Re: Re: (Answering) 5 Questions for Atheists
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 гру 2024
- Today, we're talking about Josh the Baptist, not to be confused with another famous Baptist. I did a video responding to Josh and Josh felt so incensed he felt the need to whip out some soyboy memes. Alas, I remain unmoved. In this video, we go over Darwin, evolution, Adolf Hitler, Atlantis, veganism, and a whole lot of silliness. Naturally, I have thoughts. #skeptic #criticalthinking #religion #atheist #agnostic #christian #fundamentalist #evangelical #catholic #protestant #apologist #theology
Original: • Re: (Answering) 5 Ques...
The best argument Christians have is "nuh-uhh... I haven't looked into it enough to understand it so therefore all of science must be wrong".
We really need to determine the root cause at play here. He doesnt deny reality because he is christian. We know this because many christian's accept evolution and the findings of science.
The real cause here is this guy is christian, and a creationist, because he is STUPID and IGNORANT, simple as that. I really wish other christian's would stop giving utterly moronic people cover because they worship the same sky wizard.
Don't forget the classics!
"Well what else could it be?"
"I know you're lying and you actually do believe in my god."
And my personal favourite:
"Here's how you can pretend to believe anyway." 🍻
Many word combos notable.
"Aryan, Kent Hovind kinda guy".
Are you an animal? "I asked him a question, and I reminded him that the way I ask it makes it a stupid, dumb, moronic question."
The Nazis burned Darwin's books. Their racism was not based on his theory. Rather, it came from current ideologies of the time.
Darwin wasn't on the official list of books to burn.
Tbf, the na zis tried to hijack darwin's theory to make themselves feel right... But then again, christians also tried to do that.
If I recall correctly, they favoured Lysenkoism over Darwinism.
Though Lysenko may not have been wholly wrong after all, the common understanding of his theory was.
Kent Hovind in fact does have a doctorate.
It's not worth the paper it's printed on, so it's as good as not actually having a doctorate.
His dissertation has no abstract, and the introduction is a brief biography.
IIRC it starts off with, "Hello, my name is Kent Hovind".
It's a joke.
Yeah, he got something that amounts to a title at the institute he did this at (kinda like any entity can certify most stuff they choose, where the actual difference it makes is who recognizes it). However, it wouldn't fall under the umbrella term "doctorate" in the wider scientific community, I suppose.
@@uNiels_Heart
Erika (Gutsick Gibbon) who has come to blows with Hovind in the past, is currently preparing to defend her dissertation.
TBH it makes me very cross that a grifter for god claims to have a doctorate, without having to extend his intellectual rigour beyond that of a high school student writing an essay on what they did in the summer break.
This may sound pedantic, but Kunt hovind do NOT have a doctorate, the institution where he bought his certificate from is not acredited.
That being said, there are many other grifters for god who do have doctorates, and i dont mean phd in sandboxing but real phds in science. Though they have not been able to present any science for god after getting one.
@@pencilpauli9442 Yeah, I was just trying to put it as non-emotionally as possible. But in fact I hate what Hovind is doing.
And yeah, of course I also watch Erika. A lot of good people have clashed with Hovind in the past.
When he talks about us killing animals for food I'm reminded of a classic George Carlin bit...
"We kill cows, because we're hungry. we kill bugs, because they're pests. We kill lions, because it's fun. We kill people, because they're pests, AND because we're hungry.., AND because it's fun."
People will justify whatever the fuck they want for whatever the fuck reason they want. Religious people, you need to stop claiming that we don't do this shit to people because we absolutely do, and every individual will choose their own reason(s) for killing or not killing regardless of what it is they are killing or not killing.
It's like those people who say, humans are the only species that kill other members of their own species.
Which just automatically proves you have nothing to say worth hearing.
Is he a cabbage ? He certainly seems to have the thinking ability of one. Whilst he is prepared to diss well founded science, he believes in a clay man, a rib woman and a 6 day creation ! Pure nonsense.
Mock cabbages all you wish, but a head of cabbage outlasted the Prime Ministry of Liz Trump…er, Liz Truss. Gowan and look it up.
When the conversation feels like it's going around in circles, yeah usually nothing can be gained from it.
Ah, I love that guy. He called Hitler an evolutionist and then agreed with a quote from Mein Kampf.
Dude casually implied insects are not animals.
Glad someone else caught that
@@jexelbur6872 To be fair, maybe they're fungi!
Fungi are weird. Insects are weird. Hell, that's practically proof!
Yeah he’s somewhat correct in that humans are indeed not arthropods but why be so finicky over terms. It’s this vein of reasoning that I shall now consider “holy” to mean “full of holes” just a different spelling methodology. One could say colloquially 😅
@@joethompson132 He's being finicky because he thinks humans are special.
Oh my god. Veganism is a mental disorder😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 💀💀💀💀💀💀🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Hatdude : "I didn't mean Animals when I said 'animals'."
Everyone else : "What do you mean by 'evolution' then?"
Hatdudes say the dumbest things.
You're ignoring the far more plausible natural explanation: we evolved from clay and magic breath blown by sky father. That makes us special compared to animals because they only evolved from the sacred air, not the tiny rocks.
Damn it all makes sense now. Thanks for clearing it all up, person on the internet!
well when you put it that way…
Love his hi-quality crinkled tarp backdrop.
In the Book of Ecclesiastes it says man is an animal but he's too vain to admit it.
Where exactly? I need this xd
@@odo3074 Ecclesiastes 3:19
@@grapeshot thx
Nice find. Of course, the Bible thumper will have an excuse for this, but still hilarious. 😂
@@JayMaverick i just have read on catholic bible and they got note added about Animals not having a soul xD
1:32 "because why would you make up your own definition obviously man is not a mineral or uh Celestial body or an insect".
So he thinks insects aren't animals? Would that be in the "colloquial" sense, or that defined by a dictionary or in a formal biological definition.
This is the problem of being home schooled by one's evangelical Uncle Ebeneezer.
I don't know, maybe he did attend school but was too busy dreaming of Maise-Lou to be paying attention to the teacher.
I can't blame him. Maisie-Lou was mighty purdy, though my heart was set on Susie-May, and I dint lern much about the gospels none cos I was a dreamin of her sweet kisses.
That was the first prt I was hangup about. Like, wtf did he think Insects are?! Bacteria? Plants? Fungi?!
I'd like to see your evidence that this guy was 'schooled,' home or otherwise. He does not provide any indication of ever being schooled at all.
@@petercollins7730
I have as much evidence of his education as he has evidence for the existence of god.
@@pencilpauli9442 Absolutely true. I just 'take it on faith' that he's not, shall we say, well-schooled.
It's always "that guy" that wears a ballcap indoors and makes sure he wears it while making a video. Is that to keep the sun out of his eyes or the rain off of his head? I'm thinking that is part of the goober uniform.
6:08 so….. a lion isn’t an animal? Polar bears?
Sharks?
Any predator?? Next he’s gonna say snakes are not animals 🫣😉
I know it was a typo/autocorrect-fail, but I have questions about polo bears.
@@Mythraen they ride on smaller brown bears and play the posh game of polo😉😁
@@Mythraenis polo bears bears wearing polo or playing polo?
@@littleredpony6868 I assumed they play polo.
The 'not sees' thought Eugenics would produce the perfect human.
The fact that they thought there was such a thing as a "perfect" human shows you they had as much understanding of evolution as the idiot in the video.
Thankfully your hairstylist made sure we can tell who's who.
Shoulda dyed your eyebrows...
Dude thought you meant "objectively wrong" in the moral sense, and then proceeded to, objectively incorrectly, claim that he could call it objectively morally wrong.
Yes. He's so brainwashed by the excusigists that as soon as he heard the word "objectively" his brain glitched to the standard spiel about morality.
It's such a common trick to use the phrase "taken to its natural conclusion" to justify deranged misinterpretations, same with slippery slope. They have this fantasy of the worst possible outcomes of their straw man view of us then vomit it out and try to justify it with a bucket load of fallacies.
Then again I shouldn't be surprised that people who don't understand even the basics of logic and science wouldn't understand harder tools like those.
You're hilarious, good sir. You just got yourself a subscriber.
Evolution doesn't use "race" in the way people have attempted to classify people groups in the first place.
There are surprisingly few genetic differences in all humans outside our African homeland, and there still exists a rich diversity there even now.
Different ethnic groups evolved in the ecological niche whee they settled (or ranged). It made that group more fit for that niche. It didn't make any group "better" than any other group universally, nor did it imply any group was "worse" or "lower" than any other universally.
It just means that some ethnic groups fare better in a niche where if another group went to that same niche now, they'd be less well adjusted.
❤ as usual you come out on top! Its tragic when people don’t realize they are better off keeping their mouth shut.🤐and their nose clean 🤧
Human history has more than one case of people using generally nice idea to justify racial segregation. And American Christian should be extremely careful in this discussion, in order to not provoke some undesirable analogies.
Literally every scientific fact has been used to commit atrocities. Thermodynamics, electricity, gas pressure, gravity, physics, etc.
The fact that humans use something as an excuse to kill people doesn't make science wrong.
Is that a well-known phrase in the States: Do the nasty in the pasty? I heard it first in Futurama, and this is only the second time I've heard it. I mean I love the phrase a bit.
I think your first point was all that was needed. Just because someone misunderstands the science or uses it for bad reasons has nothing to do on whether something is true or not.
You are VERY WRONG London....
yer Kent Hovid voice was damn good.
I haven't heard him in so long I forget the flow of how he talks or it would've been even better
Kent Hovind makes me think of a duck that somehow evolved the ability to form human words. Like he's quacking out actual human words.
I will not stand for this anti-duck slander in my house
Another thing you can do if you are reacting to yourself is to speed up the video to 1.25X (or higher as long as it's clear). That would then allow us to understand that you at 1X speed is the current you and the sped up one is the recorded/reacted to one.
Someone should remind this guy that genocide existed before Darwin.
Even if we didn't evolve from a non human as he put it, we would still be f'n animals.
Science has proven that plants can and do feel and communicate with each other. No one eating food on this planet is free of bloodshed on their hands regardless of animal or plant.
A: proved. Science has proved. Plant communication is proven.
B: if it's plants, shouldn't it be "sapshed on their hands"? Just askin'. For a friend. Who's a plant.
The pause from your previous video at 13:50 has the correct disdain for what he’s saying.
That Kent Hovind impression was pretty spot on.
Domestic cats may kill mice/birds for "fun", but I think that's mostly because we've messed with their food sources and instincts. They have the instinct to hunt, so they do, but then get confused because they have unlimited food supply from humans.
I have two cats, one stays indoors all the time, the other one does occasionally catch and eat mice, and leaves the bits for me to clean up. I've never found a whole dead mouse, just bits (e.g. head, stomach, tail).
Cats are sociopathic because they don't need to be otherwise. They're solitary hunters by nature, and have no need to sympathize with or be compassionate to another animal, so a lack of compassion and empathy has no negative impact on their survival. The little amount of sentimentality that they've developed is entirely the result of selective breeding by humans to make them better pets.
Why are your eyebrows not dyed?
call it an oversight (lmao get it? oversight??)
@@danger.snakes re puns with eyebrows - back then on the Commodore Amiga there was a browser called "IBrowse"
(I just checked and apparently they still release updates)
"Most evolved" would just mean "latest". Newborns are the "most evolved" humans. The "most evolved" life would be single-celled given how quick their generations are. Just useless term.
No, not necessarily. Most evolved could simply imply most well adapted to their environments or any number of environments.
@@PhilSophia-ox7ep I agree. Evolution is not only Mutation, but also Selection. Without the Selection, we don't technically have Evolution - just random Mutations that may or may not be positive.
Which actually could be made into a point about us humans - we have removed a lot of the selection process, so you could argue that humans are no longer evolving.
You coming to the UK? 😊
Hahahshaha it took me _forever_ to realize he's trying "Photoshop" images to "represent" _you_ 😂🤣🤣
As per usual, this person's argument is:
"Unless my god is real, then THESE are the reasons for things that happen in the world."
Like ok, then so be it.
There's also no such thing as "more" or "less" evolved. Everything is equally as evolved as everything else. Just differently.
Is the tarpaulin backdrop also the one the fundie makes his victims stand on?🤨
One correction: Hitler or at least his message was anti-evolution. He promoted creationism. (Arguments about his "real" beliefs fill books.)
So his "but Hitler!" fails both ways. *He's closer to Hitler than we are.*
Hitler, in many of his writings, seems to accept the doctrine of evolutionary adaptation and the mechanism of natural selection.
It doesn't matter. Hitler also believed in the heliocentric model of the solar system. That doesn't imply we should abandon it for that reason.
@@PhilSophia-ox7ep Ultimately the Nazi's believed that they could build their idea of a 'master race' by eugenics. Not only is that immoral but it won't work. It's like getting the world record male and female sprinters. Then expecting their offspring to be even faster.
@@PhilSophia-ox7ep In Mein Kampf, he talks in terms of genetic limits and crossbreeding being a bad thing for survival which are creationist talking points, IIRC. And I'm pretty sure Darwinian evolution was fairly clearly rejected outright.
But yes, that Hitler accepted heliocentrism was the other way of the "both ways" I mentioned the guy's "but Hitler!" fails.
@@archapmangcmg Talk of genetic limits and prohibiting "cross breeding" isn't a refutation of evolution but a psuedo-scientific take on it.
"Whatever survives these hardships of existence has been tested and tried a thousandfold, hardened and rendered fit to continue the process of procreation; so that the same thorough selection will begin all over again."
@@PhilSophia-ox7ep Yeah, I know creationism is nonsense.
Hitler talking of immutable limits is a rejection of speciation which is an obvious rejection of evolution. And yes, creationists have a long history of not understanding evolution.
Dr. Doom has more of a right to call himself "doctor" than Kent Hovind; and he's fictional.
LET'S GO RERE
Oh, he was censoring himself? I thought he had stomach problems.
This guy offers Kent Hovind as "superior"! Figures.
these people sound like it's thier first attempt at argumentation. It's quite childlike.
nahhh that kent hovind impression was accurate
My eyebrows died.
They got better.
Kinda funny - you both have the same cadence, it's like you're talking to yourself 😆
He reveals his ignorance when he implies that insects are not animals. It's like talking to a middle schooler.
He doesn't have a doctorate and claims to have multiple
Your wife's eyelash mascara. Slather a nice layer of black mascara on them brows my man. Perfect. lol ;)
-"Ignoring all nuances, are Nazi okay too?"-
Luftwaffe : "Jesus is my copilot!"
Jesus : "Lulz dude I'm not licensed!"
I love his "green screen" 😂
When did Beaver Cleaver get a UA-cam channel?
The person who "applied" evolution to societal forms was Herbert Spencer a long discredited British philosopher
dunning kruger is the norm for apologists
He convinced me that he knows virtually nothing about any of the topics he opined upon.
What most theists get wrong about evolution is that there is no "end goal" in mind. Evolution simply fills whatever niche an environment has for survivability. That means that intelligence may not even be selected for. Just look at the movie, "Idiocracy" for an example.
Evolution is an ongoing process but when you think it isn’t real from the get go instead he has to accept his limitations and imperfections were built in by a perfect designer.
Take, for instance the selection pressure of the cruel UA-cam environment, where some have fewer than 500 viewers. It’s not evolution’s mercilessness, it’s because you suck. Don’t blame me, lardy pundit.
Yep I got 2% Neanderthal DNA in me.
It's interesting that over time there develops overlapping forms of sapiens. I wonder how long until a new form of sapien shows up that are different than homo sapiens on the planet at the same time with us.
Would probably take "a while" (i.e. a frickin' lot of generations) and also, where we (or someone else) draws the line of some group of living beings being different from other living beings is kinda arbitrary, a convention.
All Humans / Homo Sapiens Sapiens are all equally evolved.
they keep bringing up the german painter but he was actually a gawd believer…. awkward…
I think this one was pissed off with Logicked too 😂😂 (think it was Logicked)
The bue tarp makes it look like a hostage video.
"Is killing animals wrong?"
Presenting a complex issue as a simple question with a yes or no dichotomy suggests a bad faith actor to me.
However, it's not even "wrong" to kill humans from time to time. The frequency of those exceptions varies from country and state to country and state, exactly as expected if morality is objective.
Oh, shi......
It is concerning that when he hears evolution, he automatically thinks the natural follow through is the most blatant racist idea imaginable.
The existence of apologists is the best proof for evolution. No real god would create someone like that, much less a tri-omni one.
so he plausibly thought "nonhuman animal" bacause that's what "coloquial sense" would be.. in which case it's a pointless question
Is it okay to kill bugz?? plants? bacteria? viruses??
RERE. Classic.
If he's not an animal, what is he? A plant? A bacteria? A fungus? Choices are kind of limited...
I really don't understand too much about evolution and such, but wouldn't Josh benefit more from long walks and a healthy diet, then he would making you-tube videos?
This guy is one giant argument from personal incredulity, not to mention an outright liar. He constantly makes up atheists that he has talked to, so much so that I am worried about our strategic straw reserves.
But wait Kent got his diploma from Cracker Jack U.
Can animals speak?
As a gen xer it saddens me how backwards and closed minded people of my generation are. As i noticed as of late love yourvids keep up the great job i agree totally in what you say
Wait, are you in the UK. i thought you were in some inbreed southern state of USA.
I will be by month's end!
I've always wondered this "Is killing animals wrong?" question... I mean, vegans can make decent arguments to support the idea it could be wrong, but what the hell are they talking of? I mean, the question is simple, but what's their end goal here? I eat meat and I understand that it upsets some people, but not all atheists are vegans and not all vegans are atheists. (That's not actually a fact but a bold assumption, correct me if I'm wrong.) Do I think killing animals is wrong? Yes and no. If you do it for fun, I'd say, nope, I don't think that's right thing to do. It's actually a bit scary thought, raising the question when the killer is moving across that arbitrary nonsensical line of yours between animal and human? If I feed myself with it, if I control the size population to more sustainable (even from human hegemony perspective), if I protect something I love, I'd say it's not wrong. The problem with the meat industry is more in the conditions of their life, not so much their death (even if it should be more merciful kill). And I've never heard a decent argument that the death would wrong. We all die. It's what makes the time we got worth what it is.
But back to the core idea: what's the point of this question? Misrepresent us somehow? Make us look like something devilish like socialists and progressive? I'm not socialist and I think more of my atheist friends identify something else than socialist. Any ways, why they make the question is interesting.
I came back again and again to this "is killing animals wrong" question and specifically "cats kill for fun" (paraphrasing, hopefully not misrepresenting anything). So? F'ng? What? Nature is cruel.
Oh dear.. always the hitler card being played. Boring & sooo wrong
The guy keeps saying Aminal or Amanil.
WhoTF *_is_* this guy?! I've seen a few other responses to him. I would like to checkout his channel. (Fret not: I shall be perfectly civil, if I even engage (comment) _at all..._ ) (A few minutes later, self-edit:) Never mind. I found his channel: Baptist Joshua. Okey-doke, Josh... It'd help if he'd actually _argue_ for his positions, instead of merely asserting 'em...
But what if a fact leads to a thought you dont like?
Or a different way, that you wish it would be, is way better?
Reality just... caves to our individual preferences. Right?
Hey, not all of us gen xers are that old. Im not even 50 yet damnit! 🤣
Don’t worry about a persons age when recognizing boomer mentality .
Re Godwin’s: “Gott Mitt Uns.” The Reich was Christian.
There are plenty of photos of Christian priests standing shoulder to shoulder with Nazi officials. *With them*, not *against them*. 3 Reich was Christian.
DO NOT DYE YOUR EYEBROWS. do you know who kingcobrajfs is? that dude dyed his hair, his eyebrows, his mustache, and looked so unhinged 😂
0:58 Dude, could you chill? It sounds like you cut him off right before he was going to explain it.
1:44 How is it even possible to give you the same criticism twice in a minute because you did the same impatient thing one after another?
1:58 Oh. I thought he meant animal like in "a beast". 2:51 Based.
5:00 Lol. Lmao.
I do agree that some people are less evolved than others. Glaringly obvious.
Moral arguments for god feel the strangest. My opinions don’t change observable fact.
Have you ever listened to what somebody says, and it is just so stupid and so ignorant that it just leaves you speechless?
This video has left me commentless.
And I am not using stupid or ignorant in an
ad hominem sort of way. I'm using it by the dictionary definition of the words.
I do not know how you get through these videos sometimes, London. You are a more patient and tolerant person than I.
I'm sure that guy thinks that Christians are better than Heathens.
This guy seems just a little too interested in the Austrian with a funny mustache had to say. And the dead dude was no example of his master race, he was short, dark complexioned and definitively not nordic looking. And funny thing, most Germans at the time were Catholics, with some protestants sprinkled in.
I like Trump, he makes me laugh without even trying.. He's like a stoned version of Zaphod.
12:51 marjorie taylor greene has at least 27%
Also… insects..are animals
WE RESPOND TO HATERS