Theists Say Stupid Things
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- Believers do say some silly things to try and convince atheists that they're wrong. From atheists not being able to prove that god exists being the reason they're atheist, to woodpeckers shock absorbers... there's a lot of stupid things said in this 'theists say stupid things'... which might make some atheists angry, apparently...
Featured videos:
How atheists think world was created - • Shorts
Atheists are stupid... Proof - • Shorts
Answering Angry Atheists - • Mar Mari Emmanuel Answ...
Science Confirms God - • Using Science To Confi...
Woodpeckers Prove God - • This bird is proof tha...
Katt Williams & Joe Rogan - • Katt Williams Explains...
Theists Say Stupid Things - • Theists Say Stupid Things
Theists Say Stupid Things playlist - • Theists Say Stupid Things
** T-Shirts Are Here - my-store-cf9db... **
Patreon - / theskeptick
Facebook - / theskeptick
Instagram - / theskeptick
Twitter - / the_skeptick
TikTok - tiktok.com/thes...
Everything in this video is just an opinion, and should be treated as such - though it is important to ask questions. Any humour or sarcasm is aimed towards the words and actions of the individuals, and not intended to be a personal attack on any individual themselves, under the act of free speech
Title - Theists Say Stupid Things
Tags - proof of god,theists say stupid things,atheist,atheists,agnostics,agnostic,agnosticism,how to prove god to an atheist,how to prove god to an atheis god real,which god is real,are atheists right,atheist response,atheist responds,are atheists wrong,atheist reacts,proof of god in science,is atheism wrong,is atheism right,is god real,are atheists stupid,is there proof of god
![ลองสั่งของจากแอพ temu ถูกจริงหรอ?? [โกงไหมครับ ep.88 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RTcZSQTiDZw/mqdefault.jpg)
"I answer their question with a question, not an answer."
Thats called deflection. A tactic used exclusively by people who don't have answers.
_"I discovered which God is really real, by asking Atheists questions."_
its crazy how the literally embrace logical fallacies, but think its okay because they "acknowledge" it by pretending its a clever tactic,
Sometimes clarifying question is in order.
"What do you mean? An African or a European swallow?"
But yeah, the one in video is a deflection.
Furthermore, his deflection is a total change of topic; when an atheist asks him why there isn't all-good, the "good" is using his definition rather than the atheist's. Whether the atheist believes good exists is _completely irrelevant._
The combination of the theistic definition of evil and the assertion that a deity, who wants to stop it, is all-powerful is the "problem of evil" - one needs not believe evil exists at all to recognize the internal inconsistency in those two theistic beliefs. His question is a complete waste of time.
@@morzemus1805You have to know these things when you're a god you know. 😅
Stephen Fry completely destroyed the benevolent god concept in a few sentences.
Checkmate, theists!
Stephen Fry...A hero to many
so much that the guy don't even answer his question, just ask another stupid questions and PRETEND anyone would answer what he want them to answer
To get around this problem, some apologists now argue that "God" is actually not omnibenevolent. It's kind of like the way that after getting boxed into a logical corner with respect to all of the needless suffering in the world, "God" was downgraded from being omnipotent to just "maximally powerful," whatever that means. Doubtless it allows for numerous loopholes and exceptions to the otherwise sometimes immutable and mostly unchanging ways of the Almighty, All-powerful to a Maximal Extent Possible God.
@@martin2289Got to love the shifting goal posts.
I LOVE Stephen Fry. Bone cancer in children? "How DARE you!" Exactly. . .
The excuses theists give for that kind of suffering are frightening.
@@mjjoe76 Always reminds me of Low Bar Bill "Kids being unalived is a blessing unto them" Lane Craig.
If you believe that’s a good argument then you have no idea about the basis of the bible, it’s literally explained in the first book.
@@Reaxperrrr God punished two people that have the morals of literal babies all because they ate a fruit that he created for some reason, and allowed a serpent (That he created) to "trick" Eve into eating the fruit and gaining knowledge on good and evil, before Eve and Adam eat that fruit, they had the moral compass of a baby, they had "free will" so it seems like God made the fruit just so he can torture his children, for eating a fruit that he made, all because a serpent that HE MADE, told them that they should eat the fruit, all the first book implies is that God is a horrible father and would be a horrible person and sorry for the long comment.
As someone who has actually done graduate studies in history, it is profoundly frustrating how many times theists try to demonstrate that the scientific method can't be used to prove historical facts (and therefore we're all happy to take history on faith, and therefore God is just as factual because faith).
There IS a historical method that ALSO hasn't successfully demonstrated a god or gods. Trying to use the scientific method to prove history is like trying to use algebra to explain literature. They're different disciplines with different methodologies.
The fact that neither of them has been able to independently verify the god claim should be pretty telling.
Young Earth/Young Mars Christians don't believe forensics is possible.
It's all dismissed as "historical science" because "you weren't there".
I would point out that you can use the scientific method to prove the veracity of historical evidence, like dating and authenticating contemporaneous records and correspondence from all over the world and all walks of life recognizing and acknowledging George Washington as the first president of the United States of America.
None of which can be done for Jesus, Abraham, Moses, Noah, Adam, Eve, etc...
the fact that George Washington was the first president. We got text from America, France, Great Britain and propobly more countries. from the time. That says he was. When it comes to the bible and the thing that should have made it in to History. Say the exidus. it´s worst then that. Not only are their no sources. the sources that exist from that time contredict the bible.
@woodsnstrings, It's like this comment I got from a Christian:
"
@JAKFLY28
3 hours ago
@samuelschick8813 So glad that your "critical thinking skills" are so superior to the millions of believers, including actual scholars, scientists, historians, and archaeologists who have concluded otherwise. And anyone who actually read the bible knows the scriptures tell us to test the truth But hey, you do you. "
Got to love how he implies because millions believe something then it has to be true. I asked for the objective/empirical evidence the " actual scholars, scientists, historians and archaeologists" used to determine the claims of Christianity, the Bible and Christians are true. I do not expect to get an answer.
Not to mention that history is irrelevant in this context. He's obviously talking about the bible, but atheists aren't asking them to prove the bible, we're asking them to prove God, who still exists in the present according to them. Therefore, scientific method. At least if he had gone the route of science not working on the supernatural, he would have been honest about what atheists are asking. But I've given up on expecting honesty out of apologists.
Instead of an Atheist attacking the bishop with a question, another theist attacked him with a knife.
I heard about that. That is not okay.
@@TheSkepTick
It IS okay.
It's all part of God's loving plan
😇🤗🩷💕.
Or so I've been told xD...
The dumbest part about him comparing the number of copies of the Bible to the Iliad or the odyssey is that no one is claiming those stories are 100% accurate to history, or trying to force legislation based on them.
I thought the dumbest part was where he thought the more a lie is told somehow makes it less of a lie.
And it is also deeply ironic as it dismisses that one of the reasons why so many works of antiquity nearly- or entirely- disappeared was precisely due to Christians. Even when not actively destroying such material, they left it to languish. On occasion, the Church would preserve some works of antiquity but there is a trend.
It’s not the only reason, of course but it cannot be dismissed either.
Far too much of the early church burning and destroying things was to prevent people from realizing that these other works are older and that the ancient Jews clearly plagiarized most of the bible. New testament too, is a retelling of Osiris, Romulus and Zalmoxus dying and rising Savior "Son of God" mythology.
That is why they destroyed it, it hit a little below the belt for their liking.
Monks were scammed into willingly copying the Bible by hand, in scriptoriums, as glory unto the Lord or some such, not as the punishment it actually was. 🤷♂️
*_Bart at the chalkboard_*
I for one demand the legalization of gay marriage worldwide, as our Lord and Savior Achilles commanded.
Theists project more than an IMAX movie theatre.
😂😂😂🎉
14:20 Did that guy just called the Iliad and the Odyssey historical? Does he believe Achilles and Poseidon and cyclopes were real?
Well, in a sense, the Iliad and the Odyssey are a mythologized retelling of the last days of the Mycenaean Greeks, during the Late Bronze Age Collapse.
@@chewxieyang4677 Not even close. Thanks for playing. Mycenae is a PLACE not a time. You are essentially trying to say Italian Germans.
Did that guy really say that we don't look at the Illiad or the Odyssey with the same scrutiny? is he aware that those are fiction?
I very much doubt he even cares.
Those other books are either histories or works of fiction. None of them make claims about the existence of an omniscient, omnipresent god. And the twenty-four thousand translations of the new testament? How are they relevant to the argument?
I was convinced.
Convinced several of those people don't listen to what other people really say. Convinced others of them don't know what they are saying.
Theists projecting is not exactly a surprise.
Woodpecker's heads move at "twice the speed of a bullet," eh?
Who knew bullets travel at seven and a half mph!
Tony Reed did an excellent rebuttal of the woodpecker argument in Episode 90 of his series 'How Creationism Taught Me Real Science." (Don't let the title fool you. The series takes the claims of creationists, then demolishes them. If you haven't watched it, I highly recommend the whole series.)
And what bullet? A railgun bullet travels a lot faster than a .22 round. Also, I have several boxes of bullets that aren't moving at all (relative to the Earth), so where does that leave us? With him being stupid.
Comparing the Bible to the Iliad and Odyssey is the best self own! 😂
Wrynecks are basal (primitive) woodpeckers that don't, in fact, have all those fancy features that woodpeckers supposedly can't live without. As a result, they can only peck very soft, decaying wood. Almost like the advanced woodpecker features evolved slowly by small increments over time or something. Nah, couldn't be. I love how creationists love to take the most extreme versions of any group and pretend all the less extreme versions cannot exist, despite very often existing. Bombardier beetles couldn't possibly evolve from simpler forms, IGNORE ALL THE SIMPLER FORMS THAT DARE EXIST IN DEFIANCE!
I like to use the car example. If you put a Ford Focus next to a Model T Ford, it seems rather silly that the Focus came from the Model T.
"Oh but that's clearly design!" they shout.
"So designed things can evolve then?" I reply
Suddenly they run around in circles trying to tell me how Evolution is wrong or how it can't work on natural organisms or something. Or they go "Well you don't know the origin!" as if I'm supposed to give a crap about the very start.
@@stylesrj Exactly. How things started has no bearing on how they came to be as they are now.
Wait, so Abraham Lincoln is not real because no one living met him. But God is totes real, despite the fact no one living met him in person.
Now that's n example of double standards.
14:38 false representation. The number of “texts” includes pieces of writing that have just a couple letters or words on them, NOT whole manuscripts.
1 of the videos did have something convincing to say. It was the one with Stephen Fry.
You commented my exact thoughts the moment Skeptick posed the question, lol. Stay Based dood!
Odyssey by Homer is a work of fiction though.... he's literally falling into the trap of calling his own book fiction
Well it is, so....... makes total sense.
Yeah, all of us agree that the Illiad and Odyssey are fictional, that is why we don't scrutinize them as much as a moldy tome of nonsensical ramblings by Bronze-aged primitives that was then plagiarized by ancient Hebrews, that people try to form legislation around.
@@kerianhalcon3557, I like to trigger the Christians by saying the Bible is a book of fiction. After all the Bible has zombies, talking animals, wizards, magic, gods, demons, giants, invisible people just like books of fiction and make believe.
The claim that biblical claims need to be analyzed with historical methods, doesn't buy him as much as he thinks.
The historical method will reject all the supernatural claims. And the resulting conclusions are probabilistic, depending on the quality of evidence provided for the events.
his own graphic debunks him, if other history had so little documents and the fucking bible had 23k or something, that would outright dismissible as a very suspicious number of copies
also, harry potter sold millions of books, if you can just one language, they are all 100% identical, the translations may not be perfect, but all copies came from on translations, so within a language everything should be the same, so therefore harry potter is real?
It also relies on information from different sources. Something, other than for some known historical events, is not seen for the Bible.
In answer to the Tea Cosy hat guy, Morals existed long before christianity.
Impossible! God created everything, except bad things- that’s the Devil, who God created, but not to be bad, but God couldn’t stop him from being bad, even though he knows everything, so the Devil must’ve tricked God- who can’t be tricked. But the bad stuff has to happen, or we wouldn’t notice good stuff, so the Devil is necessary, except we are to treat him like the bad guy, even though we couldn’t experience good without his bad.
You know what, this can be summed up simply by “Free Will” 🤷
and clearly exists DESPIT christianity
Preexisting morals are the standards, which theists try to shoehorn their vile god into.
@@Dr_Wrong indeed.
Just ask American First Nation people, before those soo pious white people came with their storybook.
Having a wizard tell me I'm crazy is a little weird.
Now now, if Gandalf should speak to me, . . . .
So, it's safe to say that you don't think that ridiculous costume makes him more credible...I agree! Now, maybe if he threw a few fireballs from his fingertips, instead of dressing like a clown... LOL!
He reminds me more of Al-Mualim from first Assassin's Creed. Which is fitting considering it's in Syria xD
@@RTherenAnd he's selling a lie, whether or not he knows it.
4:25 That is a long way to go to assert presuppositionalism. Moral laws are derived from human experience, not mandated from outside.
yeah, to have a moral law we need a moral law giver, if every group of people have different sets of morals how many moral givers there are?
The "moral law giver" who tells us to sacrifice our children (it's in the second set of 10 commandments), to enslave neighboring countries, and promotes genocide? How is any of that "moral" unless you slap a negative in there?
@@naruarthur That's called laws and societies. People who agregate together and share the same opinions on most things, especially the most fundamental thing, tend to decide that this should be the norm, and so, decide to eventually enforce it, either by social pressure, or by law. That's how civilizations work. We don't need a "moral giver", morals are the result of general consensus, nothing more, nothing else.
I always say that the Abrahamic religions don't have a Problem of Evil, since Yahweh is pretty consistently portrayed as a narcissistic psychopath who gets off on pointless sadism and just lies about being omni-anything while *actually* being depicted as being limited in location, knowledge, power, and especially benevolence.
Yeah, the problem isn't that they think evil exists; the problem is that they think Yahweh _is_ love.
If they just embraced that they worship a malevolent entity because they believe might makes right, then I would respect their intellectual honesty, even while rejecting their claim that the entity exists.
The God that was angered by David and Bathsheba, so slowly killed their son as punishment. The doesn't sound like an act of love.
@@CookiesRiot
Yes, they'll describe their god as the original comment mentioned, while also claiming this god is the idea of good and love. They'll explain their god as technically a power hungry dictator, while also claiming we're supposed to do and follow everything they perceive it says because that's what they claim love is.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure in the OT god says he made good and evil. Like there, that's the answer, but Christians and I guess modern abrahamics in general try to twist god into an "all loving god" which is where the mess happens
The Bible was written by different people in different time periods in different languages and we're required to believe it is totally reliant? NEXT!
The "number of manuscripts" argument as "evidence" for the truth of the Bible is such a stupid argument...
By that standard, a Spiderman comic book with ten thousand copies would be twice as much truth as the Bible.
It’s even worse than it seems as one of the reasons why so few works of Antiquity reached us is precisely because Christians got rid of them.
It’s like I nearly destroyed all of your books then went “see how many more books I have?!” and expect you to be impressed.
"a Spiderman comic book with ten thousand copies would be twice as much truth as the Bible"
It is though.
@@Griexxt 😆
I can't believe I have to say this... paper and ink were more expensive in the past. Copying the Bible was a SIGNIFICANT expense. They didn't pull monks off of scrubbing the floors to copy the Bible. And if one got something wrong? They'd burn that page and copy it again, and probably give the monk who made the error a punishment. The Bible not having many scribal errors isn't a miracle. It's the predictable result of an efficient, carefully monitored system.
Wasn't there a rather famous Bible where a scribe got something wrong and his error was pointed out in the margins by someone else and they left it in there?
In the middle ages there was no paper. In Europe they mostly used so called vellum. Vellum was calf skin that was treated in a very complex process to become very thin and almost white. Ridiculously expensive obviously.
"A woodpecker's head moves twice as fast as a bullet".
According to the sources I checked, a woodpecker's head moves at 6-7 metres per second, whereas the ball from a black powder musket (which is the slowest thing I could find that could still qualify as a bullet) moved at about 120 metres per second at the point it left the barrel. A typical modern handgun manages 200-500 m/s
For the record, the speed of sound at sea level is 343 metres per second. That means that for their head to be moving twice the speed of a modern bullet, a woodpecker's head would have to break the sound barrier with every peck. Everything within about half a mile of a woodpecker would know it when their ears were assaulted by a succession of sonic booms. Even if you accepted the lower estimates for musket balls as the speed of a bullet, it would still be approaching the speed of sound.
That's what made me instantly suspicious of the claim, and that's what made me look it up and discover the numbers above. Piece of advice for people making fantastic claims that they think disprove some aspect of science, don't include numbers or other factual statements that can be falsified without actually checking them against reality. Someone else will do that checking for you and if you've made them up it will become apparent very quickly.
What about sling bullets? How fast do they move?
Remember, they use a Bronze Age/Iron Age book so technically they could be going with the weapons used of the era to justify their claim :D
@@stylesrj Still a hell of a lot faster.
Given the evidence presented, I'm finding it hard to refute the claim that theists say stupid things.
Most were frustratingly painful with how the dodge the questions without answering them, but the manuscript copy one just pisses me off. Functionally no one is claiming that the errors in the bible are copy errors, they're talking about how wrong it is when compared with reality, or that it's not even internally consistent due to all the contradictions.
Him bringing up the telephone game further proved how badly he didn't understand the criticism because that is about the changes in the stories as told by people BEFORE they were written down, that even if they were describing real events that happened each story went through decades of retellings before they were finally recorded which leaves so much room for changes that there is no chance at all of the story being remotely accurate.
I grew out of my angry atheist phase a long time ago but these evil morons are resurrecting that part of me into the angry old man form. At least this time I'm angry at specific apologists due to how blatantly evil they are, or criminally ignorant, and not at the general religious people who are mostly innocent victims.
16:35 this is just a barefaced lie
How does a `good` god exist independent and alone, without the existence of evil? How does such an entity exist with free will, if it is incapable of making decisions that are not evil? Yet, somehow it had to create evil for humans to recognize good? Not to mention, none of that explains human suffering beyond our control. This concept of a god sets up a world where we have to feed on the carcasses of other life just to exist. This was necessary to understand good? I'm fine with the understanding that `good` and `evil` are human constructs that only make sense within human experience. At least then I can use reason to extend meaning to it.
well said 👍
Mysterious ways that are outside of time and space and part of a plan that cannot be comprehended, even by the greatest minds, so don’t try to understand a god with such a big and perfect brain. Even though everything appears to work without a god, and everything appears as though there has been no god, there really IS a god, and he is super smart, and good, and really needs to know who you fancy.
And they ignore so much of their other ideas to speak on one idea, leaving out the nuances of their entire belief system. They constantly claim we'll never really know what's on god's mind, and god is good and loving in it's existence, and god created objective morals. And if we could never really know god's thoughts and ideas, how do they actually know what's truly good or evil or moral?
"We can't prove George Washington lived using the scientific method! (paraphrased)"
-Hmm, so let me ask, is the fact that if he lived and is now dead, that hampers your testing?
"Yes"
-So, can you use the scientific method to prove Beyonce is real?
"She's alive now, so of course!"
-So, is Jesus alive now? Or God?
"Yes!"
-So you can easily prove them with the scientific method?
"... "
The flaw in the argument of the fellow starting at 4:21 is that, just because there is a moral law, there does not have to be a giver of that law.
it does, he just don't accept we make those, that is why so many people have different morals
@@naruarthur
Even people within the same society can disagree on certain moral issues. For instance, is eating meat moral or immoral? The jury is still out on that one.
@@autonomouscollective2599 yeah. clearly moral is not some uniform thing
The Buddha who was a man not divine made his moral laws and they have been far more peaceful than Christianity ever has.
Nah, the flaw in the argument is much more basic than that.
His fictional atheist's argument, if you write it concisely is "Given a god that is all powerful and all loving, why is there so much evil?" The existence of the god is a given in the hypothetical. So this guy spends a good 4 minutes of blather to make the listener forget the actual question only for him to circle back to the initial premise, while leaving the question unanswered.
This is also not his argument, he stole it from Ravi Zacharias. Zacharias was still wrong, but knew enough to not have his straw atheist give away the game so blatantly.
An All loving All powerful god.
If he can't convince me, then he's not All powerful.
If he doesn't want to convince me, then he's not All loving.
We do use science within the umbrella term of determining history. It’s just the term history means different things in different context. It’s not just one thing. It’s dating things using radiometric. It’s finding bones in situ. It’s doing textual analysis. It’s a bunch of disciplines coming together to try and figure out what happened before.
I don’t understand the argument that says “you CANT(we can of course) prove George Washington was the first president, therefore you CAN prove jesus existed.” What??????
And came back from the dead…
Just repeating stuff they heard the "big" apologists or their preachers say, is my guess.
Oh I get the "You believe the Roman Empire exists but not Jesus?" spiel.
I then ask them about Abraham Lincoln hunting vampires.
To the guy with the fancy cap and the fidget stick: humans make moral laws, not your fantasy friend...
Yea and it is funny that he made that long line of reasoning "Evil because good because moral laws because moral law giver and that is God!" Does he really think that atheists will accept every part of such argument?
He would have much better chance with the shorter two-part line "Physical laws because physical law giver and that is God!" and even that is very unconvincing.
How did the fantasy friend make the "moral law" available? Oh yes, through humans. What a surprise.
@@imac1957 Theists seem largely oblivious to the problem that there is no way to definitively tell whether the holy word was made up by humans, inspired truth from the deity they worship, or an intentional deception planted by a malevolent entity made specifically to look like the inspired truth of their deity.
The entire Bible could've been spoken to the prophets by the devil, and it would be impossible for them to know the difference.
Also couldn't anybody just point out to him that its about whether the Christians views are consistent. Its not about the questioners definitions of good and evil. Its about the general Christian view of what's good and evil.
@@CookiesRiot I say this all the time. It's bizarre to me that they aren't more concerned about epistemology when they themselves are often obsessed with the possibility that an evil entity is constantly trying to deceive them. It's like paying a snake oil salesman for a salve to ward away snake oil salesmen.
I love watching that poor bastard listening to Steven Fry try to keep his brain from melting down.
Old theist arguments rehashed:
Objective morality 'exists', therefore god.
Bibles have been copied and translated with a high degree of similarity, therefore god.
An organism has a feature that is 'un-evolvable', therefore god.
Some chemicals cause a certain response in humans, therefore god.
The last one was a new twist on 'personal incredulity' for me but fits that old saw-horse perfectly.
They were interesting the first time I heard them, but after hundreds of repetitions, they are now just annoying.
That well-educated theists keep repeating them without addressing the fact they have been refuted is, at this point in time, deliberately duplicitous.
Except objective morality doesn't exist. Plus, try getting a Christian to give you an example from the Bible.
The old dude in black, ever time I see him talking I think did this guy wake up and think how can I say the dumbest, most idiotic thing today? Oh this shit will do.
I wonder if something has ever dawned on him when he looks in a mirror. That being he looks like he just walked out of a Harry Potter book in that outfit.
17:25....the slowest bullet goes 335m/s. A woodpeckers peck is 6-7 m/s.
What? A theist bearing false witness?
He may have meant bullets that are still in the ammunition box.
@@InigoMontoya- Hahahaha. And throw the entire box?
The reason why theists gets angry when meeting an atheist, is not that the atheist doesn't believe in God, but that the atheist doesn't believe in what the theist say. It's personal. Hence; anger.
Woodpecker bloke got it wrong, their head isn't as fast as a bullet, the rate at which they peck is the same as a machine gun, it's pretty different. The maximum speed at which the woodpecker's head moves is 7 metres per second which is only 25.2km/h or 15.66mph
Even that's a rather vague analogy. The chug-a-chug-a-chug of a Bren gun or the BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT of a MAC10?
@@AnthonyHandcock It's closer to the Mac 10.
@@protoborg I'll take your word for that. I don't think I've ever heard a woodpecker so most of my knowledge comes from watching The Woody Woodpecker Show.
The double standard of theists is mind blowing
I don't care about arguments of morality from either side. I didn't stop believing in God because of good argument on morality. As a Christian I'd just dismissively answer that morality comes from God.
I stopped believing because the literal interpretation of all known versions and translations of the books of Genesis and Exodus have been effectively debunked by vast evidence consistent in every field of science, including Geology, Astronomy, Biology, Paleontology, Geography, Archaeology, Zoology, Virology, Linguistics, etc.
What I only care about is whether something is true or not and like any good judge, I weighed up the evidence from both sides and as traumatic as it was to accept, it wasn't difficult to see the truth that Genesis and Exodus never happened. So I just don't care for these circular arguments on morality.
Bit of nomenclature for those who may not be familiar with it: Paracetamol is known as Acetaminophen in the US.
They are simply 'parrots' in our household!
@@thedubwhisperer2157 - 😁
"Take two parrots and call me in the morning."
"Are you sure, Doc? Last time you prescribed that I got into a _lot_ of trouble in the pet shop."
"Excuse me?"
"And those parrots put up such a _squawk!"_
Missing from the Sermon on the Mound: "Blessed are the Oompa Loompas. You'll get that one in about 1,941 years."
Darkness is a lack of light, its the default state. You'd know what darkness is even without ever experiencing light. Its like saying a fish can't know what water is without experiencing air. Of course a fish knows what water is, its all around it. Same with night, its the default state. Day is the time on our planet when the sun is visable in the sky. He got his metaphor backwards.
No he just got it wrong. If he got it backwards, you would be essentially arguing that you cannot know day without night. That is also untrue. Darkness is not the default state as darkness is the absence of light, as you correctly asserted. Darkness is not a thing in-and-of itself. If it was always dark, you would simply not have a word for it. Likewise, if it was always light, you would not have a word for it. So the better argument is that there would not be a word for good and evil if they did not both exist as words do not exist for things which are the only state that exists. There is no word for what is outside of reality as there is nothing outside of reality.
@protoborg Of course darkness is the default state. You require a light source in order to have light. If you don't have a light source, then you have darkness. This makes darkness the default, or starting state of any system. The absence of light is the normal state of reality. And we'd still probably have a word for darkness if it was always light. We have words for the opposite of gravity (anti-gravity) which no one has actually experienced and words for things like souls that we only imagine exist. People are pretty creative and curious. We try to imagine what we have no experience with all the time. And sometimes science can even go out and prove that these impossible ideas actually exist.
What's Mamon? (ie. what Skeptick misheard as 'man'?)
Money
God is an immoral law giver..
Sorry fellas I still don't think that a ultrawizard made anything.
Yup no proof of any god
14:35 really weird that this dude’s bringing up the historicity of documents based on their number of samples, but includes OEDIPUS REX, and the WORKS OF SOPHOCLES.
Like, really now. We’re including known plays and fictional stories as comparisons to real events? What’s next, we can be extra sure Richard III was an English king because of all the copies of Shakespeare’s plays describing him?
13:42 The number of manuscripts is a terrible “argument”. Not only is it irrelevant, as it actually works against the Christian as one of the reason why so few copies from Antiquity are still extant is because Christians got rid of them. Even when not overtly, the Church would neglect such works in favor of the bible.
It’s as if I burn most of your books, then go, “aha, look at all the books I have! This makes me right.”
You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. NEXT!!!!!
Well at least that was an interesting cast of characters spouting theist nonsense.
Belief is inherently dishonest
0:40 congratulations on your stupid mistake 😂
I appreciate your integrity to admit having made it!
It's not fair that people hold my beliefs and the bible to higher scrutiny. Don't people realize that my beliefs should just be accepted and never questioned?
The maker of that first video needs a cease-and-desist letter from Hanna-Barbera (or I guess Warner Brothers).
The flintstones are rolling!
4:36 Haven't I seen this wizard in Skyrim or something?
THAT’S where he’s from!
No atheist, OR theist is required to assume that good or evil exist to ask the question of why an all-powerful, all-good god allows evil.
They simply need to understand that there’s a MASSIVE inconsistency with believing in an all-powerful being choosing to bring about things that it cannot choose to bring about… things it condemns for existing… things that would never exist if not for its own actions. Just like we understand that there’s a massive inconsistency with believing someone who breaks their legs in a skateboarding fail video and says “I meant to do that.”
I mean.. “How do you know if it’s good or evil?” Because your own fucking scripture says that your all-good god is responsible for the existence of evil.
BTW, WOW! A woodpecker striking a tree one time can kill any living thing! Except. maybe… THE FRIGGIN’ TREE?!?!?!
Seth Andrews rightly said 'Christianity made me talk like an idiot'.
What kind of cringe befelled me in that second video...
There aren't "moral laws", there moral decisions. Laws are not required, all we need are guideposts. We subjectively select moral goals and then objectively evaluate moral situations against the subjective goals.
"95-99% accuracy" source?
Anything?
Even if the claim is true, it only means the manuscripts are accurate to each other. No one knows how accurate they are to the original manuscripts because those are lost.
All hail Lisa the Rainbow Giraffe leaf be upon hera
Moorhen
Moral laws are largely determined by the society you lived in.
A woodpecker's head moves at twice the speed of a bullet? No... Just no. Not even close.
I call bullshit on the "woodpeckers hit trees faster than a bullet" factoid.
Yeah funny because they think they're s wizard twinkle it's 👃Bewitched style and spoken incantation spell and everything poofed into existence😂😂😂
"I answer the question with a question" - one might almost think that is because you have no answer....
Don't get into a sword fight didn't age well.
😬
Lol Yeah , legal evidence is scientific evidence . Considering to that forensics is a branch of science .
So the "Perfect Word of God" is 95-98%. . .
I see😂
I photocopied *_24,000_* 'God ain't real' I win!!
Nah, you've got handwrite it so they're manuscripts.
Harry Potter 500 million copies , start praying to the boy wizard.
the thing that always gets me is the fact that there is no universal moral law... which flies in the face of there argument of this supreme moral law. Just because culture has created moral law why are we then assuming this was given to us no not created by us. we don't assume swords where given to us, or the wheel or fire and yet we don't know how first created it and yet know we created, yet moral law we can trace back to cultures and to specific cultures influence over others. why can we see an evolution of moral law if it is universal surely we wouldn't see a change in moral law if it was given by god... I have never understood why this question gets people...
There are moral law givers, but the law giver is the collective belief of society at any given time.
So moral law is subjectictive, and changes over time.
It never ceases to amaze me all the mental gymnastics that religiouses practice. All the circular logic and "nuh uh"-isms.
Why does the guy talk about the accuracy of the manuscripts then say secondly and talk about the accuracy of the manuscripts? I need to stop posting on this video or I'll be posting till next week.
I need a shock absorber from the shock of what silly theists say
You could have a whiskey, or two.
@@MrCanis4 MMMmmm good idea! But, unfortunately I'm having a bourbon instead
He’s wearing a funny hat so he must be right.
He stole this idea from Catholic priests in Europe, I guess.
@@MrCanis4 No, his religion is just as old as and ridiculous as Roman Catholicism. They came up with their own silly headwear.
😂
Loving the guy in the religious anorak, twice asserting he's being "attacked" by questions. Within a minute he's attacking every atheist with a threat of damnation.
No hate like christian love.
If more people demanded you worship Poseidon, I’m sure we would pick apart the Odyssey just as much. But since no one says it’s real, we can just enjoy it as a fairly interesting story.
Bible copies: Reproducing the bible multiple times makes the bible more reliable? Well, that means that a typographical error in the C17th wherein the following was published: "Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not covet. Thou shalt commit adultery" is canon.
This version of the good book is known as the; "Sinners' Bible", "Wicked Bible" and "Adulterers' Bible".
Had to read your comment THREE times before I spotted the error. Think about that for a minute. ;)
@@protoborg Most people do not notice it first time around. Fair play you.
Theist Projection at its finest
Manuscripts... we apply extra scrutiny to the bible because people aren't creating legislation based on The Odyssey or some other greek text. Legislation is being made with the bible as a basis for it, and that legislation harms people.
The bible influenced entire nations, so the scrutiny is fairly justified.
One no one think Iliad is an accurate description of the Trojan wars, two the facts that monks had a vested interest of preserving and making copies of the Bible prove nothing. Also no, there’s difference between the early manuscripts and the present bible, whole stories were added like Mark long ending and the story of the Adulterous woman are later additions
no better argument against religion than religious people trying to defend religion
yes, i already made this same comment in another video, it is still true
Thanks for all of your wisdom and humor. I honestly can’t get enough. Can’t say the same about theists, but the stupid things they say? I love hearing that stuff!
You're in this week!
Pastors like these sure say alot of words without saying anything of value, and I have little tolerance for it. They blaber on to distract from the fact that the believe in object nonsense then crown themselves wisemen. 🙄
Say the manuscripts were 100% accurate with each other. How does that prove that there exists a multi-omni god who created everything, cares for and interacts with his human creations yet isn't detectable, created a heaven and hell and humans go to one of them, is somehow himself, his son, and a ghost at the same time, decides to performs miracles randomly, cursed humans to be born with sin because two people ate some fruit, felt bad for that curse he put on humans, got a virgin magically pregnant so he could exist on earth solely as his son which means that somehow at that time he wasn't the himself/his son/ghost being, sacrificed himself to himself so he could allow himself to forgive humans for the curse he himself made because of rules he himself is in charge of making, and caused him/his son/the ghost (wait it's still just the son) to be resurrected later that weekend?
Bishop Warlock🧙♂️😂
I thought morality was a human concept based on being able to recognise causing pain/suffering without need (like removing infections and relocating a dislocated bone), is not a nice thing to do.
Oh, noo, it's evil Santa
If you remove the T from Santa you get NASA.
@@Thirdbase9 I thought it was SANA
I've heard him called modern Merlin too.
@@evilbob840 he's not magic :(
@@MemeLordCrusader fwiw, neither was Merlin
The One Piece is REEEAAAAALLL!
Gimme some Devil Fruit!
Why is it so hard to comprehend that two or more species can evolve in tandem with each other?
The second theists stop using fallacious BS arguments is the second I'll happily take them more seriously. Other than that, lovely video as always from the most rational floating circle out there :P
Thank you!! You're in this week!
@@TheSkepTick keep up the lovely logic and reason based content my guy :P
I want to see the citations to the smug guy's claim 95 to 99 % accuracy amongst manuscripts at 16:20 Then I want to see Bart Ehrman's response to that claim.
11:52 prophet of zod went through this guys nonsense 13:40 more brodie talking points disproved by prophet of zod
Forensic science includes analysis of records, like contemporaneous correspondence from all over the world recognizing George Washington as the first president of the United States of America, and George Washington's authenticated writings attesting to the same.