13:33 I understand AP: I grew up as a poor child, I find it hard to ask for help and I find it terribly difficult to accept money and help from others, especially in situations with deep meaning.
An atheist is hiking in the woods when he stumbles across a huge hungry grizzly bear. The bear rears up to full height and gives a roar as it leans in toward the man. The atheist screams in terror "Oh God, help me!!!" Suddenly, everything--> the bear, the trees, the birds, everything but the man--freezes. The man sees the clouds part as a deep heavenly voice reaches his ears. "So all your life, You deny My existence, yet now you call for My aid now that death is upon you? I am sorry, My son, but it is too late." The atheist thinks quickly. "Well, God, if it is too late for me to become a Christian, how about you just convert the bear?" Time begins moving again, and the bear immediately stops its roaring, kneels quietly and respectfully, and begins speaking. "O Lord, bless this meal in which I am about to partake..."
I remember when Alex had decided to remove his video on Islam because he was afraid for his security. Fortunately, I saw that video at that time and I remember it was a pretty good one.
I was reading them today interestingly enough and thinking the same thing. None are wondering why Christianity brings her comfort if it’s false. As a therapist, I often use reframing with my clients but if there is no truth to the reframe they would not find it comforting. It may not make it true that it’s comforting but I would argue something about it would at least need to ring true.
beautiful opening answer from Ayaan. people who think she's insincere, doing it for political reasons, must think she's awesome at acting, or something
Out of curiosity, but if you don't have a ruler who enforce the rules/law, how are people gonna follow them? You expect humans just to follow them, for what reason exactly? How can you be sure that everybody will follow those rules/laws? Wouldn't that just mean that everybody could make up their own rules and follow those? You probably know more about anarchists than me, since I never dealt with that, may you please tell me what the point of view of those who upholds that worldview?
@ Sure. Thanks for the question. There are multiple types of anarchists. I wouldn’t quite call myself an anarchist but I’d be pretty close politically. So I’ll try to steel man the position. It won’t be short but I don’t mind answering an honest question. Hopefully it’s readable and you get something from it. “My” type of anarchy would presuppose natural, fundamental rights that are off limits to govt because they exist before govt. These rights include life, liberty, property… each one requires the other two. So the most basic rules are “don’t violate those rights”. Since they’re our rights, we have to right to defend and protect them. So that’s the most basic answer to the question “who enforces the rules?”… we do. Falling under those rights are the rights to assemble, associate, and contract. This we can delegate the authority we have to others but only to do what we ourselves can rightfully do ourselves which is protect and defend our life, liberty, property, and seek compensation for the violation of those rights. We can also freely choose to submit to arbitration for the sake of not being in constant warfare over every dispute. So we can freely, voluntarily form collective structures and mutually contract for long term beneficial goals in order to accomplish what we couldn’t do alone. But we don’t have the right to compel others to participate or contribute to these things and the people we contact with and delegate our authority to can’t compel them either. If you notice, all beneficial, and just, societal functions come from what I laid out. The only ruler in that system is the rules themselves. Not some person who assumes the authority to create new rules, rules that by their nature, if not based on the basic ones I laid out, are in direct opposition to those fundamental rules. It’s really darn near what the founders espoused. Govt as servant, doing on a large scale only that which we could rightfully do individually if we had the capability. Not a ruler managing our lives for its own purposes regardless of intentions. Hope I didn’t ramble too much. Feel free to ask for clarification or elaboration on anything.
@seeqr9 that's was great, thank you. I didn't know there were different type of anarchy. Would you please elaborate a little bit more on them, just as few sentences about them, like definitions or similar. Question about the paragraphs starting with "Falling under" and ending with "... compelling them either" (they are 2 paragraphs): Isn't that some sort of democracy? Now I say that because I grew up in Italy, and as far as I remember (I may be completely wrong in my remembrance) the government is precisely what the entity to which authority is given, so people vote and give authority to the government, which should act in the interest of people, respecting values of the population, and cannot violate (shouldn't at least) human rights. Now, as I said, this may just be me with bad memory, so I'm completely wrong about that. Another thing about the answer you gave to "who enforces the rules?" How would you do that? For example, how would you prevent a person from commenting crimes? Or a thief from stealing? Or how would you stop some people from beating each other to death over some silly reasons? Thank you for your answer, btw. I really appreciate it 😁
@@UnknownsoldieroftheLORD You’re very welcome. I appreciate a good conversation. Idk all the types of anarchy by name. I’d say there’s the one that most people think of like no rules, morals, and everyone just does what they want. I think that’s more a a caricature. Then there’s “anarcho-capitalism” or “ancap” for short. It’s pretty much what I described with free market and voluntary contracts being the main mode of regulations. As to your second question, it depends on how you define “democracy”. There’s pure democracy which is essentially “majority rules”. As you see in that definition there is a “ruler”, that is, the majority, 51% or more. Americas founding fathers despised that system. It’s actually worse than monarchy or even dictatorship. It’s “2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what’s for dinner”. Then there’s things like “democratic, constitutional, representative republic” which is what the US is supposed to be. So representatives, and local propositions are chosen by democratic process. The thing that’s supposed to keeps this from being “Two wolves, 1 sheep..” is the constitution which says “nothing can even be discussed if it violates the fundamental rights/basic rules”. So in other words, I shouldn’t have to worry about how people vote because they can’t vote on anything that violates my rights. Of course we’ve gotten far away from that because we function more like a “majority rule” system now. As for your question about preventing crime, well the realistic answer is that no system can really prevent all crime without completely enslaving people and even then people find a way. There’s probably very little crime in North Korea for example because the govt controls every single aspect of life… but the price is that you can hardly call it a life. See, as far as a system I’m describing, a person can exercise their rights to the point right before they violate those same rights of others. So if I try to take your property, you can do whatever it takes to stop me. If I succeed, you can do whatever it takes to get compensation. These are natural rights. So in order to disincentivize people committing crimes, we protect the rights of people to bare arms and use them for protection. For example, in the US we have “gun free zones”.. mostly schools. That is actually a violation of free people’s right to protect themselves. This is why crazy evil people aren’t afraid to shoot up schools. Because they know no one there has the ability to stop them. So the good people who follow those laws are made victims by the law itself. You don’t often hear about people do that in places where they know people are likely to be armed and ready to defend themselves. So according to America’s founding principles, the way to deter the bad guys is to pretext the rights of the good guys to deal with criminals, not to restrict them. This is how you deal with crime in the system I’m describing. These are all principles based on scripture btw…
I would request to invite Bangladesh Ex-muslim Activist Asad Noor in you guys' live someday soon to discuss the ongoing serious conditions of Bangladeshi Hindus persecution which escalated since 25th(after Hindu leader arrest for farce charges of sedition) & m0b attacks & state attacks over peaceful Hindu protestors and then worsened after a Muslim Lawyer's murder outside court (for which collectively whose Hindu community was blamed and in name of taking revenge J!had was declared and widespread anti-hindu violences by mass-mob attacks over random Hindus, stone pelting & torching Hindu property & temples started which later turned out false & done by !slamists themselves). There was no official praise release & provoking statements from the interim's advisors (who were recent uprisings leaders too), thus deliberately done to create open ground for J!had over infidel Hindus & justifications for persecution under name of taking revenge. Yesterday Friday, after Zumma Salat, J!had was again declared and attacks happened in Chittagong. 🇧🇩 They are being increasingly reduced to 2nd class citizens due to the influence Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami & their allies increasing influence under the new Interim regime's anarchy so minorities are demanding 8-point agenda. Asad Noor is doing good coverage of current hindu & other minority p0grom in Bangladesh and the situation of current 🇧🇩 state in his TH-cam channel however it's in only Bengali. I hope an internationally targetted live with u guys so that the world knows it too.
Coming to Jesus is about much more than intellectual assent to his existence, divinity and resurrection. The Devil himself does that much. I am a comments section apologist for many years now, but I know that even at my very fantasy best, all I can do is remove intellectual obstacles. What brings anyone into the fold is not mere rational discourse and reasoning but a DIRECT ENCOUNTER WITH THE RISEN LORD HIMSELF. It is he and he only that saves and is the author (and finisher) of our faith from day one. That said, good apologetics can clear and pave the way for this encounter, but even this ultimately from God.
if ultimately our salvation is in God's hands, why would he blame and purnish those to whom he has not revealed himself? it's obviously not their fault.
A Labour MP asked the Prime Minister to introduce laws to protect the 'Abrahamic' religions and the PM wouldn't rule it out. Please send help to Blighty :(
some of our people do the same dude chill Alex is a believer and wants more of ppl to follow his cult and is hurt that some of his fellow brothers and sisters are leaving and coming to Christ
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
Easy to say in hindsight, but I would 100% have predicted it would be Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Like AP said, she was obviously traumatised by her religion. She turned to atheism for emotional reasons. That's not a good foundation for atheism.
@@gtrdaveg Well, every positive claim should be able to present facts or logic to back up the claim. This applies to ‘there is a god/gods’ as well as to ‘there are no gods’. Negative claims such as ‘I do not believe that there are gods’ are somewhat easier: They are already justified if no confirming facts or conclusions are offered for the positive ones. Maybe you want to offer an alternative way?
1:31:38 DW AP, (يسوع) is Jesus, and isn't an arrangement of Arabic letters looking like a D and B 😅... (Jesus, if you do read this, I didn't know before looking it up)
2:25:40 O'Conner and Hitchens have Orginal Sin wrong. Original sin does attach itself upon birth, but rather because of the original sin by Adam and Eve we we are born into a fallen state.
40:35 Jesus didn't leave any bones according to Christians But did he get his nails clipped??? Did they fall down in heaven with him after resurrection??
Jesus Christ resurrected. Why would he leave behind any bones? Also I'm not sure but it seems that there is strong scientific evidence for the Shroud of Turin to carry the biological imprints of Jesus Christ before he resurrected.
It had nothing to do with religion at all, it was about peter hitchens drug policis. It was about politics. He wrote a book about it and was offended that he had to talk about it. 😂
I have bad words about Alex. I tried to watch his channel, but was stopped on the first video because he was saying vulgar things about Ben Shapiro‘s wife because he didn’t like Ben. I don’t mind people disagreeing, but saying vulgar things (that are baseless, btw) about someone you don’t like (or their family members) is just so off-putting. 🤢
Disinformation: What is thy Aims? Lord puppets, pawns, nor tumbleweeds being used as a "THING" showered by riches from these principalities who deceiveth exalted themselves above in high places unseen nor seen! In front of Thee! Is like....
One of the reasons that Christ sacrifice is necessary is to encourage morality as a matter of public justice. If lawlessness and immorality are winked upon and dismissed, then it is encouraged. For example look at what lenient laws on shoplifting has resulted in in leftist states. Laws against death that have no consequences behind them, are mear suggestions. Such laws are a joke. They imply that theft is no big deal. Taking what your neighbor worked for, and by proxy in some sense enslaving them, is no big deal. However, legitimate laws protect good things by threatening punishment against the things that threatened the good things. Likewise, Gods laws protect his creation and their rights, by threatening and executing punishment on those who violate them. If God is also merciful, how then can he avoid encouraging crime and still show leniency at the same time? The answer is by providing a public sacrifice to justify the leniency / pardon / forgiveness. The sacrifice of Christ confirms an upholds that God's law is good and just while at the same time allowing God to show mercy without the effect of encouraging immorality. You cannot reasonably look at the sacrifice that God how to make for sin and come away thinking that God's law is not good or should not be taken seriously.
2:12:46 one could just propose the argument from stuff that God doesn't like then. Does God not like murder? If He is omnipotent and doesnt like murder, why does He allow it? We still have the problem David!
The solution is actually easy: because God gave his creation (particularly humans) free will. It goes against that principle to then offer a meaningless choice - if we were not allowed to go against God's wishes, then the obedience and love He wants from us would be meaningless because we literally would not have a choice. We actually have no problem.
@@Greyz174because to kill somebody proves power. Some people are driven by power and notoriety. Some people even sell out their family and friends to gain or maintain power. Look up information about serial killers: most talk about their crimes to gain fame.
I love my kids so much that I don't ever want them to be hurt or indeed for them to hurt anybody else ... so I locked them in their bedrooms ... God is indeed omnipotent ... He just doesn't want to be a prison warden ...
D Wood, why are you so aggressive to people who do not believe? Most atheists/agnostics could not care less what you choose to believe, you believe in a "God"? Okay, whatever!
@@You.are.boring.me.now2024 I've yet to see any atheist posit a remotely plausible theory that accounts for the actions of Jesus's close disciples after His death and the rise of the early Christian church as a result: how they were transformed from men who cowardly hid in locked rooms, into men willing to die rather than recant what they claimed to had *seen*. Not just what they believed - plenty of people die for what they believe in - but these men died for what they claimed to be eyewitnesses of. Liars make poor martyrs. Perhaps you can find one crazy man who will die for a lie he made up, but conspiracies unravel quickly if you pressure individuals in a group, and larger groups make for more pressure points. Yet, they never 'broke' - despite being separated, all claimed to have seen the same thing.. --- Or, short version: Jesus *was dead.
![ทุกครั้งที่หลับตา (Lucid Dream) - AYLA's [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4i1OBAQyv58/mqdefault.jpg)
David is secretly converting AP by showing other peoples conversions, i see you buddy
Except it’s not very secret 😉
Don’t blow his cover!
13:33 I understand AP: I grew up as a poor child, I find it hard to ask for help and I find it terribly difficult to accept money and help from others, especially in situations with deep meaning.
Maybe he will accept us paying him to get it checked at a computer shop
An atheist is hiking in the woods when he stumbles across a huge hungry grizzly bear. The bear rears up to full height and gives a roar as it leans in toward the man. The atheist screams in terror "Oh God, help me!!!"
Suddenly, everything--> the bear, the trees, the birds, everything but the man--freezes. The man sees the clouds part as a deep heavenly voice reaches his ears. "So all your life, You deny My existence, yet now you call for My aid now that death is upon you? I am sorry, My son, but it is too late."
The atheist thinks quickly. "Well, God, if it is too late for me to become a Christian, how about you just convert the bear?"
Time begins moving again, and the bear immediately stops its roaring, kneels quietly and respectfully, and begins speaking. "O Lord, bless this meal in which I am about to partake..."
Classic.
There haven't been Christians who have been eaten by lions, and bears?
You'll regret this. Wait for the bear to appear in front of your door..
Giving pamphlet about Jesus Christ everyday if not every week.
@@Yuhanna8.23 Lame! 😂😂😂😂
@@Trabunkle 😋
Ayaan made the right choice by coming to Jesus!
@midimusicforever Are you stating an individual can simply _choose_ that which he or she believes?
I remember when Alex had decided to remove his video on Islam because he was afraid for his security. Fortunately, I saw that video at that time and I remember it was a pretty good one.
Explains why Alex accepts Dawkins's position on being a cultural Christian.
Those who seek the truth, eventually end up by the foot of the cross and meet Jesus!
So, those who don't fall for this Christian nonsense aren't seeking truth, right? This is your method of placating yourself? Wow.
@@Theo_Skeptomai yep , those who think they are smart like you, are fools. Your knees will bow before Him whether you like it or not !!!
@@Theo_Skeptomaithe people who fall for atheism are usually not truth-seekers
APs computer ran fine until he played the Oct 7th game.
don't play this one
AP's computer got corrupted like how abdools corrupt the injil. You SEE!
Thanks for what y'all do!
You guys should check out the comments on Alex's video....
One of the best example of how so many atheists (NOT ALL) are so bitter and insufferable.
This observation is reserved for just atheists, correct?
I was reading them today interestingly enough and thinking the same thing. None are wondering why Christianity brings her comfort if it’s false. As a therapist, I often use reframing with my clients but if there is no truth to the reframe they would not find it comforting. It may not make it true that it’s comforting but I would argue something about it would at least need to ring true.
The intro was lit, completely dizzle
beautiful opening answer from Ayaan. people who think she's insincere, doing it for political reasons, must think she's awesome at acting, or something
Thank you!
Not all "anarchists" believe in "No rules/laws"..they hold to "no RULERS"...
Out of curiosity, but if you don't have a ruler who enforce the rules/law, how are people gonna follow them? You expect humans just to follow them, for what reason exactly? How can you be sure that everybody will follow those rules/laws?
Wouldn't that just mean that everybody could make up their own rules and follow those?
You probably know more about anarchists than me, since I never dealt with that, may you please tell me what the point of view of those who upholds that worldview?
@ Sure. Thanks for the question. There are multiple types of anarchists. I wouldn’t quite call myself an anarchist but I’d be pretty close politically. So I’ll try to steel man the position. It won’t be short but I don’t mind answering an honest question. Hopefully it’s readable and you get something from it.
“My” type of anarchy would presuppose natural, fundamental rights that are off limits to govt because they exist before govt. These rights include life, liberty, property… each one requires the other two. So the most basic rules are “don’t violate those rights”. Since they’re our rights, we have to right to defend and protect them. So that’s the most basic answer to the question “who enforces the rules?”… we do.
Falling under those rights are the rights to assemble, associate, and contract. This we can delegate the authority we have to others but only to do what we ourselves can rightfully do ourselves which is protect and defend our life, liberty, property, and seek compensation for the violation of those rights. We can also freely choose to submit to arbitration for the sake of not being in constant warfare over every dispute.
So we can freely, voluntarily form collective structures and mutually contract for long term beneficial goals in order to accomplish what we couldn’t do alone. But we don’t have the right to compel others to participate or contribute to these things and the people we contact with and delegate our authority to can’t compel them either.
If you notice, all beneficial, and just, societal functions come from what I laid out. The only ruler in that system is the rules themselves. Not some person who assumes the authority to create new rules, rules that by their nature, if not based on the basic ones I laid out, are in direct opposition to those fundamental rules.
It’s really darn near what the founders espoused. Govt as servant, doing on a large scale only that which we could rightfully do individually if we had the capability. Not a ruler managing our lives for its own purposes regardless of intentions.
Hope I didn’t ramble too much. Feel free to ask for clarification or elaboration on anything.
@seeqr9 that's was great, thank you.
I didn't know there were different type of anarchy. Would you please elaborate a little bit more on them, just as few sentences about them, like definitions or similar.
Question about the paragraphs starting with "Falling under" and ending with "... compelling them either" (they are 2 paragraphs):
Isn't that some sort of democracy? Now I say that because I grew up in Italy, and as far as I remember (I may be completely wrong in my remembrance) the government is precisely what the entity to which authority is given, so people vote and give authority to the government, which should act in the interest of people, respecting values of the population, and cannot violate (shouldn't at least) human rights.
Now, as I said, this may just be me with bad memory, so I'm completely wrong about that.
Another thing about the answer you gave to "who enforces the rules?" How would you do that? For example, how would you prevent a person from commenting crimes? Or a thief from stealing? Or how would you stop some people from beating each other to death over some silly reasons?
Thank you for your answer, btw. I really appreciate it 😁
@@UnknownsoldieroftheLORD You’re very welcome. I appreciate a good conversation.
Idk all the types of anarchy by name. I’d say there’s the one that most people think of like no rules, morals, and everyone just does what they want. I think that’s more a a caricature. Then there’s “anarcho-capitalism” or “ancap” for short. It’s pretty much what I described with free market and voluntary contracts being the main mode of regulations.
As to your second question, it depends on how you define “democracy”. There’s pure democracy which is essentially “majority rules”. As you see in that definition there is a “ruler”, that is, the majority, 51% or more. Americas founding fathers despised that system. It’s actually worse than monarchy or even dictatorship. It’s “2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what’s for dinner”.
Then there’s things like “democratic, constitutional, representative republic” which is what the US is supposed to be. So representatives, and local propositions are chosen by democratic process. The thing that’s supposed to keeps this from being “Two wolves, 1 sheep..” is the constitution which says “nothing can even be discussed if it violates the fundamental rights/basic rules”. So in other words, I shouldn’t have to worry about how people vote because they can’t vote on anything that violates my rights. Of course we’ve gotten far away from that because we function more like a “majority rule” system now.
As for your question about preventing crime, well the realistic answer is that no system can really prevent all crime without completely enslaving people and even then people find a way. There’s probably very little crime in North Korea for example because the govt controls every single aspect of life… but the price is that you can hardly call it a life.
See, as far as a system I’m describing, a person can exercise their rights to the point right before they violate those same rights of others. So if I try to take your property, you can do whatever it takes to stop me. If I succeed, you can do whatever it takes to get compensation. These are natural rights. So in order to disincentivize people committing crimes, we protect the rights of people to bare arms and use them for protection. For example, in the US we have “gun free zones”.. mostly schools. That is actually a violation of free people’s right to protect themselves. This is why crazy evil people aren’t afraid to shoot up schools. Because they know no one there has the ability to stop them. So the good people who follow those laws are made victims by the law itself. You don’t often hear about people do that in places where they know people are likely to be armed and ready to defend themselves.
So according to America’s founding principles, the way to deter the bad guys is to pretext the rights of the good guys to deal with criminals, not to restrict them. This is how you deal with crime in the system I’m describing.
These are all principles based on scripture btw…
@seeqr9 i see, i see... really interesting.
Thank you for explaining everything. God bless you
I would request to invite Bangladesh Ex-muslim Activist Asad Noor in you guys' live someday soon to discuss the ongoing serious conditions of Bangladeshi Hindus persecution which escalated since 25th(after Hindu leader arrest for farce charges of sedition) & m0b attacks & state attacks over peaceful Hindu protestors and then worsened after a Muslim Lawyer's murder outside court (for which collectively whose Hindu community was blamed and in name of taking revenge J!had was declared and widespread anti-hindu violences by mass-mob attacks over random Hindus, stone pelting & torching Hindu property & temples started which later turned out false & done by !slamists themselves). There was no official praise release & provoking statements from the interim's advisors (who were recent uprisings leaders too), thus deliberately done to create open ground for J!had over infidel Hindus & justifications for persecution under name of taking revenge.
Yesterday Friday, after Zumma Salat, J!had was again declared and attacks happened in Chittagong. 🇧🇩
They are being increasingly reduced to 2nd class citizens due to the influence Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami & their allies increasing influence under the new Interim regime's anarchy so minorities are demanding 8-point agenda.
Asad Noor is doing good coverage of current hindu & other minority p0grom in Bangladesh and the situation of current 🇧🇩 state in his TH-cam channel however it's in only Bengali. I hope an internationally targetted live with u guys so that the world knows it too.
WTF??
Stop spamming the comment section
@@mr.y981 nah bro it's actually true. I'm a Christian from there and situation isn't looking good for us. Pray for us buddy
@@shinobix7826 that's not the point
Don't spam the comment section with ANYTHING
True or not
Go away
2:46:00 lmao David & AP that voice really sounds like Nathan from South Park. Awesome.
The main thing is that Ayan Hirsi stays away from Islam.
Beloved, there's no other can have sincere conversations like all my shared "i" Am.
I can help you David to build a new streaming pc if you give me your budget
AP
What are the specs of your current PC?
Coming to Jesus is about much more than intellectual assent to his existence, divinity and resurrection. The Devil himself does that much.
I am a comments section apologist for many years now, but I know that even at my very fantasy best, all I can do is remove intellectual obstacles. What brings anyone into the fold is not mere rational discourse and reasoning but a DIRECT ENCOUNTER WITH THE RISEN LORD HIMSELF.
It is he and he only that saves and is the author (and finisher) of our faith from day one.
That said, good apologetics can clear and pave the way for this encounter, but even this ultimately from God.
Well said, and heard. Thank you
No, I don't think so. Seems like a very Calvinist sort of position.
if ultimately our salvation is in God's hands, why would he blame and purnish those to whom he has not revealed himself? it's obviously not their fault.
Yes, if it was 100% up to us to accept an offer, probably no one would be saved; it is by grace and mercy and the power of God, who is mighty to save
22:36
This will be AP as well🙏
Honestly, AP would make SUCH a COOL Christian… can’t wait
I pray God that one day he will..
A Labour MP asked the Prime Minister to introduce laws to protect the 'Abrahamic' religions and the PM wouldn't rule it out. Please send help to Blighty :(
Alex is funny to me because if it were reversed Atheist or Muslims would be using her as an example if she left Christianity
some of our people do the same dude chill Alex is a believer and wants more of ppl to follow his cult and is hurt that some of his fellow brothers and sisters are leaving and coming to Christ
I wish I could see one of you debate Dave Smith on the Israeli / Palestine conflict.
47:50 sounds like the "debate" between InspiringPhilosophy and Dr. Phil.
doesn't this guy look like the UCLA student on that panel with Moran Stella Yanai?
Aidan Doyle is the name of the UCLA student. They both have a mustache?
@joen4642 I think the General look is similar. Not just the mustache
Blessed are they who believe without seeing
Sure, but I don't think Jesus was saying those who did see, were not blessed. It just goes without saying that they were.
@johnknight3529 Psalm 18:2
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
@johnknight3529 Amen
Ignorance is bliss.
Concerning thy shared Feet resting upon NORTH, EAST, WEST, AND SOUTH! To bring clarity, coherence, adequacy, evidence, and witnesses!
Where are they?
1:17:34 the red eared slider analogy
Easy to say in hindsight, but I would 100% have predicted it would be Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Like AP said, she was obviously traumatised by her religion. She turned to atheism for emotional reasons. That's not a good foundation for atheism.
Right, and that's not a good foundation for theism aswell.
@rhett_rydinhood is there a better foundation for theism?
@@gtrdaveg
What about facts or logic?
@@rhett_rydinhood not sure how either of those would get you there
@@gtrdaveg
Well, every positive claim should be able to present facts or
logic to back up the claim. This applies to ‘there is a god/gods’
as well as to ‘there are no gods’. Negative claims such as
‘I do not believe that there are gods’ are somewhat easier:
They are already justified if no confirming facts or conclusions
are offered for the positive ones.
Maybe you want to offer an alternative way?
Beloved esteem one another nor uplift one another!
The advesary will use nice people to spread athesism. In fact I find cosmic skeptic far more dangerous and deceptive than most. new atheists.
1:31:38 DW AP, (يسوع) is Jesus, and isn't an arrangement of Arabic letters looking like a D and B 😅... (Jesus, if you do read this, I didn't know before looking it up)
39:58 The Exodus Revealed proves the Exodus story
So ayaan ali is trying to promote her book then. That explains why she is everywhere on youtube
Shared "i" Am Journalists come forth!
2:25:40 O'Conner and Hitchens have Orginal Sin wrong. Original sin does attach itself upon birth, but rather because of the original sin by Adam and Eve we we are born into a fallen state.
Speaking of Dawkins, I think it's high time he got invited to the Boom Boom Room.
...and/or Harris.
Once your eyes are open
And your ears do hear
You will understand the message
That Jesus Christ proclaimed. 😊
42:35
Students will say, what is who am I? Journalists in front of all HIS shared "i" Am?
40:35 Jesus didn't leave any bones according to Christians
But did he get his nails clipped???
Did they fall down in heaven with him after resurrection??
Jesus Christ resurrected. Why would he leave behind any bones? Also I'm not sure but it seems that there is strong scientific evidence for the Shroud of Turin to carry the biological imprints of Jesus Christ before he resurrected.
wah re peeshab peenewalon ka logic kya logic hai teri
aaj ka gaumutr dose hogaya kya takle
the biggest argument from gau mutr drinking imbecile worshipping a thief for god
What a fo.olishness. Are u a pagan cow worshipper? Or a black stone licker?
Didnt someone walk out on Alex? An atheist?
Walk out?
Peter Hitchens, who is a Christian, walked out on him last year for boring him to death and going around in circles.
It had nothing to do with religion at all, it was about peter hitchens drug policis. It was about politics. He wrote a book about it and was offended that he had to talk about it. 😂
I have bad words about Alex. I tried to watch his channel, but was stopped on the first video because he was saying vulgar things about Ben Shapiro‘s wife because he didn’t like Ben. I don’t mind people disagreeing, but saying vulgar things (that are baseless, btw) about someone you don’t like (or their family members) is just so off-putting. 🤢
Where is that video?
@@sina3839 Please read the comment directly above yours.
37:19 i thank and blame the same people
u anyways piss urself and drink it from another source something like that i guess 😂
Remember all thy shared feet resting upon. N.E.W.S.
Elvis isn't even in the bulding!
Disinformation: What is thy Aims? Lord puppets, pawns, nor tumbleweeds being used as a "THING" showered by riches from these principalities who deceiveth exalted themselves above in high places unseen nor seen! In front of Thee! Is like....
One of the reasons that Christ sacrifice is necessary is to encourage morality as a matter of public justice. If lawlessness and immorality are winked upon and dismissed, then it is encouraged. For example look at what lenient laws on shoplifting has resulted in in leftist states. Laws against death that have no consequences behind them, are mear suggestions. Such laws are a joke. They imply that theft is no big deal. Taking what your neighbor worked for, and by proxy in some sense enslaving them, is no big deal.
However, legitimate laws protect good things by threatening punishment against the things that threatened the good things. Likewise, Gods laws protect his creation and their rights, by threatening and executing punishment on those who violate them.
If God is also merciful, how then can he avoid encouraging crime and still show leniency at the same time? The answer is by providing a public sacrifice to justify the leniency / pardon / forgiveness. The sacrifice of Christ confirms an upholds that God's law is good and just while at the same time allowing God to show mercy without the effect of encouraging immorality. You cannot reasonably look at the sacrifice that God how to make for sin and come away thinking that God's law is not good or should not be taken seriously.
What did you replace Apartheid with?
Generally, the right replacement is “equality”.
👍🏾
Atapostate
2:12:46 one could just propose the argument from stuff that God doesn't like then. Does God not like murder? If He is omnipotent and doesnt like murder, why does He allow it? We still have the problem David!
The solution is actually easy: because God gave his creation (particularly humans) free will. It goes against that principle to then offer a meaningless choice - if we were not allowed to go against God's wishes, then the obedience and love He wants from us would be meaningless because we literally would not have a choice. We actually have no problem.
@@ClariceleBell why would anyone freely choose to murder people?
@@Greyz174because to kill somebody proves power. Some people are driven by power and notoriety. Some people even sell out their family and friends to gain or maintain power. Look up information about serial killers: most talk about their crimes to gain fame.
I love my kids so much that I don't ever want them to be hurt or indeed for them to hurt anybody else ... so I locked them in their bedrooms ... God is indeed omnipotent ... He just doesn't want to be a prison warden ...
I see the Christians have answered you above so heres a problem for you, why is murder bad from an athiest perspective?
D Wood, why are you so aggressive to people who do not believe? Most atheists/agnostics could not care less what you choose to believe, you believe in a "God"? Okay, whatever!
Lolz
Jesus loves you bro
@@RichardClock1
Where is he ?!
@@RichardClock1
He's dead!
@@You.are.boring.me.now2024 I've yet to see any atheist posit a remotely plausible theory that accounts for the actions of Jesus's close disciples after His death and the rise of the early Christian church as a result:
how they were transformed from men who cowardly hid in locked rooms, into men willing to die rather than recant what they claimed to had *seen*.
Not just what they believed - plenty of people die for what they believe in - but these men died for what they claimed to be eyewitnesses of.
Liars make poor martyrs. Perhaps you can find one crazy man who will die for a lie he made up, but conspiracies unravel quickly if you pressure individuals in a group, and larger groups make for more pressure points.
Yet, they never 'broke' - despite being separated, all claimed to have seen the same thing..
---
Or, short version:
Jesus *was dead.