of the most difficult apologists to determine whether or not he's a charlatan. But I'm tending to think more and more that he is, given how unquestionably intelligent he is, and how much he jettisons that intelligence when, and only when, if comes to defending his own faith-based claims.
If you waste your time watching all of his debates in chronological order, you will see that he accepts that his points are refuted in one debate only to bring up the same point again in the next.
@@lucyferos205 the professor of Sophistry 101
“She approves of jousting” - I Died!!! 😂
Well, I am sure she does.
"If there is a god, she approves of jousting"
XD I see what you did there.
I'm starting to entertain the *very* disturbing thought that Craig actually believes what he says.
All human beings they believe what they say, nothing wrong about that.
Do you believe what you say?
@@edgesherun9880 If that were true, liars would not exist.
@@fcya how?
He's a good actor.
At 5:30, Craig contrasts the god of Islam with the god of Christianity. Huh? It's the same god, the Abrahamic god of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and several other cults.
This coming from someone with a "Doctorate in Theology".
Ricky *makes a statement of fact*
The other guys "nuh uh, that's not true. And you smell" *high five each other*
RR "those guys weren't actually listening to what Ricky said"
Basically.
Asking for arguments for atheism is equivalent to asking for arguments for not believing in Santa
Not really...
Its to share the burden of proof on both sides...
Stanley Arun There is no burned of proof required for the claim “I don’t believe in god.” There is a burden of proof when saying “I believe there is/isn’t a god,” but atheism doesn’t make that claim. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, which does not have a burden of proof
Jaden Halstead So ‘lack of belief in God’
Can I rephrase like... ‘I know there is a God but I don’t feel like believing that God’
?????
Cos the problem seems to be the belief and not in the existence of God part...
Stanley Arun do you know what the word “believe” means?
Jaden Halstead Believe- To accept something as true
I found this so enjoyable and insightful that I wished it could've gone longer. However, I think you would've soon grown tired of repeating the phrase, "Once again, Craig misses the point."
My favourite WLC moment? The chat he had with Sir Roger Penrose. WLC trots out his usual glib line of prepared patter whilst Sir Roger endeavours to explain his thoughts about the origins of the Universe in plain terms that even I can grasp ( if somewhat tenuously ).
He is eventually forced to tell WLC as gently as he is able that what he's saying is just too vague. We should bear in mind thatl one of them is a Nobel prize winning scientist who has a mind that has travelled to the very edges of time and space, whilst the other a purveyor of word salads. Vague? Too bloody right.
9:22 nowhere in the bible does it say one cannot lie. It is however a sin to make false accusations.