This reminds me of the time in college when a professor wrote "There is no absolute truth." on the chalkboard and underlined it. Then a freshman raised his hand and asked, "Is that absolutely true?" Watching half the class short circuit was better than any Hollywood ending.
I remember doing the same thing when I took critical theory in college. It was amusing for a second and then sobering. What am I doing here? I’m going into debt to be told by people what they’re teaching me isn’t true? I then became despondent and partied a lot.
@@stevendouglas3781 The deconstruction of one’s purpose as a result of engaging with postmodernist philosophical nonsense is ITS very purpose. Convince all of humanity into embracing a solipsistic, nihilistic and hedonistic ideology.
I'm still surprised that people can have such horrible mics with how cheap good mics have become. You'd have to be on like a $3 mic to sound like this guy, when a $15 mic will generally give you a clear voice. Everybody's phone for the last 10 years sounds better than this...
He was just tying to get extra oxygen to his brain 😭 You can tell he has some humility and genuine curiosity, or at least those qualities hold station above his desire to defend his current position.
@@JackClare well you are submitting to God's will, either that or you are submitting to sin... why do you have to tell something in a way that's "appealing", whatever that means?
They always say "yes I understand" and sometimes they even repeat your argument back to you. Then 3 seconds later they go right back to the strawman. I'm finding in these arguments all I do is define, restate, rephrase, and reframe my argument, but they never actually critique the argument. All we argue about is definitions of words and how what I'm saying is actually what I'm saying it is and not their strawman. We get to the point where they're arguing against dictionary definitions of words to avoid understanding. I actually talked to a guy, who seemed smart because he asked me to frame my argument in the form of a syllogism, but then every counter-argument he made was arguing against a strawman of my argument that uses the wrong definition of a homonym. I corrected him 6 times, explaining that I meant a different definition of the word (i.e. the only definition that would be coherent in the sentence). I copy and pasted dictionary definitions 1 and 2 side by side, and he said "I don't see how those definitions are different." literally 2 different definitions, as laid out clearly in the dictionary, each with it's own number. All they have is being obtuse.
They’re purposefully obtuse it’s the basis of their worldview. They think they’re questioning presups but really making self refuting and inconsistent arguments. Just a bunch of thinly veiled sophistry disguised as intellectual curiosity
Jiub could you make a video on how Jesus was conceived? Inwas in a debate and someone argued that if he there was no male in the S3xu@l process how was he born a human?
There was no s3xu@l process, Mary was a virgin. She was chosen to give birth to the son of God. In this way Jesus is both fully God and fully man. The divergence in your debate arises from differing worldviews. The atheist has limited what he believes is possible to what has been empirically observed. He doesn't believe in miracles. Of course, the narratives of evolution and the origins of time, space, and matter are also definitionally miraculous, not to mention the fact that the scientific method alone cannot justify itself.
@@showmeanedge Thanks for responding. The argument is like this - God came as a son of God to the world. How without any S3XU@L process he was born as a man? Wouldnt the normal process require a man and a woman required to have a child? How is this Scientefic? And why choose a woman? Why not just be born? Why require a woman? I been stumped by this argument.
@@unknowninfinium4353 Cause of one reason. If God wants to redeem all humankind, that he should be born from woman, cause every human being does. Virgin birth must be the case for Messiah, 1st cause that was prophesied, 2nd virgin birth simbolized purity (it refers to Genesis 3:15). Read about doctrine of Recapitulation to have better understanding of our position.
@@brzozkatv9229 Thanks. Thank you for pointing out where to read more. Is there some sort of videos or so that explain this? Thank you for your response.
I challenge any Christian to demonstrate my position of atheism - to suspend any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented - is not a rationally justified one.
What's a credible evidence for you? Whats ur epistemic critea for making claim like that? How do you know that your specific demands are objectively right?
@@brzozkatv9229 I will begin by defining what I consider to be 'evidence' and build from there. I consider 'evidence' to be ANY presentation that substantiates the truth of a claim. I consider 'credible evidence' to be that which is verifiable for validity, accuracy, and authenticity. I consider 'sufficient credible evidence' to be that which can convince me as to the truth of a claim.
Repost enough popular Jay Dyer debates and you to can get rich (large subscriber base and be sponsored by the best dcik pill pushers). Maybe you can also host the 6th hour Al3x J0nes show.
Damn, this guy was really humble, god bless him
This reminds me of the time in college when a professor wrote "There is no absolute truth." on the chalkboard and underlined it. Then a freshman raised his hand and asked, "Is that absolutely true?" Watching half the class short circuit was better than any Hollywood ending.
I remember doing the same thing when I took critical theory in college. It was amusing for a second and then sobering. What am I doing here? I’m going into debt to be told by people what they’re teaching me isn’t true? I then became despondent and partied a lot.
@@stevendouglas3781 The deconstruction of one’s purpose as a result of engaging with postmodernist philosophical nonsense is ITS very purpose. Convince all of humanity into embracing a solipsistic, nihilistic and hedonistic ideology.
This guy sounded like he was speaking on walkie.
I'm still surprised that people can have such horrible mics with how cheap good mics have become. You'd have to be on like a $3 mic to sound like this guy, when a $15 mic will generally give you a clear voice. Everybody's phone for the last 10 years sounds better than this...
Sounds like Darth Dawkins 😦
@@dustins382 laptop mics
He was just tying to get extra oxygen to his brain 😭 You can tell he has some humility and genuine curiosity, or at least those qualities hold station above his desire to defend his current position.
Let’s hope this man will submit to God’s will.
By converting to Islam.
You mean converting to his whill
@@Loooooooooooool1na, don’t nobody care about Allah the greatest of deceivers
How is anyone going to find this appealing when you phrase it in the language of slavery?
@@JackClare well you are submitting to God's will, either that or you are submitting to sin... why do you have to tell something in a way that's "appealing", whatever that means?
Mo breaths mo thinkin’
Can you repeat that? I was busy inhaling.
😂😂😂😂😂
@@austinditullio6682🤪
Lmao
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
They always say "yes I understand" and sometimes they even repeat your argument back to you. Then 3 seconds later they go right back to the strawman. I'm finding in these arguments all I do is define, restate, rephrase, and reframe my argument, but they never actually critique the argument. All we argue about is definitions of words and how what I'm saying is actually what I'm saying it is and not their strawman. We get to the point where they're arguing against dictionary definitions of words to avoid understanding. I actually talked to a guy, who seemed smart because he asked me to frame my argument in the form of a syllogism, but then every counter-argument he made was arguing against a strawman of my argument that uses the wrong definition of a homonym. I corrected him 6 times, explaining that I meant a different definition of the word (i.e. the only definition that would be coherent in the sentence). I copy and pasted dictionary definitions 1 and 2 side by side, and he said "I don't see how those definitions are different." literally 2 different definitions, as laid out clearly in the dictionary, each with it's own number. All they have is being obtuse.
What you encountered was a midwit.
They’re purposefully obtuse it’s the basis of their worldview. They think they’re questioning presups but really making self refuting and inconsistent arguments. Just a bunch of thinly veiled sophistry disguised as intellectual curiosity
“Breathy atheist”😂
They tried to go against God and God took away their sense of reality even lol.
You know it's gonna be a rough one when Jay starts rubbing his eyes
Thanks Jiub
Jiub could you make a video on how Jesus was conceived?
Inwas in a debate and someone argued that if he there was no male in the S3xu@l process how was he born a human?
There was no s3xu@l process, Mary was a virgin. She was chosen to give birth to the son of God. In this way Jesus is both fully God and fully man. The divergence in your debate arises from differing worldviews. The atheist has limited what he believes is possible to what has been empirically observed. He doesn't believe in miracles. Of course, the narratives of evolution and the origins of time, space, and matter are also definitionally miraculous, not to mention the fact that the scientific method alone cannot justify itself.
??? God created man to begin with. Why are they trying to smuggle in an arbitrary limitation?
@@showmeanedge Thanks for responding.
The argument is like this - God came as a son of God to the world. How without any S3XU@L process he was born as a man? Wouldnt the normal process require a man and a woman required to have a child? How is this Scientefic?
And why choose a woman? Why not just be born? Why require a woman?
I been stumped by this argument.
@@unknowninfinium4353 Cause of one reason. If God wants to redeem all humankind, that he should be born from woman, cause every human being does. Virgin birth must be the case for Messiah, 1st cause that was prophesied, 2nd virgin birth simbolized purity (it refers to Genesis 3:15). Read about doctrine of Recapitulation to have better understanding of our position.
@@brzozkatv9229 Thanks.
Thank you for pointing out where to read more.
Is there some sort of videos or so that explain this?
Thank you for your response.
I challenge any Christian to demonstrate my position of atheism - to suspend any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented - is not a rationally justified one.
What's a credible evidence for you? Whats ur epistemic critea for making claim like that? How do you know that your specific demands are objectively right?
@@brzozkatv9229 test
@@brzozkatv9229 I will begin by defining what I consider to be 'evidence' and build from there.
I consider 'evidence' to be ANY presentation that substantiates the truth of a claim.
I consider 'credible evidence' to be that which is verifiable for validity, accuracy, and authenticity.
I consider 'sufficient credible evidence' to be that which can convince me as to the truth of a claim.
@@Theo_Skeptomai
Just stop bro. You just said “evidence is evidence” and “it’s only evidence if I find it convincing”. That’s idiotic.
@str8904 No. I stated evidence is ANY presentation that substantiates the truth of a claim. Are you having trouble comprehending that?
Repost enough popular Jay Dyer debates and you to can get rich (large subscriber base and be sponsored by the best dcik pill pushers). Maybe you can also host the 6th hour Al3x J0nes show.
What is a “dcik pill pusher”?
Is this supposed to be an insult?
Lay off the carbs
Bro is cooking nonsense