Things have been pretty stable lately, BUT THATS NO FUN IS IT!! I want to grow into an amorphous mass and smother the entirety of UA-cam, so please, like, share, comment, subscribe, click the bell icon and everything else that you can to get the word of sir sic out there CHEERS!
Christianity debunked in one comment: Hosea 13:4, Hosea 13:7-8, Revelation 13:1-8, Isaiah 1, Isaiah 66. "Who has demanded this of you," asks the real God. "Christ became the curse." Everyone is judged by works, but since Jesus is the beast, all the Christians must fall away or go to the lake of fire.
Why is there a effing German flag at 9:48 with the remark of "prosperity because of protestant christianity"??? What does our little F want to tell us here, Sir Sic? That Germany (see Martin Luther) is the origin of the evangelical protestants and he thinks that little bloody Thirty Years' War and the European peasant revolts are a sign of "PROSPERITY"??? No, they aren't! They are a sign of religious fundamentalists (the one worse than the others ... and Luther in front of them) are mowing each other down. Can't he read or is history a joke for this nut ... or Sir, is he drunk? BTW.: Cheers!:) Hehehehe and thx for the video!
15:26 - - "Why did God let evil exist at all? So he could be glorified in defeating it." That's like a fireman starting fires so he get the credit for putting it out, no matter how many people were injured in the blaze.
Also how much glory is there in an all powerful being defeating a puny foe? Plus presumably humans are glorifying it, but aren't all humans (past, present and future) living in a world where God hasn't yet defeated evil, so therefore it will defeat evil after all humans cease to exist, so it seems it is not humans that will be glorifying it but only itself.
And also - back 1000-5000 years ago, 'priests' were essentially like scientists/engineers/doctors today... They were the ones that were trying to figure out how the world works and trying to understand/influence reality. Their answers were their best guesses before the scientific method; ludicrously wrong and even wrong-headed, but they were answers, nonetheless. "Can science learn anything from religion? No, of course not. Because science is right and religion is wrong. Science demands adherence to truth, evidence and logic; while religion is merely escapism into fantasy-land. And I say that as someone who, a thousand years ago, very likely might’ve been a theologian. Because, back then, that was the only way to address big questions of meaning and how the universe worked. But in the past 500 years since the scientific revolution we’ve learned a lot about nature, philosophy, how the universe works, and how to find out how the universe works." -Sean Carroll (21st century physicist)
Flaming idiots in the past were also religious. However, the flaming idiots of today, unlike today's scientists, are still religious. Self-own, honestly.
I also love that when he was talking about it, he showed round Earth and how God surrounds it, when religious boys burned Giordano Bruno alive for trying to prove Earth is round and not a center of the universe.
Indeed. And no church invented science. It's just that some persons did and do science *in spite of* all the religious things going on around and possibly inside themselves.
@@uNiels_Heart Well, religion and science are compatible, provided your religion is true. The Church believed God was hiding in the heart of the Universe's greatest mysteries, and for a long time they supported the goal of unraveling those mysteries to truly understand God and his creation. The problem is that we kept unraveling them and not finding God inside, and so the fundamentalist nutjobs have decided that rather than keep solving mysteries and hoping God finally shows up, it's safer to just make the world more mysterious by spreading as much ignorance as possible.
Erm... No... Not really. Gallileo was imprisoned not only for contradicting church doctrine (with the geocentric model of the universe) but also for pretty much mocking the pope. Not that I argue for that guy - but there's way better people and arguments to be made in this regard.
@@robertnett9793 (and its geocentric model of the universe)... because what you wrote says Galileo came up with the geocentric model rather than heliocentric which is weird. I thought my point was fine: exact opposite ... and exact opposite. Church hated science and this scientist hated the church.
In some periods, church representatives were some of the few people who could read and write. (No telling how many discoveries were lost because they couldn't be documented by the non-church people who discovered them.) So in a way, the church supported science (at least some sects did) by documenting people's findings and some even did science themselves. Of course there were also sects of the church that were anti-science as well... so "your mileage may vary"
Religiots: *playing with action figures* Dis da guy that I triggered. He's crying. Dis me wit da cool beard. I have a hot wife and we have kids because we have seggs.
Only 7% of wars caused by religion , like 30 year war 1618 - 48 , bloodiest war ever , they destroyed whole city populations in name of God. And it was small group of pagans from north, that wiped the floor with catholic Germanic and Polish , called Finns , they made up 3/5 of Swedish army.
I think he means that just because they aren't signed by the author or the author didn't identify themselves as having written the text that doesn't mean we cannot infer who the author most likely was.
And they didn’t get in trouble because they belonged in jewish-hellenistic personal savior god cult, they got in trouble because they didn’t allow other gods which made them unable to show respect to emperors and other gods romans believed to punish Rome if enough people didn’t respect them, preaching that fire will consume everyone who isn’t part of their cults shortly before Rome burned, etc.
Ironically, early Christians were persecuted as atheists, because they refused to propitiate the Roman Pantheon, thereby angering the Roman Gods and risking catastrophe!
The first few centuries of Christianity was marked by religious rebel rousers looking to get martyred. In fact it was so bad that the early church had to ask it's members to stop trying to get themselves killed as a form of protest.
"Religion causes wars" - "Yes it does". "Evil is done in the name of religion" - "Yes, this is true". "There's no scientific proof that God exists" - "Correct". "The gospels misquote Jesus" - "Yes, scholars believe this is true"... err, that's not how you "destroy" your opponent's arguments.
"Evil is just a lack of good" has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. So an empty room is evil? Any situation where people are not actively doing "good" things is evil? Makes zero sense.
Yeah, the privation theory of evil. They always state it confidently, and without any argument backing it up. It's like they think you've just never heard it before and you'll immediately see the light when introduced to the idea. But here in the real world, actual philosophers who specialize in ethics are familiar with the privation theory of evil yet consistently reject it. Because it's a shit theory.
Does anyone honestly believe that hitler didn't see himself as the good guy doing the best thing for his country. No I'm sure he was sitting there thinking, "Ooooh! I know, I'll commit genocide, that will be really naughty. He he he heee!"
Also it assumes that if god isn't doing good 24/7 then he is evil as that is a lack of good so basically if god is doing nothing for even one nano second he is evil. The only way god would not be evil by this logic is if you assume that no matter what god is good even if he kills. 1. Is begging the question. 2. Actually provides a stronger case that god can be evil.
It's worse than just an empty room, it's all of outer space. God didn't create evil, he just created a universe that is almost entirely evil. By RZ's absurd redefinition.
Someone suddenly waking up from a coma after a head injury and speaking a language they didn't speak before can be explained and has been explained by neurology.
"Why doesn't God destroy evil now?" "'Cause then he'd have to destroy you." "I'll ignore that you just called me evil despite having tortured and murdered infinitely fewer people than your God has and ask, if I'm evil, why did God create me at all? And, no, free will cannot exist if God is all-knowing, so you have to answer, why did God doom me to be evil?"
I also just love being called evil without having done anything bad outside of 1. Not believing in the "correct" thing. And 2. being born. Good thing a god doesn't exist or we'd be really fu-on thin ice. I mean, what could possible be more evil than the thing who created it?
god didn't, your ancestors did, and now you have the consequences despite it not being your fault, the same way that people who came before you may have created other problems that arent your fault like in the housing market for example or various geopolitical situations, it's not your fault, but we still live with the consequence
*"so he has hero syndrome?"* Ironically, this is exactly what Syndrome from The Incredibles did. Create a problem, and then sell the solution to victims for a massive profit.
Yep, God kills children and unborn children, personally, and but saved their souls, so it was really a blessing. - I have been told this over and over again, by Christian and Muslims. They think it's an extremely strong point.
yeah that's actually fricking evil Cartoon villain level evil even But I mean they shot themselves in the foot while doing the worldbuilding by removing the other evil gods he had to fight. Because suddenly if he's the only one and has to be the cause for everything but he still has evil to overcome then he's just the worst prick ever known in this universe
I like how he says animals will be "compensated" for terrible things happening to them for no reason. Like, that's terminology used by tv lawyers for those diagnosed with mesothelioma, not centuries of undeserved suffering.
@@existingistiresome Cut theists some slack. Big numbers like "billions" are too many for them to use their fingers to count and scare them. Century is probably the biggest magnitude of number they can grasp without their heads exploding.
Don't worry, I know that god let you get [insert every horrific act of suffering possible on the planet] but after you die, he's gonna buy you a super, amazing ice cream cone that will make up for all of it. I guess Christians have to think like that, because, if they don't, there's no way to justify the story of Job.
@@jojobizarrelivingstone594 Well, pope said pets go to heaven. He also said atheists go to heaven if they are good people. Same with LGBTQ+ people. I love how the actual friggin Pope, is more liberal than the right wing nuts..
Love how half this guy's arguments are "If we assume I'm right I'm right" and "that's not a real argument" Edit: how is this one of my more popular comments?
Epitome of strawmanship; note how this guy doesn't even clarify what the arguments are about for anyway, is it for the existence of a god? Is the argument about the existence of specifically the christian god?? Or is the argument about what effects religions have on society? RZ can't even decide on the topic@@Zoey_the_Rat
"Why did God create evil. So he could triumph over it!" That actually made me laugh out loud. Let's worship this being that created a problem specifically so he could solve it and be the big frigging hero. If you honestly worship things that do this, well, it'll explain why politicians get away with causing so much shit and then win votes because they promised to fix it... As usual, this theist's arguments are absolutely nonsensical, often unhinged and sometimes pushing toward insane. Some things never change.
If you push a theist only a little bit you can start getting them to spout the most nonsensical or even most evil things as if its normal just to justify their beliefs It needs to be studied why people will stand with something no matter what just so they wont have to admit they were wrong I literally watched a video of a theist saying a world without evil and suffering would be boring thats why god created it, so we can feel better when we triumph over it, like bro
The drug trip and near death experiences thing reminded me of a teacher I had in high school. She was SUPER religious, she had a heart attack, and was technically dead for nearly a minute when she got to the hospital. This destroyed her faith, because she saw nothing, and felt nothing (other then pain) so not all near death experiences are experienced as encounters with heaven and god. In fact the ones like my teacher had are the reason some people are convinced there is no god or afterlife; just sweet sweet oblivion.
I'm surprised she didn't deal with the contradiction between her beliefs and her experience by either claiming that she wasn't *really* dead, or deciding that the absence of after-life was God testing her faith. Few people deal with cognitive dissonance involving their core beliefs by reappraising those beliefs.
@@allanmason3201 Yeah I do not know the details of the crisis just we went on summer break she was a major evangelical Christian and Bible Thumper, she had the heart attack over the summer; returned to school that fall and she was thoroughly convinced religion is all BS. Now granted this wasn't one of those teachers that was close to the students or anything before or after this change so I lost track of any changes in her personal beliefs the following year when I finished High School. She COULD very well have gone back to some sort of faith, but I imagine she'd never return to hardcore Christian walking the line with the union for always bringing up god while teaching in a Public school levels of faith.
Same. I was gone for 5 minutes. All I remember is a bright light & the doctor saying “welcome back”. I wonder how many saw the bright light (looking for pupil reaction) and not what anyone said, if anyone said anything. But I’ve had people offer to pay for me to see a hypnotist to get my “repressed memory” back of what I saw in those 5 minutes.
Christianity didn't took over the roman empire while being illegal. It was a small sect until a roman emperor became a christian, made it legal, and only then took over the empire... that technically had already been divided, so saying "the roman empire" as if this happened in its prime is quite mischevious.
And happened hundreds of years later, taking an already popular festival (Saturnalia) as their own and even with their best efforts turned out Jesus wasn't born (allegedly) several years a.C.
The Roman empire didn't disappear entirely, the titles and ceremonies of the catholic papacry are a thorough continuation of the titles and ceremonies of the Roman emperors.
The worst part is: "Reddit tier atheist" accusations against claims he himself selected to be in his video to be debunked by him. I don't think we can get much more strawmanish without literal scarecrows starting to enter the picture.
I love how he tries to claim the gospels are actually written by the apostles, yet literally all Christian scholars agree, that no they weren't. There literally isn't a single source that claims that anymore. We know for a fact they weren't written by them.
Considering that none of the Gospels were written until at _least_ 30 or more years after Jesus' death, it's virtually impossible that they were written by any of the Apostles, who were supposedly illiterate workers, fisherman & the like in life anyways.
@@DrachenGothik666 not to mention the fact that the gospel of Matthew refers to Matthew in the third person (9:9). If he actually wrote it, why would he refer to himself in the third person?
@@tekbarrier Also the studies of the stories show that one plagiarised another... yet they still managed to contradict each other. But that's fine, because these are only "claimed contradictions" spread by the kind of rude, ignorant people, who have actually read the damn stories (not apologists, in other words)
I love how he just typed "Hitler is an atheist" and included a screenshot of the headline for the "Religious views of Adolf Hitler" Wikipedia article. I wonder if there are any actual quotes from Hitler that contradict the single sentence this guy typed himself and included with a screenshot of his search bar with "hitler religion" typed into it... Oh, here's _five:_ "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." "The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfil God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys his work is declaring war on the lord's creation, the divine will." "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the almighty creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the lord." "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the almighty creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the lord's work." "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith. We need believing people." That last one's a doozy since it was from a speech Hitler gave after the signing of the "Reichskonkordat," also known as the "Nazi-Vatican Concordat," in 1933. Pope Pius XI personally signed the documents officially recognizing Adolf Hitler as chancellor of the "German Reich," as well as encouraging his bishops' support for the Catholic Centre Party and Bavarian Catholic Party, two important voting blocs that both voted in favor of the Enabling Act that gave Hitler "emergency," dictatorial power in Germany in March of 1933. It would not be a stretch to say that it would have been quite difficult for Hitler to come to power in the way he did without the support of the Pope, the Vatican and the Catholic Church as a whole. Homeboy would have known that if he had, like, read a book. Like, any book. _ANY_ book. Just one book. For Christ's sake just read ONE FUCKING BOOK.
It's worse than that. The actual opening paragraph of that article clearly says Hitler's views are debated, but he's considered to have "turned away from" Christianity & "also criticized atheists." So, where did he get that quote? If you Ctrl+F on the page, you find it comes from Strasser, another Nazi who was an opponent of Hitler. "Redeemed" Zoomer blatantly quote mined, then lied by erasing all evidence it was a quote & presenting it as if it was the article's stance. And at the risk of poisoning the well, again, he skipped over all of the quotes from actual historians to cite a Nazi.
I have no idea why they constantly use the Hitler argument when Stalin is a much better example of an Evil Atheist Obviously you can give for that multiple counter arguments but my hot take is that humans should worship neither gods nor humans
Point One Claiming to defeat atheist "arguments" is a concession that religions have no arguments This atheist has never encountered a single religious claim that's plausible: therein lies the wellspring of their dishonesty
Not only are they the same, they are void of any individualistic flare, or wit. Imagine having a worldview that literally and metaphorically steals your soul. 😂
I almost lost my lid, with just because no one can agree on which quotes were real so we can just disregard their opinions and assume all are real. HELL NO if one is false then all is suspect. If actual experts can have legitimate arguments on both ends then they all have to be suspect.
@@SirSicCrusader the main thing as well I think in general that is absurdly funny is that when he made his next video after this he basically quickly pointed out randomly that these videos werent ment to be debate videos dispite this videos existence and his response to each argument
Technically no, you can't eviscerate a thing made of straw. Which is to say, Redeemed is a lame scarecrow of am "Man" who prays to what he thinks is god so he can become a real boy.
I'm just going to keep not-believing entirely for absolutely no reason other than because i wanna. Nothing is going to convince me otherwise because that would require me actually doing something and i'm a lazy butt.
@@Llortnerof I admire your courage. I'm extremely lazy too... But the fear of Yahweh is so deeply written in my atheist heart that, if I don't constantly fight back with atheist arguments, I am prone to become unable to suppress the truth in unrighteousness. It sucks that god's existence is demonstrably true. Otherwise, it would be so much easier not to believe in him. Being an atheist is so hard!
Don't worry. I know that masterpiece of logic had you convinced and ready to pray to your lord and savior, but I defined god as being a fictional entity, so he doesn't exist anymore.
@@Nov_Net Why is that a stupid answer? Imagine I was trying to prove that you're guilty of murder. You bring up that my explanation of how the murder happened doesn't make sense. I respond by saying that I define you as being a murderer, so it is impossible for you to be innocent. The reason why it's dumb is that I am trying to use a definition prescriptively, rather than descriptively. "I defined something this way, therefore must be that way in reality," instead of, "I found this thing in reality, and update my definition to accurately describe it."
@@CatacombD the issue is that in the case of the original comment, good and evil aren't things that exist objectively in reality. They are concepts. Someone being a murderer is something you can objectively determine assuming we all agree on the definition of a murderer. In the original commenters case, it is like trying to actually define what a murderer is, rather than describe/identify a murderer from a definition. So I don't think your analogy best fits the case.
@@nickryan3417 Fish are animals, what are you going on about? Just look up salmon taxonomy. From Wikipedia “Over 1.5 million living animal species have been described-of which around 1.05 million are insects, over 85,000 are molluscs, and around 65,000 are vertebrates.”
@@madtabby66 /whoosh! That was my point: many theists claim that fish don't have meat and are therefore edible when meat is prohibited. It makes no sense whatsoever. Likewise vegetarians who are against eating meat because of animal cruelty are happy to eat fish because "fish don't feel pain" or similar nonsense.
Pack it in guys, it's over. He used meme images with his "responses". I guess that makes him right. Even though he presents dumb arguments and even dumber answers.
I think the "religion causes only 7% of wars but if you take Islam out it drops to 3%" is a way of saying Islam causes more than half of the wars (4%) is a way to be Islamicphobia.
Like a lot of these apologists they have bias blindness. Early on he said his god was outside the natural world so science can't prove it exists or doesn't exists. But a god that interacts with the natural world due to prayers or miracles must, at times, be in the natural world and so should be detectable with tangible effects. So if it can't be detected 99.9999% of the time then that must mean most prayer and worship in the "natural world" is pointless because it will not escape the natural world to reach the place where the god is.
I love how half of these arguments are literally "it doesn't count", and the other half is whataboutism and victim blaming. 21:25 Wait. Was this entire video just an elaborate troll?
Someone should tell him that WIlliam Wilberforce did not end slavery in Britain, he advocated that no English person should own slaves in England while saying indentured servitude was like an act of akin to worship of God. Not to mention his support for transport of slaves to outside of England through English ports. The guy needs to read a freaking history book.
1:39 "Why wouldn't you count Islam? That's weird." It's like in the movie Young Guns when Arkansas Dave says "I've killed 65 men, not countin' Mexicans and Indians". Humans otten just dismiss the stuff they dislike...
Rabbits _do_ re-chew their food, in a way. They eat their defecated pellets to get the nutrition. It's similar to chewing cud, it's just not coming from their stomach like cows because they don't have multiple stomachs like cows do. So, if you have a pet bunny, allow them to eat their fresh poop or they'll die of malnutrition.
@@DrachenGothik666 That’s not cud chewing. The guys who wrote the bible didn’t understand the difference between chewing cud (ruminants) and grinding teeth (rabbits)
I would also like to say in response to “if that were true the bible wouldn’t be about how much we suck” Its not about how much you suck, and believe me, you do. Its about how much better god is then you, to brain wash you into believing you are lesser.
It's not actually an argument to ask for evidence, it's just a request or enquiry. It's theists who need to make arguments and provide evidence. It's the fact that they don't provide the evidence, that prompts the atheists to ask "where's your evidence?" We shouldn't even have to ask. It should be forthcoming in the primary argument FOR the existence of a god.
@@skepticusmaximus184 Agreed. It's not exactly a question. It's just what everyone who makes a claim should expect to hear and then produce. Or just be honest and say they don't know. "Well, prove gods not real" gets old fast
His response to the "Science disproves God"nonsense, was that of course there can't be discernible evidence for God. Yet his response to the "Psychology explains why you believe in God", was that of course there would be some discernible evidence for God.
It helps when you have no idea what evidence is. Or lack self awareness and a shame button and can carry contradictory statements around in your noggin all day with zero consideration for the implications.
As I point out every time I watch a response to this video, he's unironically doing "I drew you as the soyjak & me as the Chad, so you lose." Also, the specific lie he did was to go into the Wikipedia article, find a quote where some guy CLAIMED Hitler is an atheist, & remove all of the context to make it look like Wikipedia just directly states Hitler was an atheist. Here's what the first paragraph of the article "Religious views of Adolph Hitler" actually says, at the time I write this comment: "The religious beliefs of Adolf Hitler, dictator of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945, have been a matter of debate. His opinions regarding religious matters changed considerably over time. During the beginning of his political life, Hitler publicly expressed favorable opinions towards traditional Christian ideals, but later totally rejected them.[1][2] Most historians describe his later posture as adversarial to organized Christianity and established Christian denominations.[3][4] He also criticized atheism.[5]" It does not escape my notice that, had I wanted to, I could have presented this as "Hitler publicly expressed favorable opinions toward traditional Christian ideals" & it would technically be more honest than what Redeemed Zoomer did because at least it's part of the article's actual description of Hitler, not just something a guy said. Specifically another Nazi who was a rival of Hitler's. I don't think I realized before how many of these are dodges. Like I didn't actually expect refutations, but that's two in a row that sidestepped the point completely, & now that I think of it, the "But the communists!" point was at least a partial sidestep because that still doesn't explain why the correct religion can't fix its followers. I also didn't realize just how smug he sounds, since this is the first time I've listened to him on normal speed. And yet another thing I didn't catch before is that he totally threw in "secular" scholars to imply that they're wrong because they're not explicitly Christian. Weird to say I "extrapolate" that Jesus was a mythologized human from the pattern of the gospels. Rather, I don't assume that people who claim to be magic actually are magical by default, & the gospel pattern shows how that timeline progresses, unless Redeemed Zoomer is right, in which case it merely means he was mythologized along a different timeline. Like we don't consider The Illiad history just because we found the city of Troy. Interesting he specifies "Protestant" Christianity, given Catholicism is older, & several of the countries that rank high up on the Legatum Prosperity Index are majority Catholic, including Luxembourg and Ireland. In fact, from Jesus's death to 1517 AD, NO ONE was Protestant because it hadn't been invented yet. That's over 1500 years of European history, including all of that "preserving of civilization & development of the scientific method by monks" that every Christian apologist wants to take credit for. Seems to me that point about the multiple gods is like saying "whether or not there are ANY countries is different from what countries exist." It seems to me the way you prove the former is to find evidence of actual countries, which implies having proof of the latter. I realize this isn't a perfect analogy, but still, it is odd that religious people are all SO convinced THEY have the right god, but when you REALLY push them on it, they start struggling to prove there's even A god, maybe a god that's in the same general category as theirs, & they act like their job is over. Sure, that would debunk atheism, which is the stated goal of this video, but why settle when you can supposedly prove the whole shebang? Okay, I was half right, he claimed responsibility for the development of science, but I guess that whole "preserving knowledge" thing would come dangerously close to admitting that science ultimately has its roots in Greek mythology, not Christian tradition. Also, real interesting that he's quick to throw Muslims under the bus over the war thing but doesn't acknowledge contributions to science made in the Golden Age of Islam. But what is the PROOF of this absence of good nonsense? Starting from the premise of the rebuttal, that god is evil, I could just assert that anything which isn't objectively evil isn't god, that good is merely an absence of evil/god, etc. How can you SHOW this is false? Not your opinion, not what some church father said, not the Bible, hell not even if God himself came down & said you're right because evil beings can still lie: How do you PROVE that definition is correct? It seems like a moot point anyway because, say we accept your definition, & there just happens to be a being that created the universe, but it's evil. Okay, still doesn't change that this evil godlike entity existing rather than your god is still a theoretical possibility. Okay, so between the Constantine thing & the Horus thing, I've worked out that the reason he keeps putting "Reddit myths" in the video where he decides what arguments go in is because he's differentiating the group "atheists" from the group "atheist scholars." Fair enough, except he once again says "EVEN atheist scholars know that's silly" with Horus, so again implying he thinks the atheist scholars are somehow inferior or less trustworthy. Or, at least, given the rest of his behavior, I'm unwilling to extend charitability that this isn't what he's doing. So, if normal atheists
Context for Josephus: he lived on the second century, and he wrote about Jesus when christianity was already popular on the city of Rome. His work was predominantly secundary sources, so it doesn’t prove anything.
what's worse, he only stated what christians believed, to explain christianity. Nowhere does he even hint he agrees with it or has any form of evidence. "people knew what christians believed" is not evidence a dude existed.
I was an atheist for years then God appeared to me one night. She was beautiful and turned a half pint of water into a full pint of Guinness. It was the most beautiful pint of Guiness ever. So now I believe in Arambeba the most beautiful God ever.
"Any time you eat food, you're having faith that it's not poisoned even if you can't scientifically prove it" But you totally can scientifically prove the food you eat is not poisoned. I can take samples and have them analysed, which will conclusively tell me if the food I'm about to eat is safe. Or I can be a jerk and do it the same way nobles used to do it in the past - hire someone to taste all the food before I eat it, and see if they die.
Atheist arguments destroyed by...... agreeing with them or failing to understand them. We have a candidate for an apologist that makes Ray Comfort look adequate
One of the key differences between many Protestant denominations and the Catholic Church is pretty significant: How does one get into Heaven. Many Protestant denominations believe you must accept Christ as your savior. The Catholic Church does not have that as a requirement. I'd say how one gets into heaven is a pretty consequential and basic thing.
I love the fact us atheists basically have one argument. It's very simple, god claims have no met their burden of proof, and as such I don't accept them. There are other's of course, but really it all boils down to the fact there is no evidence, and I'm not willing to accept something with no evidence. Didn't even make his list, smort
"God let evil happen so he could stop it so we could all revel in his goodness" Is bat shit insane, and might be the most vain thing I could possibly imagen. Thats Greek tragedy levels of vain.
This guy actually made some pretty interesting videos in the past, like breakdowns of the various Christian denominations and the differences between them. It was rather illuminating stuff. Then he delved into apologetics… and that didn’t go too well.
Watching this video I immediately remembered that I saw one of his old videos about denominations. The video was fine most of the time, but at the end he told something disgusting that I disliked the video and wrote a criticizing comment.
@@azrael6925 most of the stuff in this video was really out of the spirit of the argument(if you don’t know what that is, it’s basically understanding what the person is saying) for example, when Zoomer said “religion causes wars” this is talking about the fact that atheist use that argument a huge number of times in order to discredit religion(I don’t know why Sir Sic didn’t get that, the title of the video gives it away that this is about common atheist arguments), so he gave percentages that show that that religion hadn’t actually caused that many wars(even less if you don’t count Islam, for some reason a lot of people don’t know that Islam caused more wars then any other religion for only being 1,400 years old, but everyone only talks about Christianity not Islam). But, you know, when your argument is weak you haft to pretend like you don’t know what people are saying.
Well done Sir! Of the atheist youtubers who responded to him that i have seen you have had the best and most logical responses. Most have gone the academical route of responses but you just pointed out quickly and to the point why his arguments fail. Instant subscribe
"Prosperity leads to Atheism"... Yes, as evidenced by famously secular nations; Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Israel, Egypt, Spain, Japan, Korea...
@@Soapy-chan I don't pretend to know anything about Japan aside from what I glean from media, books, history, etc, but I am of the understanding it has a not-insignificant population of Buddhist and Shinto adherents. If I'm wrong, I apologize.
@@erinw6120 oh no, it does have religious people in it, but it's a secular government and most people are atheists, even if they are spiritual in some way.
@@erinw6120 Japan is an odd one, because depending how the questions are asked, 60% of the population respond each of Buddhist, Shinto, *and* nonreligious. a large part practice Shinto and Buddhist cultural rituals without considering themselves religious.
Religion is treated more as tradition, culture and comfort, say you want to do good in your exams and you carve your name in a plaque in a shinto temple or have your student card in a box, well I think that was Taiwan but anyway, my point is they're still gonna do the hard work and say they did their best to get there, and not tell you it was all thanks to Amateratsu.
The "cold is just a lack of heat" is little more than wordplay, conflating the psychological with the physical. Temperature is simply how much thermal energy there is in a given space, in that sense there isn't "heat" anymore than there is "cold". We simply refer to things as "cold" or "hot" to describe how something appears to us: minus 10 Celcius is cold, and a fire will produce heat. "Cold is the absence of heat" doesn't accurately describe the physical world.
It's just crazy how theists really think their religion and/or people who follow their religion having an answer for something automatically makes those answers plausible, or that these answers don't just create more questions that don't fully address the original questions. Like they think claiming certain things in the bible are supposed to be metaphorical and that's a way to address things like evolution, but don't really get into how they know people are supposed to take certain things as metaphors or what exactly they're supposed to take as metaphors.
So wait, no two Christians can agree on the details but that's okay because they got the broad strokes, huh? This guy should probably tell that to all the other apologists who think the details they specifically subscribe to are the only correct ones and that everyone else is doing it wrong.
I only realised today that he says that we can ignore scholars cause they don't agree, but then hand waves the fact that Christians don't agree... its actually impressive how poorly thought out this whole thing is.
2:52 I'm an athiest born in an eastern orthodox christian family in a very muslim-heavy region of a christian country in a house right between a catholic and babtist protestant church. I think I checked most religions
20:28 The things Christians used to disagree on were important enough to them that they would routinely kill each other in horrific ways because of those disagreements. Western society's move towards secularism, as demonstrated by the American and French revolutions, and the creation of organized scientific bodies during that same period, largely sidelined the religious disagreements and made them irrelevant to the functioning of society.
How bad religion needed to be that some extreme movement, which today would be hard to get behind but back then was a much better option, like the French revolution that today is viewed as a step forward despite all its excesses?
people getting clocked and waking up speaking a language they never were taught... people that have investigated this phenomenon have found that it's more likely that they've had brain damage. this brain damage apparently makes them speak in such a garbled manner that it _sounds_ like another language, but is actually an unintentionally affected accent, much like the 'speaking in tongues' thing that the excitable do.
Also, are we sure? When my grandmother had her stroke, she lost her English. So she needed a translator like my father, who barely speaks the language. On top of that, due to the remote area my grandparents immigrated to my father’s second language was Cree (they were the only neighbors) if you looked at him and he started speaking Cree, you’d question how he knew such a language. After all he’s as white as white can get.
Even then, some of them just can't be. They're not just inconsistent, they go directly against each other. It's _almost_ like whoever wrote one part didn't give a shit about the rest or something...
@@cobrasys one of my favorites is how Mark, Luke, and John say that the stone was already rolled away on Easter morning, but Matthew says something completely different and contradictory. I don't think I've ever once heard a Christian apologist even attempt to explain this one.
@@tekbarrier Not only that, but the original version of Matthew simply stops after the women are scared, say they didn't see Jesus and just run away - the other part, about him being seen afterwards or whatever was tacked on later. The best part about Matthew being different is that it's the first one written... you know, the one closest to the actual time of Jesus' life. 😆
@@cobrasysyou're thinking about Mark, not Matthew. Mark is the oldest version, and is the one that has 2 endings (the original short ending and the layer longer ending).
Ah yes, The Sigma guy meme. The go to face of all truth and knowled. I prefer to get my truths from what ever face is hiding behind Sir Sics helmet (even if it's a cosmic horror).
This man isn't destroying arguments. He's either not answering the hard questions or simply acknowledging uncomfortable points (such as the fact that the bible is understood to have been written in part BY THE CHURCHES THEMSELVES) to be true.
God allows evil so that he can be glorified in defeating it? Is this guy serious? I'm not being punked here, am I? He just described one of the most evil things a being can do. Intentionally create suffering just so they can look like the good guy in defeating it. Holy hell.
If he exists outside the natural world, or is "metaphysical" it is functionally impossible to define god using any human label, as well as try to "know" him or have a "relationship" with him. It's funny how Christian's seem to know about this supposed gods like and dislikes, what he loves or what he hates, and how it always correlates to their desires.
Things have been pretty stable lately, BUT THATS NO FUN IS IT!! I want to grow into an amorphous mass and smother the entirety of UA-cam, so please, like, share, comment, subscribe, click the bell icon and everything else that you can to get the word of sir sic out there CHEERS!
If your metamorphosis means YT glitches disappear, I'm for it
@@raya.p.l5919 wat
Christianity debunked in one comment: Hosea 13:4, Hosea 13:7-8, Revelation 13:1-8, Isaiah 1, Isaiah 66. "Who has demanded this of you," asks the real God. "Christ became the curse." Everyone is judged by works, but since Jesus is the beast, all the Christians must fall away or go to the lake of fire.
Your theme music sounds awesome at 2X speed. Now you know...
Why is there a effing German flag at 9:48 with the remark of "prosperity because of protestant christianity"???
What does our little F want to tell us here, Sir Sic? That Germany (see Martin Luther) is the origin of the evangelical protestants and he thinks that little bloody Thirty Years' War and the European peasant revolts are a sign of "PROSPERITY"??? No, they aren't! They are a sign of religious fundamentalists (the one worse than the others ... and Luther in front of them) are mowing each other down. Can't he read or is history a joke for this nut ... or Sir, is he drunk? BTW.: Cheers!:) Hehehehe and thx for the video!
15:26 - - "Why did God let evil exist at all? So he could be glorified in defeating it."
That's like a fireman starting fires so he get the credit for putting it out, no matter how many people were injured in the blaze.
You know, I really need to finishing the videos BEFORE commenting. 🙄😁
But since evil is only the absence of good, what is god conquering anyway? 🤷🏻♂️🤦🏼♂️🤣
@@CharlesPayet the evil he created.
So the conclusion is he is an narcissistic a***ole
Let's start by assuming my egomaniac torturer-god is good...
Also how much glory is there in an all powerful being defeating a puny foe? Plus presumably humans are glorifying it, but aren't all humans (past, present and future) living in a world where God hasn't yet defeated evil, so therefore it will defeat evil after all humans cease to exist, so it seems it is not humans that will be glorifying it but only itself.
I can't believe that this guy seriously did the "I depicted myself as the Chad in this argument I made up so I win by default," thing.
That seems to be becoming more and more typical…. 😂
He does it in every video
He's a rightoid and a presbyterian(More like "Pressed"-byterian) to boot.
It worked for Galileo... Of course the difference is Galileo was rigth...
@@gandalf_the_purplewithredd2057 and Galileo actually was a Chad.
I love the argument that "scientists in the past were religious," and im like, yeah, they were when it was illegal to not be religious.
Lets see! Lie about believing in their god, or be burned at the stake.....! Ummmm!
Yeah alright, this god fellow is totally real, now leave me alone!
And also - back 1000-5000 years ago, 'priests' were essentially like scientists/engineers/doctors today... They were the ones that were trying to figure out how the world works and trying to understand/influence reality. Their answers were their best guesses before the scientific method; ludicrously wrong and even wrong-headed, but they were answers, nonetheless.
"Can science learn anything from religion? No, of course not. Because science is right and religion is wrong. Science demands adherence to truth, evidence and logic; while religion is merely escapism into fantasy-land. And I say that as someone who, a thousand years ago, very likely might’ve been a theologian. Because, back then, that was the only way to address big questions of meaning and how the universe worked. But in the past 500 years since the scientific revolution we’ve learned a lot about nature, philosophy, how the universe works, and how to find out how the universe works."
-Sean Carroll (21st century physicist)
Flaming idiots in the past were also religious. However, the flaming idiots of today, unlike today's scientists, are still religious. Self-own, honestly.
Yeah, and it will be again if we let the Chrismbians reelect Tangerine Mussolini.
I also love that when he was talking about it, he showed round Earth and how God surrounds it, when religious boys burned Giordano Bruno alive for trying to prove Earth is round and not a center of the universe.
I'm impressed by his ability to lose to his own arguments
an incompetence of the likes never seen..!
suicide by words
holy shit ralsei deltarune
he lost a fight with a strawman somehow
@@ThisIsNova74 Holy shit Kris Deltarune!
"The church invented science and such scientists like Galileo support the church."
Galileo.... was imprisoned by the church... for using a telescope.
Indeed. And no church invented science. It's just that some persons did and do science *in spite of* all the religious things going on around and possibly inside themselves.
@@uNiels_Heart Well, religion and science are compatible, provided your religion is true. The Church believed God was hiding in the heart of the Universe's greatest mysteries, and for a long time they supported the goal of unraveling those mysteries to truly understand God and his creation. The problem is that we kept unraveling them and not finding God inside, and so the fundamentalist nutjobs have decided that rather than keep solving mysteries and hoping God finally shows up, it's safer to just make the world more mysterious by spreading as much ignorance as possible.
Erm... No... Not really. Gallileo was imprisoned not only for contradicting church doctrine (with the geocentric model of the universe) but also for pretty much mocking the pope.
Not that I argue for that guy - but there's way better people and arguments to be made in this regard.
@@robertnett9793 (and its geocentric model of the universe)... because what you wrote says Galileo came up with the geocentric model rather than heliocentric which is weird.
I thought my point was fine: exact opposite ... and exact opposite. Church hated science and this scientist hated the church.
In some periods, church representatives were some of the few people who could read and write. (No telling how many discoveries were lost because they couldn't be documented by the non-church people who discovered them.) So in a way, the church supported science (at least some sects did) by documenting people's findings and some even did science themselves.
Of course there were also sects of the church that were anti-science as well... so "your mileage may vary"
"It's over anakin! I have depicted you as the ugly crying face and myself as the handsome face!"
heh
The undeniable truth of the "Chad meme!" Maybe this god guy should have put Chad on the cover of the bible, and then we would all believe in him.
You know he is right, he is using chad/wojack meme non sarcastically after all!
This is the ultimate argument.
Religiots: *playing with action figures* Dis da guy that I triggered. He's crying. Dis me wit da cool beard. I have a hot wife and we have kids because we have seggs.
This guy's smugness to idiocy ratio is 1/1. Impressive.
HAH
Yep, he has his made up answers to everything, so you know he's right. 🤣
More like 100:100, am I right?! (Math is hard...)
He can’t be serious. He’s not using the dumbest arguments, but he’s got all of the lower tier *and* presents them poorly.
Only 7% of wars caused by religion , like 30 year war 1618 - 48 , bloodiest war ever , they destroyed whole city populations in name of God.
And it was small group of pagans from north, that wiped the floor with catholic Germanic and Polish , called Finns , they made up 3/5 of Swedish army.
"Anonymous doesn't mean that we don't know who wrote them"
Isn't that, you know, what anonymous means...?
:0
Sentence him to life in prison and say you have an anonymous tip. Maybe then he will understand what anonymous means.
I think he means that just because they aren't signed by the author or the author didn't identify themselves as having written the text that doesn't mean we cannot infer who the author most likely was.
As opposed the ones that are clearly forgeries.
@@Apanblod unless the author deceptively set out to make readers make such inferences.
No christianity wasn’t illegal for 300 years, it only suffered periodical persecution. For the most part they were left alone.
And they didn’t get in trouble because they belonged in jewish-hellenistic personal savior god cult, they got in trouble because they didn’t allow other gods which made them unable to show respect to emperors and other gods romans believed to punish Rome if enough people didn’t respect them, preaching that fire will consume everyone who isn’t part of their cults shortly before Rome burned, etc.
They'd likely still be regarded as just one of hundreds of doomsday cults today if Constantine hadn't converted.
Ironically, early Christians were persecuted as atheists, because they refused to propitiate the Roman Pantheon, thereby angering the Roman Gods and risking catastrophe!
@@atheistboomer7700 only sporadically. For the most part the Romans didn’t care unless they needed a convenient scapegoat
The first few centuries of Christianity was marked by religious rebel rousers looking to get martyred. In fact it was so bad that the early church had to ask it's members to stop trying to get themselves killed as a form of protest.
"Religion causes wars" - "Yes it does". "Evil is done in the name of religion" - "Yes, this is true". "There's no scientific proof that God exists" - "Correct". "The gospels misquote Jesus" - "Yes, scholars believe this is true"... err, that's not how you "destroy" your opponent's arguments.
Shhh... he doesn't realize...
😂😂
@@pythondrink He wants his Sky Daddy, His Sky Brutha Who Luvvvvs Him and their Baby Mama!
That's how he destroy his own argument
"Stupid is as stupid does.." - Forrest Gumps mama
"Evil is just a lack of good" has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. So an empty room is evil? Any situation where people are not actively doing "good" things is evil? Makes zero sense.
I know right
Yeah, the privation theory of evil. They always state it confidently, and without any argument backing it up. It's like they think you've just never heard it before and you'll immediately see the light when introduced to the idea. But here in the real world, actual philosophers who specialize in ethics are familiar with the privation theory of evil yet consistently reject it. Because it's a shit theory.
Does anyone honestly believe that hitler didn't see himself as the good guy doing the best thing for his country.
No I'm sure he was sitting there thinking, "Ooooh! I know, I'll commit genocide, that will be really naughty. He he he heee!"
Also it assumes that if god isn't doing good 24/7 then he is evil as that is a lack of good so basically if god is doing nothing for even one nano second he is evil. The only way god would not be evil by this logic is if you assume that no matter what god is good even if he kills. 1. Is begging the question. 2. Actually provides a stronger case that god can be evil.
It's worse than just an empty room, it's all of outer space. God didn't create evil, he just created a universe that is almost entirely evil. By RZ's absurd redefinition.
Someone suddenly waking up from a coma after a head injury and speaking a language they didn't speak before can be explained and has been explained by neurology.
This theist’s answer to the Trolley Problem is, “that’s a You problem. Don’t interrupt my ride.”
I still personally prefer "multi-track drifting," and with any luck, everybody has a good laugh about it on Judgement Day.
"Why doesn't God destroy evil now?"
"'Cause then he'd have to destroy you."
"I'll ignore that you just called me evil despite having tortured and murdered infinitely fewer people than your God has and ask, if I'm evil, why did God create me at all? And, no, free will cannot exist if God is all-knowing, so you have to answer, why did God doom me to be evil?"
I also just love being called evil without having done anything bad outside of 1. Not believing in the "correct" thing. And 2. being born.
Good thing a god doesn't exist or we'd be really fu-on thin ice. I mean, what could possible be more evil than the thing who created it?
@@SandroWalachI mean, Ultron is more evil than Iron Man...
Christianity- It’s the ultimate gaslight
Also, the whole "Cause then he'd have to destroy you"
Like, why does god *NOT* want to destroy me if I'm evil?
god didn't, your ancestors did, and now you have the consequences despite it not being your fault, the same way that people who came before you may have created other problems that arent your fault like in the housing market for example or various geopolitical situations, it's not your fault, but we still live with the consequence
I feel like if they had satisfactory answers to all of these arguments for the past 2000 years, we probably would've stopped making those arguments.
Funny how he only gave one shoddy example of which there are over 400 better examples of. Funny how that works.
You'd think so
Redeemed zoomer got curbstomped by the other Atheist UA-cam channels in their reaction videos but dude Yours was amazing as well
:D
So he let evil exist so he could beat it? … so he has hero syndrome? Like an arsonist firefighter, or a doctor that poisons his patients
I see
Which is inherently evil. Love how he unwittingly defines his god as being evil in his attempt to define him as not being possible to be evil.
The always interesting conundrum of Jesus being able to "save" you only after knowing about Jesus.
*"so he has hero syndrome?"*
Ironically, this is exactly what Syndrome from The Incredibles did. Create a problem, and then sell the solution to victims for a massive profit.
God suffers from Munchousen by proxy.
Sir you can't destroy my irrefutable argument of "I don't know..."
OH NOES
That would be a better argument
Also don't forget the classic "At least it makes more sense then a reddit comment".
Presup apologetics will counter that you do, in fact, know. You're just denying it.
(Yes, they're silly people.)
@@wabbajack2 I usually respond to that one with "you're a philosophical zombie with no internal dialogue, you just pretend that you have one."
God created evil so he could be praised for stopping it, and that makes him the good guy?
Does bro think Syndrome is the hero of _Incredibles_
Well, Syndrome did sacrifice a lot of good people to get his act down like they didn't matter.
Hmmm. I'm sensing a similarity.
Ha ha! And I love how the guy doing the saving is the same guy who's doing the torturing.
Lurrrrrve that movie!!
Yep, God kills children and unborn children, personally, and but saved their souls, so it was really a blessing.
- I have been told this over and over again, by Christian and Muslims.
They think it's an extremely strong point.
yeah that's actually fricking evil
Cartoon villain level evil even
But I mean they shot themselves in the foot while doing the worldbuilding by removing the other evil gods he had to fight. Because suddenly if he's the only one and has to be the cause for everything but he still has evil to overcome then he's just the worst prick ever known in this universe
I like how he says animals will be "compensated" for terrible things happening to them for no reason. Like, that's terminology used by tv lawyers for those diagnosed with mesothelioma, not centuries of undeserved suffering.
Billions of years of undeserved suffering.
Theres literally nothing in the bible that even hints that animals get punished in hell or go to heaven
@@existingistiresome Cut theists some slack. Big numbers like "billions" are too many for them to use their fingers to count and scare them. Century is probably the biggest magnitude of number they can grasp without their heads exploding.
Don't worry, I know that god let you get [insert every horrific act of suffering possible on the planet] but after you die, he's gonna buy you a super, amazing ice cream cone that will make up for all of it.
I guess Christians have to think like that, because, if they don't, there's no way to justify the story of Job.
@@jojobizarrelivingstone594 Well, pope said pets go to heaven. He also said atheists go to heaven if they are good people. Same with LGBTQ+ people. I love how the actual friggin Pope, is more liberal than the right wing nuts..
Love how half this guy's arguments are "If we assume I'm right I'm right" and "that's not a real argument"
Edit: how is this one of my more popular comments?
ah
Christian presupps in a nutshell.
Ben Shapiro school of debate
Well, some of those "atheist arguments" really do not have anything to do with anything
Epitome of strawmanship; note how this guy doesn't even clarify what the arguments are about for anyway, is it for the existence of a god? Is the argument about the existence of specifically the christian god?? Or is the argument about what effects religions have on society? RZ can't even decide on the topic@@Zoey_the_Rat
"Why did God create evil. So he could triumph over it!"
That actually made me laugh out loud. Let's worship this being that created a problem specifically so he could solve it and be the big frigging hero.
If you honestly worship things that do this, well, it'll explain why politicians get away with causing so much shit and then win votes because they promised to fix it...
As usual, this theist's arguments are absolutely nonsensical, often unhinged and sometimes pushing toward insane. Some things never change.
I know right...
If you push a theist only a little bit you can start getting them to spout the most nonsensical or even most evil things as if its normal just to justify their beliefs
It needs to be studied why people will stand with something no matter what just so they wont have to admit they were wrong
I literally watched a video of a theist saying a world without evil and suffering would be boring thats why god created it, so we can feel better when we triumph over it, like bro
The drug trip and near death experiences thing reminded me of a teacher I had in high school. She was SUPER religious, she had a heart attack, and was technically dead for nearly a minute when she got to the hospital. This destroyed her faith, because she saw nothing, and felt nothing (other then pain) so not all near death experiences are experienced as encounters with heaven and god. In fact the ones like my teacher had are the reason some people are convinced there is no god or afterlife; just sweet sweet oblivion.
ah
I'm surprised she didn't deal with the contradiction between her beliefs and her experience by either claiming that she wasn't *really* dead, or deciding that the absence of after-life was God testing her faith. Few people deal with cognitive dissonance involving their core beliefs by reappraising those beliefs.
@@allanmason3201 Yeah I do not know the details of the crisis just we went on summer break she was a major evangelical Christian and Bible Thumper, she had the heart attack over the summer; returned to school that fall and she was thoroughly convinced religion is all BS. Now granted this wasn't one of those teachers that was close to the students or anything before or after this change so I lost track of any changes in her personal beliefs the following year when I finished High School. She COULD very well have gone back to some sort of faith, but I imagine she'd never return to hardcore Christian walking the line with the union for always bringing up god while teaching in a Public school levels of faith.
@@SirSicCrusader Indeed lol
Same. I was gone for 5 minutes. All I remember is a bright light & the doctor saying “welcome back”. I wonder how many saw the bright light (looking for pupil reaction) and not what anyone said, if anyone said anything.
But I’ve had people offer to pay for me to see a hypnotist to get my “repressed memory” back of what I saw in those 5 minutes.
Christianity didn't took over the roman empire while being illegal. It was a small sect until a roman emperor became a christian, made it legal, and only then took over the empire... that technically had already been divided, so saying "the roman empire" as if this happened in its prime is quite mischevious.
And happened hundreds of years later, taking an already popular festival (Saturnalia) as their own and even with their best efforts turned out Jesus wasn't born (allegedly) several years a.C.
Mischievous ? That's being charitable.
The Roman empire didn't disappear entirely, the titles and ceremonies of the catholic papacry are a thorough continuation of the titles and ceremonies of the Roman emperors.
So many "Reddit tier atheist" accusations, but apparently couldn't even manage a google to check the 'Christianity was illegal for 300 years' claim.
The worst part is: "Reddit tier atheist" accusations against claims he himself selected to be in his video to be debunked by him. I don't think we can get much more strawmanish without literal scarecrows starting to enter the picture.
A reddit athiest is still leagues more human than a twitter Christian.
I really despise how these religious people always use the phrase “everyone knows” I don’t know and I don’t agree.
fair
I hate that as an argument all together. If everyone knew, then there wouldn't be an argument or question in the first place
Fortunately, the Universe boils down to "ALL YOUR WHISKEY BELONGS TO ME NOW!" I've taken payment in advance!
fair
I would 100% become religious if there it was a whiskey god. The ancient greeks had something going with gods like Dionysus
@@404maxnotfounda “whiskey god” you mean like Sir Sic?
all your base are belong to us?😂
I prefer "all your whiskey are belong to us"
"Religious scholars cannot agree on [anything] and so therefore we can disregard all their opinions."
Honestly, crack the whiskey, we goteem!!!!
haha
the perfect rebuttable to zoomer XD XD XD
Religious people can't agree on anything so i guess we can disregard them as well. Thanks for supporting atheism.
This god guy is supposed to be the embodiment of absolute truth and enlightenment.
But he shore it crap at getting his message across clearly.
@@MadHax-wt5tl Or more directly, the claim that there's a god guy behind the book and religion doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.
I love how he tries to claim the gospels are actually written by the apostles, yet literally all Christian scholars agree, that no they weren't. There literally isn't a single source that claims that anymore. We know for a fact they weren't written by them.
Considering that none of the Gospels were written until at _least_ 30 or more years after Jesus' death, it's virtually impossible that they were written by any of the Apostles, who were supposedly illiterate workers, fisherman & the like in life anyways.
@@DrachenGothik666 not to mention the fact that the gospel of Matthew refers to Matthew in the third person (9:9). If he actually wrote it, why would he refer to himself in the third person?
@@tekbarrier Also the studies of the stories show that one plagiarised another... yet they still managed to contradict each other. But that's fine, because these are only "claimed contradictions" spread by the kind of rude, ignorant people, who have actually read the damn stories (not apologists, in other words)
@@tekbarrierthat could be rectified to tradition, as the Bible doesn’t contain first person perspective anywhere else but in quotations.
This guy:Church invented modern science
His phone: you have 101 missed calls from ancient Greece.
Oxymoronic ahh comment
I love how he just typed "Hitler is an atheist" and included a screenshot of the headline for the "Religious views of Adolf Hitler" Wikipedia article. I wonder if there are any actual quotes from Hitler that contradict the single sentence this guy typed himself and included with a screenshot of his search bar with "hitler religion" typed into it...
Oh, here's _five:_
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfil God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys his work is declaring war on the lord's creation, the divine will."
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the almighty creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the lord."
"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the almighty creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the lord's work."
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith. We need believing people."
That last one's a doozy since it was from a speech Hitler gave after the signing of the "Reichskonkordat," also known as the "Nazi-Vatican Concordat," in 1933. Pope Pius XI personally signed the documents officially recognizing Adolf Hitler as chancellor of the "German Reich," as well as encouraging his bishops' support for the Catholic Centre Party and Bavarian Catholic Party, two important voting blocs that both voted in favor of the Enabling Act that gave Hitler "emergency," dictatorial power in Germany in March of 1933. It would not be a stretch to say that it would have been quite difficult for Hitler to come to power in the way he did without the support of the Pope, the Vatican and the Catholic Church as a whole.
Homeboy would have known that if he had, like, read a book. Like, any book. _ANY_ book. Just one book. For Christ's sake just read ONE FUCKING BOOK.
ah
@@SirSicCrusader I couldn't agree more, brother.
I'm so annoyed when these people tremble on german history by rewriting the crimes and reason for these crimes of the nazi regime and their leaders.
It's worse than that. The actual opening paragraph of that article clearly says Hitler's views are debated, but he's considered to have "turned away from" Christianity & "also criticized atheists." So, where did he get that quote? If you Ctrl+F on the page, you find it comes from Strasser, another Nazi who was an opponent of Hitler. "Redeemed" Zoomer blatantly quote mined, then lied by erasing all evidence it was a quote & presenting it as if it was the article's stance. And at the risk of poisoning the well, again, he skipped over all of the quotes from actual historians to cite a Nazi.
I have no idea why they constantly use the Hitler argument when Stalin is a much better example of an Evil Atheist
Obviously you can give for that multiple counter arguments but my hot take is that humans should worship neither gods nor humans
Point One
Claiming to defeat atheist "arguments" is a concession that religions have no arguments
This atheist has never encountered a single religious claim that's plausible: therein lies the wellspring of their dishonesty
shonk
I wonder how often Augustine of Hippo refuted arguments against the existence of God by claiming they were "Reddit tier."
I live in China, and it’s actually extremely prosperous here. I’m guessing that Xristian dude hasn’t done much travel.
every response this dude makes: Nu-uh, followed by lies
Hopefully this theist will one day grow up a little more and realize how embarrassingly bad his video was.
ah
Unfortunately, clowns will still act like clowns while they get some cheers
I'm Christian and I watch this theist quite regularly and he made a video and he admitted in it that it was not very good
I hope that one day christians realize that they are believing in a figurine
It's hilarious how their arguments are always the same
:0
It's spelt Yahweh ya Atheist heathen!!
Not only are they the same, they are void of any individualistic flare, or wit.
Imagine having a worldview that literally and metaphorically steals your soul. 😂
@@mattwhite7287Well, it has evolved into a form that mostly doesn't conflict with reality and isn't as obviously wrong.
@@goldenalt3166 What are you talking about? The entire underlying premise of theism and religion directly conflicts with reality.
5:30 The fact that the church could have added nonsense into should be enough reason to doubt the bible.
ah
I always wondered why an omnipotent, omniscient god would ever let a mistake creep into any handwritten copies of its holy text?
I almost lost my lid, with just because no one can agree on which quotes were real so we can just disregard their opinions and assume all are real. HELL NO if one is false then all is suspect. If actual experts can have legitimate arguments on both ends then they all have to be suspect.
Oh man I lost my absolute shit when you replied "He can fucking try!" @13:02. 😂🤣
yeah ngl redeemed zoomer got eviscerated by so many atheists from this vid
I like to think mine will be the most fun (and it might even be the shortest while containing the whole response)
@@SirSicCrusader the main thing as well I think in general that is absurdly funny is that when he made his next video after this he basically quickly pointed out randomly that these videos werent ment to be debate videos dispite this videos existence and his response to each argument
3:42 that purple question mark there is real sus, as the kids say.
No he didn't. Getting on your knees to other Atheists =/= beating someone in an argument.
Technically no, you can't eviscerate a thing made of straw. Which is to say, Redeemed is a lame scarecrow of am "Man" who prays to what he thinks is god so he can become a real boy.
Methinks dimbboy has forgotten the spanish inquisition.
heh
And what about Ireland and Northern Ireland.
And not so long ago, thoo.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
@@MinionofNobody And the horror of "The Comfy Chair".
And almost every army in history up to the 20th century being blessed by the local priests?
NO! Not my precious arguments! How am I supposed to not believe in god now? I have to come up with ten more reasons not to believe in Yaweh, quick!
number one *farts loudly*
number two... *does a number two*
and so on and so fourth
@@SirSicCrusader Thanks, it worked!
I'm just going to keep not-believing entirely for absolutely no reason other than because i wanna. Nothing is going to convince me otherwise because that would require me actually doing something and i'm a lazy butt.
Here's one. You don't believe because he refuses to come to your door with at least a six pack and apologize for being such a narcissistic prick.
@@Llortnerof I admire your courage. I'm extremely lazy too... But the fear of Yahweh is so deeply written in my atheist heart that, if I don't constantly fight back with atheist arguments, I am prone to become unable to suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
It sucks that god's existence is demonstrably true. Otherwise, it would be so much easier not to believe in him. Being an atheist is so hard!
So many stupid answers.
But my favorite was, "If we define God to be objectively good, it would be impossible for God to be evil".
Don't worry. I know that masterpiece of logic had you convinced and ready to pray to your lord and savior, but I defined god as being a fictional entity, so he doesn't exist anymore.
But God created evil.
How is that a stupid answer?
@@Nov_Net Why is that a stupid answer?
Imagine I was trying to prove that you're guilty of murder.
You bring up that my explanation of how the murder happened doesn't make sense.
I respond by saying that I define you as being a murderer, so it is impossible for you to be innocent.
The reason why it's dumb is that I am trying to use a definition prescriptively, rather than descriptively. "I defined something this way, therefore must be that way in reality," instead of, "I found this thing in reality, and update my definition to accurately describe it."
@@CatacombD the issue is that in the case of the original comment, good and evil aren't things that exist objectively in reality. They are concepts. Someone being a murderer is something you can objectively determine assuming we all agree on the definition of a murderer. In the original commenters case, it is like trying to actually define what a murderer is, rather than describe/identify a murderer from a definition. So I don't think your analogy best fits the case.
The "Slave Bible" thing is a fair bit more complicated than "some people cut out parts of the bible for slaves to use".
Interesting how you only need to omit some parts of the bible, but without altering its message, and make it a perfect book for condoning slavery.
God can forbid the eating of shellfish and the wearing of mixed fabrics, but outlawing slavery is beyond his powers, apparently.
@@kellydalstok8900 Also don't forget the arbitrary "clean vs unclean" animal nonsense too. Not forgetting that fishes aren't animals too.
@@nickryan3417
Fish are animals, what are you going on about? Just look up salmon taxonomy.
From Wikipedia
“Over 1.5 million living animal species have been described-of which around 1.05 million are insects, over 85,000 are molluscs, and around 65,000 are vertebrates.”
@@madtabby66 /whoosh! That was my point: many theists claim that fish don't have meat and are therefore edible when meat is prohibited. It makes no sense whatsoever. Likewise vegetarians who are against eating meat because of animal cruelty are happy to eat fish because "fish don't feel pain" or similar nonsense.
Pack it in guys, it's over. He used meme images with his "responses". I guess that makes him right. Even though he presents dumb arguments and even dumber answers.
fair
But I just got done un-packing! >:O
I think the "religion causes only 7% of wars but if you take Islam out it drops to 3%" is a way of saying Islam causes more than half of the wars (4%) is a way to be Islamicphobia.
He probably atributed every war started by a muslim to islam itself
It's easy to debunk this guy's points using common sense, logic and evidence, because he doesn't even know what those are. I think he's a troll.
I don't think he is, his channel is full of stuff, I think hes just a bit thick
@@SirSicCrusader"a bit" indeed 😆
Like a lot of these apologists they have bias blindness. Early on he said his god was outside the natural world so science can't prove it exists or doesn't exists. But a god that interacts with the natural world due to prayers or miracles must, at times, be in the natural world and so should be detectable with tangible effects. So if it can't be detected 99.9999% of the time then that must mean most prayer and worship in the "natural world" is pointless because it will not escape the natural world to reach the place where the god is.
I love how half of these arguments are literally "it doesn't count", and the other half is whataboutism and victim blaming.
21:25
Wait. Was this entire video just an elaborate troll?
Someone should tell him that WIlliam Wilberforce did not end slavery in Britain, he advocated that no English person should own slaves in England while saying indentured servitude was like an act of akin to worship of God. Not to mention his support for transport of slaves to outside of England through English ports.
The guy needs to read a freaking history book.
1:39 "Why wouldn't you count Islam? That's weird."
It's like in the movie Young Guns when Arkansas Dave says "I've killed 65 men, not countin' Mexicans and Indians".
Humans otten just dismiss the stuff they dislike...
Yeah I know, I just wanted to point it out, in case he doesn't explode from the first 2 seconds of a sir sic video and actually watches it
I am addicted to these videos! That's funny how he defends religion, and these guys ALWAYS call Atheism a religion, in an attempt to call it stupid.
:D
I guess the Bible’s claim that rabbits chew their cud can be explained by theological arguments…..
Rabbits _do_ re-chew their food, in a way. They eat their defecated pellets to get the nutrition. It's similar to chewing cud, it's just not coming from their stomach like cows because they don't have multiple stomachs like cows do. So, if you have a pet bunny, allow them to eat their fresh poop or they'll die of malnutrition.
@@DrachenGothik666 Translation: no, they don't eat their cud.
@@DrachenGothik666
That’s not cud chewing.
The guys who wrote the bible didn’t understand the difference between chewing cud (ruminants) and grinding teeth (rabbits)
Why is evil the absence of good? What if good is just the absence of evil.
I would also like to say in response to “if that were true the bible wouldn’t be about how much we suck”
Its not about how much you suck, and believe me, you do. Its about how much better god is then you, to brain wash you into believing you are lesser.
Exactly
"You see atheists, it's already over. I drew you as the soy wojak, while I drew myself as the chad wojak."
Gotta love a good argument from a theist. Too bad I've never heard one.
SAVAGE
the only good theistic argument is that Bastet must exist. because cats exist, therefore a Most Cat must exist.
Well, he does have a bullet proof argument: "because." It's hard to argue with that level of grandiose delusional genius.
@@nondescriptcat5620 Best argument I've heard for a god. Or should I say... Bast argument?
Well, bring a question out and I might argue against it
Most of the athiest arguments boil down to asking for evidence.
It's not actually an argument to ask for evidence, it's just a request or enquiry. It's theists who need to make arguments and provide evidence. It's the fact that they don't provide the evidence, that prompts the atheists to ask "where's your evidence?" We shouldn't even have to ask. It should be forthcoming in the primary argument FOR the existence of a god.
@@skepticusmaximus184
Agreed. It's not exactly a question.
It's just what everyone who makes a claim should expect to hear and then produce.
Or just be honest and say they don't know.
"Well, prove gods not real" gets old fast
He managed to talk a lot and say absolutely nothing. Pretty standard for a Christiot.
"well atheists, if your argument is soo good, then why are you the soy wojack on this meme i made, while im the chad?"
His response to the "Science disproves God"nonsense, was that of course there can't be discernible evidence for God. Yet his response to the "Psychology explains why you believe in God", was that of course there would be some discernible evidence for God.
It helps when you have no idea what evidence is. Or lack self awareness and a shame button and can carry contradictory statements around in your noggin all day with zero consideration for the implications.
i really love how each answer he gives just reverses what he said before
As I point out every time I watch a response to this video, he's unironically doing "I drew you as the soyjak & me as the Chad, so you lose." Also, the specific lie he did was to go into the Wikipedia article, find a quote where some guy CLAIMED Hitler is an atheist, & remove all of the context to make it look like Wikipedia just directly states Hitler was an atheist. Here's what the first paragraph of the article "Religious views of Adolph Hitler" actually says, at the time I write this comment:
"The religious beliefs of Adolf Hitler, dictator of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945, have been a matter of debate. His opinions regarding religious matters changed considerably over time. During the beginning of his political life, Hitler publicly expressed favorable opinions towards traditional Christian ideals, but later totally rejected them.[1][2] Most historians describe his later posture as adversarial to organized Christianity and established Christian denominations.[3][4] He also criticized atheism.[5]"
It does not escape my notice that, had I wanted to, I could have presented this as "Hitler publicly expressed favorable opinions toward traditional Christian ideals" & it would technically be more honest than what Redeemed Zoomer did because at least it's part of the article's actual description of Hitler, not just something a guy said. Specifically another Nazi who was a rival of Hitler's.
I don't think I realized before how many of these are dodges. Like I didn't actually expect refutations, but that's two in a row that sidestepped the point completely, & now that I think of it, the "But the communists!" point was at least a partial sidestep because that still doesn't explain why the correct religion can't fix its followers. I also didn't realize just how smug he sounds, since this is the first time I've listened to him on normal speed. And yet another thing I didn't catch before is that he totally threw in "secular" scholars to imply that they're wrong because they're not explicitly Christian.
Weird to say I "extrapolate" that Jesus was a mythologized human from the pattern of the gospels. Rather, I don't assume that people who claim to be magic actually are magical by default, & the gospel pattern shows how that timeline progresses, unless Redeemed Zoomer is right, in which case it merely means he was mythologized along a different timeline. Like we don't consider The Illiad history just because we found the city of Troy.
Interesting he specifies "Protestant" Christianity, given Catholicism is older, & several of the countries that rank high up on the Legatum Prosperity Index are majority Catholic, including Luxembourg and Ireland. In fact, from Jesus's death to 1517 AD, NO ONE was Protestant because it hadn't been invented yet. That's over 1500 years of European history, including all of that "preserving of civilization & development of the scientific method by monks" that every Christian apologist wants to take credit for.
Seems to me that point about the multiple gods is like saying "whether or not there are ANY countries is different from what countries exist." It seems to me the way you prove the former is to find evidence of actual countries, which implies having proof of the latter. I realize this isn't a perfect analogy, but still, it is odd that religious people are all SO convinced THEY have the right god, but when you REALLY push them on it, they start struggling to prove there's even A god, maybe a god that's in the same general category as theirs, & they act like their job is over. Sure, that would debunk atheism, which is the stated goal of this video, but why settle when you can supposedly prove the whole shebang?
Okay, I was half right, he claimed responsibility for the development of science, but I guess that whole "preserving knowledge" thing would come dangerously close to admitting that science ultimately has its roots in Greek mythology, not Christian tradition. Also, real interesting that he's quick to throw Muslims under the bus over the war thing but doesn't acknowledge contributions to science made in the Golden Age of Islam.
But what is the PROOF of this absence of good nonsense? Starting from the premise of the rebuttal, that god is evil, I could just assert that anything which isn't objectively evil isn't god, that good is merely an absence of evil/god, etc. How can you SHOW this is false? Not your opinion, not what some church father said, not the Bible, hell not even if God himself came down & said you're right because evil beings can still lie: How do you PROVE that definition is correct? It seems like a moot point anyway because, say we accept your definition, & there just happens to be a being that created the universe, but it's evil. Okay, still doesn't change that this evil godlike entity existing rather than your god is still a theoretical possibility.
Okay, so between the Constantine thing & the Horus thing, I've worked out that the reason he keeps putting "Reddit myths" in the video where he decides what arguments go in is because he's differentiating the group "atheists" from the group "atheist scholars." Fair enough, except he once again says "EVEN atheist scholars know that's silly" with Horus, so again implying he thinks the atheist scholars are somehow inferior or less trustworthy. Or, at least, given the rest of his behavior, I'm unwilling to extend charitability that this isn't what he's doing. So, if normal atheists
Oh man thank you so much for responding to this. It's got to be (so far) the dumbest and most smug "arguments destroyed" video I've seen so far.
Context for Josephus: he lived on the second century, and he wrote about Jesus when christianity was already popular on the city of Rome. His work was predominantly secundary sources, so it doesn’t prove anything.
what's worse, he only stated what christians believed, to explain christianity. Nowhere does he even hint he agrees with it or has any form of evidence. "people knew what christians believed" is not evidence a dude existed.
Plus a later insertion that wasn’t in the original book.
Aka piso
“People don’t believe in Greek gods anymore, but Greece still exists therefore the Greek pantheon is real”.
As someone who actually does believe in Greek gods I’d much rather live in a world ruled by Atheists than a world ruled by Christians
@@crss6846commenting on every other comment doesn't make u right
I wonder if this guy realized that none of the 'answers' he read from a form, actually had any substance to them.
"I don't believe you" was never once refuted here...
I was an atheist for years then God appeared to me one night. She was beautiful and turned a half pint of water into a full pint of Guinness. It was the most beautiful pint of Guiness ever.
So now I believe in Arambeba the most beautiful God ever.
"God is the uncaused causer" this has to be the dumbest statement I've heard today.
Oh, don't worry, they're not the only apologist spewing that crap around. I hear it time and time again.
Uncaused causer is just the apologists attempt to launder the god of the gaps, christwashing makeover to hide the fallacies...
Isn't that just the most basic attribute of an eternal god?
Aquinas and his torrent of Bullshit has been a disaster for Theological discourse.
How is that a dumb statement?
"Any time you eat food, you're having faith that it's not poisoned even if you can't scientifically prove it"
But you totally can scientifically prove the food you eat is not poisoned. I can take samples and have them analysed, which will conclusively tell me if the food I'm about to eat is safe. Or I can be a jerk and do it the same way nobles used to do it in the past - hire someone to taste all the food before I eat it, and see if they die.
If me wife treated me the same way God treats people in the Bible, I would zero faith whatsoever that she loved me
Atheist arguments destroyed by...... agreeing with them or failing to understand them. We have a candidate for an apologist that makes Ray Comfort look adequate
“There is an accusation from atheists. However their statement is wrong. And here is why the statement is completely right.”
Brilliant!
Sic please feed me. It’s been days and it’s cold and dark down here
What about all those delicious skeletons? Ungrateful...
@@SirSicCrusaderYou’re right… I’m sorry Sir Sic of the Whiskey 😔
@SirSicCrusader don't forget the roaches and silverfish 😋
Isn't there a Cheese Shop down there for you mildly peckish ones?
One of the key differences between many Protestant denominations and the Catholic Church is pretty significant: How does one get into Heaven. Many Protestant denominations believe you must accept Christ as your savior. The Catholic Church does not have that as a requirement. I'd say how one gets into heaven is a pretty consequential and basic thing.
also "who represents god on earth" is a pretty major point of disagreement, as it turns out.
Along side how to treat people in certain situations
I love the fact us atheists basically have one argument. It's very simple, god claims have no met their burden of proof, and as such I don't accept them. There are other's of course, but really it all boils down to the fact there is no evidence, and I'm not willing to accept something with no evidence.
Didn't even make his list, smort
damn
9:48 yeah sure totally, the country that was literally the centre of the Holy Roman Empire was rooted in Protestant Christianity.
"God let evil happen so he could stop it so we could all revel in his goodness"
Is bat shit insane, and might be the most vain thing I could possibly imagen.
Thats Greek tragedy levels of vain.
This guy actually made some pretty interesting videos in the past, like breakdowns of the various Christian denominations and the differences between them. It was rather illuminating stuff.
Then he delved into apologetics… and that didn’t go too well.
It never does, its almost like doing things based on facts can be good doing it based on shit arguments... is also good, but only for sir sic :D
@@SirSicCrusaderHear, hear.
Watching this video I immediately remembered that I saw one of his old videos about denominations. The video was fine most of the time, but at the end he told something disgusting that I disliked the video and wrote a criticizing comment.
Deranged Zoomer vc Redeemed Coomer. Fight!
OOF
I love how every atheist channel I watch has just absolutely shredded this video from brainde- I mean redeemed zoomer
Redeemed Zoomer made a response video, you should probably go watch it instead of remaining in an echo chamber.
@@charles21137 Sooo, more things that make no sense from him, got it.
@@azrael6925 most of the stuff in this video was really out of the spirit of the argument(if you don’t know what that is, it’s basically understanding what the person is saying) for example, when Zoomer said “religion causes wars” this is talking about the fact that atheist use that argument a huge number of times in order to discredit religion(I don’t know why Sir Sic didn’t get that, the title of the video gives it away that this is about common atheist arguments), so he gave percentages that show that that religion hadn’t actually caused that many wars(even less if you don’t count Islam, for some reason a lot of people don’t know that Islam caused more wars then any other religion for only being 1,400 years old, but everyone only talks about Christianity not Islam). But, you know, when your argument is weak you haft to pretend like you don’t know what people are saying.
@@azrael6925 ok, stay in your little echo chamber, like most atheist.
Why do apologists always claim their spiffy new argument will destroy atheists, but when they're done they haven't even scratched the paint?
Well done Sir!
Of the atheist youtubers who responded to him that i have seen you have had the best and most logical responses. Most have gone the academical route of responses but you just pointed out quickly and to the point why his arguments fail.
Instant subscribe
Its cute that he puts on a voice to sound like a child asking a question but answers with his actual child voice.
"Prosperity leads to Atheism"... Yes, as evidenced by famously secular nations; Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Israel, Egypt, Spain, Japan, Korea...
Japan IS secular
@@Soapy-chan I don't pretend to know anything about Japan aside from what I glean from media, books, history, etc, but I am of the understanding it has a not-insignificant population of Buddhist and Shinto adherents. If I'm wrong, I apologize.
@@erinw6120 oh no, it does have religious people in it, but it's a secular government and most people are atheists, even if they are spiritual in some way.
@@erinw6120 Japan is an odd one, because depending how the questions are asked, 60% of the population respond each of Buddhist, Shinto, *and* nonreligious. a large part practice Shinto and Buddhist cultural rituals without considering themselves religious.
Religion is treated more as tradition, culture and comfort, say you want to do good in your exams and you carve your name in a plaque in a shinto temple or have your student card in a box, well I think that was Taiwan but anyway, my point is they're still gonna do the hard work and say they did their best to get there, and not tell you it was all thanks to Amateratsu.
The fact that a crusader, a notoriously religious soldier, is dunking on religion, is great.
The "cold is just a lack of heat" is little more than wordplay, conflating the psychological with the physical.
Temperature is simply how much thermal energy there is in a given space, in that sense there isn't "heat" anymore than there is "cold". We simply refer to things as "cold" or "hot" to describe how something appears to us: minus 10 Celcius is cold, and a fire will produce heat.
"Cold is the absence of heat" doesn't accurately describe the physical world.
It's just crazy how theists really think their religion and/or people who follow their religion having an answer for something automatically makes those answers plausible, or that these answers don't just create more questions that don't fully address the original questions. Like they think claiming certain things in the bible are supposed to be metaphorical and that's a way to address things like evolution, but don't really get into how they know people are supposed to take certain things as metaphors or what exactly they're supposed to take as metaphors.
So wait, no two Christians can agree on the details but that's okay because they got the broad strokes, huh? This guy should probably tell that to all the other apologists who think the details they specifically subscribe to are the only correct ones and that everyone else is doing it wrong.
I only realised today that he says that we can ignore scholars cause they don't agree, but then hand waves the fact that Christians don't agree... its actually impressive how poorly thought out this whole thing is.
2:52 I'm an athiest born in an eastern orthodox christian family in a very muslim-heavy region of a christian country in a house right between a catholic and babtist protestant church. I think I checked most religions
20:28 The things Christians used to disagree on were important enough to them that they would routinely kill each other in horrific ways because of those disagreements. Western society's move towards secularism, as demonstrated by the American and French revolutions, and the creation of organized scientific bodies during that same period, largely sidelined the religious disagreements and made them irrelevant to the functioning of society.
I see
How bad religion needed to be that some extreme movement, which today would be hard to get behind but back then was a much better option, like the French revolution that today is viewed as a step forward despite all its excesses?
people getting clocked and waking up speaking a language they never were taught... people that have investigated this phenomenon have found that it's more likely that they've had brain damage. this brain damage apparently makes them speak in such a garbled manner that it _sounds_ like another language, but is actually an unintentionally affected accent, much like the 'speaking in tongues' thing that the excitable do.
Also, are we sure? When my grandmother had her stroke, she lost her English. So she needed a translator like my father, who barely speaks the language.
On top of that, due to the remote area my grandparents immigrated to my father’s second language was Cree (they were the only neighbors) if you looked at him and he started speaking Cree, you’d question how he knew such a language. After all he’s as white as white can get.
@@madtabby66 but, exposed to it before he started speaking it?
"Every apparent contradiction can be explained" explained *away* - get it right.
Even then, some of them just can't be. They're not just inconsistent, they go directly against each other. It's _almost_ like whoever wrote one part didn't give a shit about the rest or something...
@@cobrasys one of my favorites is how Mark, Luke, and John say that the stone was already rolled away on Easter morning, but Matthew says something completely different and contradictory. I don't think I've ever once heard a Christian apologist even attempt to explain this one.
@@tekbarrier Not only that, but the original version of Matthew simply stops after the women are scared, say they didn't see Jesus and just run away - the other part, about him being seen afterwards or whatever was tacked on later.
The best part about Matthew being different is that it's the first one written... you know, the one closest to the actual time of Jesus' life. 😆
@@cobrasysyou're thinking about Mark, not Matthew. Mark is the oldest version, and is the one that has 2 endings (the original short ending and the layer longer ending).
@@robertmauck4975 True, I was definitely thinking of Mark, not Matthew. Thanks for the correction!
Ah yes, The Sigma guy meme. The go to face of all truth and knowled. I prefer to get my truths from what ever face is hiding behind Sir Sics helmet (even if it's a cosmic horror).
heh
I love how confidently this person says things that are utterly wrong... or at least silly. Very, very silly.
Aw man, my position has been depicted by the wojack whilst his was the Chad. His logic is consequently irrefutable.
This man isn't destroying arguments. He's either not answering the hard questions or simply acknowledging uncomfortable points (such as the fact that the bible is understood to have been written in part BY THE CHURCHES THEMSELVES) to be true.
God allows evil so that he can be glorified in defeating it? Is this guy serious? I'm not being punked here, am I? He just described one of the most evil things a being can do. Intentionally create suffering just so they can look like the good guy in defeating it. Holy hell.
"Science cannot prove god because he exists outside the natural world."
There we go again, theists forgetting the omnis.
oof
" he exists outside the natural world."
Then why pay any attention?
I.e. comic books and stuff like that.
He exists outside the natural world, so how can he have an influence on the natural world?
If he exists outside the natural world, or is "metaphysical" it is functionally impossible to define god using any human label, as well as try to "know" him or have a "relationship" with him.
It's funny how Christian's seem to know about this supposed gods like and dislikes, what he loves or what he hates, and how it always correlates to their desires.