They WANT a god to be real, desperately so. Therefore they assume anything remotely sounding like it might help to believe it MUST be true... And that's one of the least damning fallacies religious thinking indulges in...
Reading and understanding are two different things. People like this only pay attention long enough to find something to disagree with, and then ignore everything else.
@@moodyrick8503 Except it doesn't actually explain anything at all. "Why is this thing?" "God did it." "Why did he do it that way?" "Because he wanted to." "Yeah, but why?" And so on.
if you ask "what do i need jesus for" and then when you get some lame bit of preaching you ask again "yes, but what do i need jesus for" eventually the word "hell" will be extracted.
Funny how he had to mention childbirth as not only is it literally a curse in christian theology, but humans also had a very high childbirth mortality rate before the advent of medicine.
I am so sick of hearing about “the miracle of childbirth” All my children were born via c section, as were my mothers before me. Left up to “gods perfect design” we might not have survived. We have generations living now because humans took the process into our own hands and figured out a way to overcome some of the fatal flaws of the birth process. And even then it can still be dangerous.
I'm black and when I say I'm an atheist I get the craziest strangest looks from people. Because for many people black people are a monolith and of course all black people are spiritual and religious😂😂😂
@tryme3969 The Romans did not think in terms of race like we do nowadays, which is terminology. When it comes down to race, it is only about 500 years old. The Age of Exploration, the transatlantic slave trade and the enlightenment are the causes of that.
@@JNMeiun I hope that the abrahamic beliefs will have died out long before then. With luck, the internet will enable people to realise that the societies they grew up in, weren't right about everything, and that it's relatively easy to find out how Science and Logic blow their arguments about their superstitions out of the water.
4:55 It's not Allen Parr's exaggerated facial expressions that bother me. It's the fact that he's always, always, always SHOUTING at us. Every sermon, he has CAPS LOCK ON THE WHOLE TIME. Maybe he thinks the louder he is, the more confident he sounds. Maybe he doesn't want us able to hear ourselves think. Or maybe his real audience is children, since for added annoyance he repeats everything he says. Oh, great. Now I'm going to walk around the rest of the day with a mental image of Allen Parr shouting the same thing over and over in a kid's face. Perfect.
It's a common technique used by MLM salespeople. They shout and scream to appear important, and to distract from what they're saying - which is nothing at all.
Does he have hearing-impaired family or friends he's been around for a long time? I lived with my grandparents in my childhood and my natural volume is often too loud now for people around me. Sometimes it's not intentional.
Sometimes I get the impression that this guy just loves God and Christianity so much because it allows him to be an asshole and he self righteous about it even
It's crazy how I can almost HEAR Allen Parr's exaggerated facial expressions When you brought that up I was like "That's why he always sounds weird" lol
The favorite thing of all Christians is the Circular Reasoning Principle: Why does God exist? Because the Bible says so. Why should we believe what the Bible say? Because it's the word of God.
Or so: "Here is the evidence for God" "This is not evidence for such and such a reason" ".... But.... A Christian doesn't need proof either, we have Faith" **Nervous smile**
God is supposed to be the conscious designer of diseases, parasites and carnivores... and the book itself is a summing up of attrocities too... why would anybody take that book as proof that god is trustworthy?
i had this conversation with my mom yesterday. it was extremely frustrating because i asked “what is the differentiator between your faith, study, and experience in your religion, and the faith, study, and experience someone else might have in a mutually exclusive religion?” she said “well the other religions don’t have jesus. they don’t have a solution for sin and absolving us so we can be with god” to which i was like “but all that is stuff you believe because of christianity. your argument boils down to ‘the difference between my religion and everyone else’s is they’re not my religion’” all she could do was shrug her shoulders. i don’t know why it was so frustrating to hear that was the logic she used to justify her beliefs. i guess i thought there was something more substantial.
All those starving people, all those abused people, those kids being murdered by monsters.. yeah, they all know in their gut that there is a god! Wow!!
"If everyone didn't have a shared moral compass that came from a perfect god...." Well for one thing, they don't. The fact that fundamentalists, who Allen Parr no doubt is one of, have ideas of morality that go against the vast majority of humanity shoots down the idea that morality was implanted in every person by their god.
I don't know how ignorant and divorced from reality you have to be to think that every human has the same moral compass, but that's exactly how ignorant and divorced from reality Parr must be. You really don't have to know much about history, different cultures, or heck, the current US political shit-show, to see that we frequently disagree on matters of morality. The mere existence of vegans and vegetarians shows we disagree.
If there is a deity, then Ahura Mazda would be superior to Yahweh. Why? He's not the cause of evil. He doesn't punish people in an eternal torture chamber. By the way, many of the people who lived in the Roman empire believed in a supreme deity. Jupiter, Zeus, or the deity of Plato and Aristotle.
Which, by extension, makes a basis for objective truth utterly worthless, as it is impossible for anyone to know that truth except through our subjective experience.
The idea that childbirth is an example of an intelligent designer is hilarious. So someone infinitely smart deliberately decided humans should push their large headed babies out through the pelvis, with the many risks involved - human childbirth being much more dangerous than in most other animals. Funny how when an *actual* intelligent being has to intervene and perform a C section they go straight for that big open space between the rib cage and the pelvis. How come God didn't think of that?
First he claimed that all people intrinsically know god, but then in his cosmological argument he states "everything that is known to exist has a cause". Therefore, god has a cause. Usually they say "everything that begins to exist has a cause" but maybe he didn't get the memo
If the Big Bang had to have a cause, then so does God, otherwise these arent two sides of the same argument, but are two completely different arguments, and we don't have to accept yours anymore than you accept any of the other creation myths out there.
I read somewhere recently that 30-50% of people have absolutely no internal monologue. Like, while they exist, there's no voice in there going "I need to remember my hair cut" or "Should I tell him I want spaghetti instead?"... like, just nothing. it explains a lot. Behind the words, there's literally nothing going on upstairs. No pondering "does what I just said or read make sense at all"? Just constant sounds of the ocean breeze.
The scarier side of that is the religious people that mistake their internal monologue for the voice of god. I've met a person who thinks that those who lack an internal monologue are touched by satan and have been blocked from hearing the voice of god.
First, those numbers sound high. Second, unless you have some sort of basis for your stereotyping of people who aren't like you, maybe don't do that. While I do have an internal monologue, I am entirely capable of having a thought that ISN'T words. They're not p-zombies. They just don't think in words. I am pretty sure my internal monologue is the coalescing of thoughts into words. I expect yours is, too. They were still thoughts before they became words. Your implication is that if you raised a child without language, they wouldn't be capable of having any sort of coherent thought.
@@Mythraen Feel free to Google it. I linked to a reputable study but the link was removed. There's a LOT of links and many are perfectly respectable scientific and psychology-based sources.
When he said "who created the Big Bang" my first thought was ""Who?" Why does it need to be a "who"?" My second thought was "quantum physics says hello."
That's the crux of the issue isn't it? Even if you accept every one of these arguments at face value, it does nothing to prove there's a god, because there's no way to rule out any other possibilities. You just have to assume their God is the only possible answer at the outset in order for these arguments to be persuasive.
@@helios2664 Yep, exactly. So many arguments are built on this false dichotomy of "my god or no god." First you have to prove a god can exist. Then you have to prove one does exist. Then you have to prove it's your god. Then you have to prove that everything your god claimed to do in your book is something it actually can do. Then you have to prove it actually did them. Apologists want to skip straight to the last step when they can't even establish the first one.
Always amazed that every Christian seems to think Romans 1:20 is a slam dunk. It's just Paul's opinion because he's trying to convince the Church. He's preaching to illiterate people centuries before we discovered science and began to examine the world objectively. And 2Tim 3:16 isn't Pauline and is just another opinion. This guy is trying to convince himself. All apologists are.
30:40 _"It had to have come from God, because if it didn't come from God, then that means that every single person on Earth would have their own standard of morality versus there being a general common morality that is shared amongst all human beings..."_ Please, get 3 Christians to agree on what the exceptions are to one of their favorite moral commandments, "Thou shalt not kill," and I'll even bother to consider whether we have a shared morality in the first place. And that's if I grant that it follows that a shared morality must have been from a god - which I don't, because that's just a free-standing assertion extracted directly from his butt.
This old trope again. The claim that everybody believes in a god, even so-called "non-believers". That is not slung about to make non-believers suddenly believe in a god, but rather to reaffirm to the believers that what they believe is true. " Everyone believes in a god. Some people just deny it." With this in their heads, they can confidently say to themselves, "It's not us that are wrong, it's the others that are stubbornly resisting the truth".
11:45 why he still got an iPhone 8 I KNOW that shit slow asf. Apple hates when people don’t upgrade and slow old phones on purpose that shit gotta be running at a crawl
You are supposed to end on your strongest argument, and what does Allen end on? The ontological argument. The Prosperity Gospel version of an argument. Not only do his arguments suck, he can't even put them in the right order.
Yep, that's pretty much the argument Christians are accusing us of using. Insulting that they think we're that delusional just because we don't believe in invisible sky men, wizards, and talking animals.
@@FrikInCasualMode they're making an analogy to the absurdly of the claim that people deny god exists because they want to sin. It's just as ridiculous.
I'd love to tell Allen that he, personally, is fantastic evidence against his god, because he's an awful representative of logical thinking but a great example of religion-induced brain soup.
1:20 Parr put the wrong verse reference. This is Romans 1:21/25 (he's also cobbling two separate verses together to look like one sentence) i always try to go see the Bible in context with these pastors to see what's being distorted. Obviously Parr needs some QA on his videos
To be fair, I kind of miss Radio Shack. They mostly sucked, but it was nice to have a cheap place nearby to find LEDs when you were trying to light up your nerdy wargaming models.
The more I see of this guy the more I am convinced that his approach to apologetics is to throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. He is, at the least, anti-intellectual... and obviously never leaves his echo chamber. And is it just me, or does anyone else think he resembles Bojack Horseman somehow?
We should not forget that people like Mr. Parr are making a living out of this. He can't recognize any other view or position on this subject because it would mean the end of his career. Thats what makes Atheism so comfortable with me, I can entertain any thought imaginable without having to act upon them concequentially.
Why is a real god more impressive than an imagined one? Think about it. God doing things while being fake would be even greater! "But that's impossible" you say? Why would that matter when the whole thing is just dreaming shit up?
*God : **_"My hands is tied"_** ;* (not all powerful) God can only make life within very narrow parameters. Far more amazing, would be to exist in a universe, that should instantly _kill us all._
32:28 - "If the maximally great being you've imagined only exists in your mind then there must be another being that's even greater because that being actually exists" So I exist, therefore I'm a greater being than god. Makes sense.
There are also huge swaths of land that get covered in water every year and become ecosystems for all kinds of critters that live in and near water in both Africa and South America.
I truly hate that script "a fool says in his heart there is no god.." heard it my whole life. It just simply is NOT true because there is NO unequivocal "way" to know that god exist let alone that Christianity is TRUE. Comparing individual spiritual experiences of any one religious belief system reveals experiences are very similar therefore no way to determine which way is right... So glad I am done with this kind of stuff!
I want to add something in the exoplanets part: yes it's true than 1% of planets is in the habitable zone. However, in our Solar System, even Venus and Mars are, and the first is a scorching hell while the second is a barren desert, so being in the habitable zone isn't a guarantee for life. Also we have Jupiter acting as a shield from comets coming from outer space (if the Schumaker-Levy 9 comet hit us it would've wiped all life from Earth), so the chance of having life is even less than 1%. Even having said that, there still can be millions of planets with life out there, but it's just because we have a mindbendingly large pool of possible planets to apply that percentage on. Still, that percentage means life is a very rare occurrence in the Universe. And that creates a problem when you pair it with the concept of design: there are far far more common occurrencies in the Universe than life, like barren planets, or stars, or Black Holes, or inert gas clouds that have yet to form a star, and so on and so forth. If I want to design something, I would set things up so that my desired outcome would be a very common occurrence. If there was a god who designed the Universe, the fact that life is so rare, and intelligent life is even rarer, means that either we weren't his goal but an accident, or that he's a terrible designer. Also, the ontological argument that guy presented is hylarious. Basically he said "my god exists because yes, so if I imagine a god, the god I'm imagining is lower than the god that I said exists because yes".
So John Locke a philosopher type said there were no innate ideas. This dates from 1689 "On Human Understanding". He says people were born as a blank slate. Allen is thus flying in the face of over 300 years of human knowledge. Allen has to establish that people do have innate ideas before he can establish what they are. John Locke by the way was a Christian. He has to flay in the face of given knowledge due to his version of Christianity. Salvation is by faith alone. Isn't this a bit unfair to all those people in China who have been brought up in ano0ther cultural tradition? People in China get eternal conscious torment for where they were born? No it is not fair these Chinese folk flew in the face of knowledge that was in their hearts.
Even if every single person has an innate sense of God doesn't prove they're right. Plus, most people do not believe in Jesus, most believers Believe that Jesus is NOT GOD. MOST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD POSITIVELY BELIEVE THAT JESUS IS NOT GOD.
Notice when he presents the argument about things having a cause he starts with the example of the phone having a cause and then proceeds with the cup. Now why is it that he starts with the phone and so forth? Because he knows that the phone DOES have a cause!! And he knows who caused that phone to come into existence!! The argument is manipulative!! Why doesn’t he start with a rock just laying there on the ground?
I grew up young earth creationist, so I understand how they twist things to make it seem reasonable. But now that I no better, whenever they basically say "look at the trees" as their reason they believe a god exists, it demonstrates they don't understand science and what we know so far about the universe. I've learned so much in such a short period of time since deconstructing. Also, I find it amusing whenever they say what the world would be like if morality was subjective, and then they just describe reality. What? You mean if morals were subjective, we would all have a different sense of morality and not agree with each other? How shocking! lol All of these are such poor arguments... they only convince those who already believe there is a god. Which is more and more what I'm realizing apologetics is. It's not to make non-believers believe. It's too keep those who already believe from leaving.
Allan: "Deep down inside everyone knows there is a god. My god." Me: Deep down inside where, Allen? I occupy every cell of this body. Where do I go to find your god or belief in your god if, I am a 75 year old atheist?
Invisible qualities being seen is referring to perception or general ability to sense. We can reject that idea as *not* self-evident because they're using post hocs to define what God's qualities are, using selective evidence, and then arguing in a circle.
If anything, the floods, tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes,etc.-are a sign of bad design and that there is no "god" in control, or, at least a good one.
Given that Paul lived in a time and place where everyone was a theist and being an atheist was a crime (in fact, it was THE crime which Christians were fed to lions for), that line in Romans couldn't have been talking about atheists specifically. It had to be addressing EVERYONE who didn't believe in Paul's god. Meaning that, yes, Paul unironically thought that every single person secretly believed in the Hebrew war god. If you push back on modern Christians, a lot of them will probably try to water this down.
Parr doesn't believe any of this, it's just his job to convince others. And he's not really trying to convert people, but to confirm people who already believe.
There is a great counter to the ontological argument which is if you can imagine the universe being created by a God that does not exist it must have more power than a God that does exist.
technically, it could be pink only in a part of the light spectrum I can't see it could also be invisible in this universe but multi-dimensional and pink in another universe or dimension or, more likely, it could not exist at all, since I was drawing a comparison to a god that has contradictory characteristics
Jim Carrey's hamming it up was a big change for entertainment at a time when Hollywood was taking itself a bit too seriously.. A subtle form of breaking the fourth wall humor. Also Robin Williams, Chevy Chase etc.. A predictive Poe of the nutjobs on YT..
The thing I hate most about how Allen and other apologist use the watchmaker argument is the comparison they have to make. The example they use always has to be a manmade device and they only ever break it down by parts up until a human intelligence is involved. IE someone had to build the transistor or who designed the engine. They always completely ignore that technology like that is just utilizing natural processes. Its honestly starting to feel completely deliberate. Id love to see Allen explain how a battery works then attempt to connect that to the bible.
Allen. Allen? *HEY ALLEN!* Paul was talking about the polytheistic pagans of his time, NOT ATHEISTS! No, it doesn't work even close to the same if applied to atheists, you just show every one of us that you have no idea what you're doing.
Both Venus and Mars are situated within the habitable zone. And I don't think bad eye sight is a point against design, other than perhaps against a designer with a specific goal in mind, namely humans with a certain ability to see. It doesn't really say anything about a hypothetical designer of the universe or the first living cell etc.
Ok… so “the designer” didn’t have the specific goal of us in mind. There goes every single theistic religion on the planet. It clearly wasn’t their god.
when I hear 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' I'm thinking of a clock that stopped running but it still tells you the right time twice a day, now good luck making good use of that knowledge...
Maybe he's also a flat earther who believes in a sky dome and doesn't accept the stars are humongous plasma balls. Or maybe he does, given how he talks about the sun. But the "stars not falling down" doesn't make any sense at all in a universe like ours where they are much more massive and larger than Earth itself.
The cosmo argument is the dumbest of the god botherer talking points. They assume god exists and then use the cosmocrap to assert this god is the cause of the cosmos.
Parr: How do we know God is real and we're not indulging in wishful thinking?
Step one: indulge in wishful thinking.
What's ironic is that anyone can come up with a better version of that wishful thinking.
They WANT a god to be real, desperately so. Therefore they assume anything remotely sounding like it might help to believe it MUST be true...
And that's one of the least damning fallacies religious thinking indulges in...
I agree, he's an idiot...
He strikes me as someone who has never read any opposition to his position ever.
He can't listen to someone with a different belief because he can't be sure he would still believe in his god.
He strikes me as someone who has never read his own position ever and think is ready to defend from the oppostion he hasnt ready neither.
Reading and understanding are two different things. People like this only pay attention long enough to find something to disagree with, and then ignore everything else.
actually, he strikes me as someone whose psyche would collapse if his beliefs are ever proven wrong.
they do read it they have no idea what it says.
"I don't understand this thing, therefore it must be magic" is the unspoken premise behind 95% of all arguments for the existence of a god.
Can xtianity survive without this smugnorance?
Indeed.
God is the clay, and humanity, the sculptor. (made in our image)
God, as an explanation for anything = _An appeal to a bigger mystery._
@@moodyrick8503 Except it doesn't actually explain anything at all.
"Why is this thing?"
"God did it."
"Why did he do it that way?"
"Because he wanted to."
"Yeah, but why?"
And so on.
@@chameleonx9253 Except, God doesn't have any explanatory power at all.
if you ask "what do i need jesus for" and then when you get some lame bit of preaching you ask again "yes, but what do i need jesus for" eventually the word "hell" will be extracted.
"How can we know? We can know."
Allen's video summed up.
He graduated Maga Cum Laude at the University of Trust Me Brah !!!
Good enough for me. Better go join a church.
Funny how he had to mention childbirth as not only is it literally a curse in christian theology, but humans also had a very high childbirth mortality rate before the advent of medicine.
I am so sick of hearing about “the miracle of childbirth”
All my children were born via c section, as were my mothers before me. Left up to “gods perfect design” we might not have survived. We have generations living now because humans took the process into our own hands and figured out a way to overcome some of the fatal flaws of the birth process. And even then it can still be dangerous.
It's the same old apologetic arguments. Parr for the course
nice
I see what you did.
You went All-en on the dad joke.
I'm black and when I say I'm an atheist I get the craziest strangest looks from people. Because for many people black people are a monolith and of course all black people are spiritual and religious😂😂😂
the girls dress nice for church, very tempting.
The Romans, who were white oppressed Israel, who were at that time black.
@tryme3969 The Romans did not think in terms of race like we do nowadays, which is terminology. When it comes down to race, it is only about 500 years old. The Age of Exploration, the transatlantic slave trade and the enlightenment are the causes of that.
@@tryme3969I don’t think there is evidence for that.
Exactly, I haven’t told anyone but my friend (also atheist). I know I’m going to get the craziest looks. At least i’m not alone 😂
Imagine that you work so hard to argue god is the cause of all things only to realize, first hand, that you have arrived at the problem of evil.
Then you work so hard to resolve the problem of evil that you realize that christianity is useless.
@@goldenalt3166 maybe they will figure it out with another 2000 years of effort only to keep ending up back where they started.
@@JNMeiun I hope that the abrahamic beliefs will have died out long before then.
With luck, the internet will enable people to realise that the societies they grew up in, weren't right about everything, and that it's relatively easy to find out how Science and Logic blow their arguments about their superstitions out of the water.
To paraphrase Spiderman, the more power they assign their mythical friends, the more culpable that would make those imaginary deities.
@@pineapplepenumbra Ah, but have you considered a God who is supernaturally immune to blame?
4:55 It's not Allen Parr's exaggerated facial expressions that bother me. It's the fact that he's always, always, always SHOUTING at us. Every sermon, he has CAPS LOCK ON THE WHOLE TIME. Maybe he thinks the louder he is, the more confident he sounds. Maybe he doesn't want us able to hear ourselves think. Or maybe his real audience is children, since for added annoyance he repeats everything he says.
Oh, great. Now I'm going to walk around the rest of the day with a mental image of Allen Parr shouting the same thing over and over in a kid's face. Perfect.
It's a common technique used by MLM salespeople. They shout and scream to appear important, and to distract from what they're saying - which is nothing at all.
Does he have hearing-impaired family or friends he's been around for a long time? I lived with my grandparents in my childhood and my natural volume is often too loud now for people around me. Sometimes it's not intentional.
Parr not only misunderstands most things, he misunderstands them *very fucking loudly*
Ah yes, fundie Denzel Washington...the master of not understanding what he's talking about.
Sometimes I get the impression that this guy just loves God and Christianity so much because it allows him to be an asshole and he self righteous about it even
Yup. parr is a bigoted homophobic sexist abuser....
It's only when he's talking, right?
It's crazy how I can almost HEAR Allen Parr's exaggerated facial expressions
When you brought that up I was like "That's why he always sounds weird" lol
Welcome to creationist cosmology. It assumes that God created everything, therefor everything is a proof of God. Nice in circle does it go.
it also must assume that big bang cosmology is thinking everything came from nothing to make it sound ridiculous in the most apologetic way possible.
@@theflyingdutchguy9870 Or to make it easy to insert the creator that changes the nothing to something. Because the creator did work with nothing.
The favorite thing of all Christians is the Circular Reasoning Principle:
Why does God exist? Because the Bible says so.
Why should we believe what the Bible say? Because it's the word of God.
Me: But I don't believe step one.
Christian: Oh, but you do, the Bible says you really do, so checkmate.
"And that should be good enough."
Or so:
"Here is the evidence for God"
"This is not evidence for such and such a reason"
".... But.... A Christian doesn't need proof either, we have Faith" **Nervous smile**
God is supposed to be the conscious designer of diseases, parasites and carnivores... and the book itself is a summing up of attrocities too... why would anybody take that book as proof that god is trustworthy?
i had this conversation with my mom yesterday. it was extremely frustrating because i asked “what is the differentiator between your faith, study, and experience in your religion, and the faith, study, and experience someone else might have in a mutually exclusive religion?”
she said “well the other religions don’t have jesus. they don’t have a solution for sin and absolving us so we can be with god”
to which i was like “but all that is stuff you believe because of christianity. your argument boils down to ‘the difference between my religion and everyone else’s is they’re not my religion’”
all she could do was shrug her shoulders. i don’t know why it was so frustrating to hear that was the logic she used to justify her beliefs. i guess i thought there was something more substantial.
I love it when people say Let me put it in layman's terms when they are already speaking in layman's terms.
All those starving people, all those abused people, those kids being murdered by monsters.. yeah, they all know in their gut that there is a god! Wow!!
"If everyone didn't have a shared moral compass that came from a perfect god...." Well for one thing, they don't. The fact that fundamentalists, who Allen Parr no doubt is one of, have ideas of morality that go against the vast majority of humanity shoots down the idea that morality was implanted in every person by their god.
I don't know how ignorant and divorced from reality you have to be to think that every human has the same moral compass, but that's exactly how ignorant and divorced from reality Parr must be.
You really don't have to know much about history, different cultures, or heck, the current US political shit-show, to see that we frequently disagree on matters of morality. The mere existence of vegans and vegetarians shows we disagree.
If there is a deity, then Ahura Mazda would be superior to Yahweh.
Why?
He's not the cause of evil.
He doesn't punish people in an eternal torture chamber.
By the way, many of the people who lived in the Roman empire believed in a supreme deity. Jupiter, Zeus, or the deity of Plato and Aristotle.
4:55 This always reminds me of "With all this horse poop around, there's gotta be a pony."
So the basis of all objective truth can only be experienced subjectively. Yep I'm sold!🤣
Which, by extension, makes a basis for objective truth utterly worthless, as it is impossible for anyone to know that truth except through our subjective experience.
Love seeing your channel growth! 😍
here's to much more of it!
The idea that childbirth is an example of an intelligent designer is hilarious. So someone infinitely smart deliberately decided humans should push their large headed babies out through the pelvis, with the many risks involved - human childbirth being much more dangerous than in most other animals. Funny how when an *actual* intelligent being has to intervene and perform a C section they go straight for that big open space between the rib cage and the pelvis. How come God didn't think of that?
also most pregnancies end before they could ever lead to birth
First he claimed that all people intrinsically know god, but then in his cosmological argument he states "everything that is known to exist has a cause". Therefore, god has a cause. Usually they say "everything that begins to exist has a cause" but maybe he didn't get the memo
If the Big Bang had to have a cause, then so does God, otherwise these arent two sides of the same argument,
but are two completely different arguments, and we don't have to accept yours anymore than you accept any of the other creation myths out there.
24:10 the perfect amount of rain to grow pumpkins for Halloween!
I read somewhere recently that 30-50% of people have absolutely no internal monologue. Like, while they exist, there's no voice in there going "I need to remember my hair cut" or "Should I tell him I want spaghetti instead?"... like, just nothing. it explains a lot. Behind the words, there's literally nothing going on upstairs. No pondering "does what I just said or read make sense at all"? Just constant sounds of the ocean breeze.
The scarier side of that is the religious people that mistake their internal monologue for the voice of god. I've met a person who thinks that those who lack an internal monologue are touched by satan and have been blocked from hearing the voice of god.
Are you serious? I thought everyone had their own monologue in their head. Interesting. Without monologue it would be difficult to question yourself
That explains Kristi Noem.
First, those numbers sound high.
Second, unless you have some sort of basis for your stereotyping of people who aren't like you, maybe don't do that.
While I do have an internal monologue, I am entirely capable of having a thought that ISN'T words.
They're not p-zombies. They just don't think in words.
I am pretty sure my internal monologue is the coalescing of thoughts into words. I expect yours is, too. They were still thoughts before they became words.
Your implication is that if you raised a child without language, they wouldn't be capable of having any sort of coherent thought.
@@Mythraen Feel free to Google it. I linked to a reputable study but the link was removed. There's a LOT of links and many are perfectly respectable scientific and psychology-based sources.
When he said "who created the Big Bang" my first thought was ""Who?" Why does it need to be a "who"?"
My second thought was "quantum physics says hello."
That's the crux of the issue isn't it? Even if you accept every one of these arguments at face value, it does nothing to prove there's a god, because there's no way to rule out any other possibilities.
You just have to assume their God is the only possible answer at the outset in order for these arguments to be persuasive.
@@chameleonx9253 Nor does that prove it’s the christian god specifically.
@@helios2664 Yep, exactly. So many arguments are built on this false dichotomy of "my god or no god."
First you have to prove a god can exist.
Then you have to prove one does exist.
Then you have to prove it's your god.
Then you have to prove that everything your god claimed to do in your book is something it actually can do.
Then you have to prove it actually did them.
Apologists want to skip straight to the last step when they can't even establish the first one.
15:22 Why, even if it would have to be something supernatural, would it specifically have to be Yahweh? 🤷🏻♂️
Honestly the habitable zone only accounts for life like ours.
its also not a very small amount of space. the planet could literally be miles closer or further away from the sun and water would still be liquid
"over hundreds of years, centuries of years"
wow, much elegance in word usage
"I think, therefore God is" - What a great comeback to that argument!
What’s the point of his video if he already thinks everyone believes. Or even more, why are the missionaries trying to spread the Bible?
There's still a Radio Shack somewhere? That settles it--there is a God.
Yes many of us do not care what some fanatic that might have been a real person said 2000 years ago.
Always amazed that every Christian seems to think Romans 1:20 is a slam dunk. It's just Paul's opinion because he's trying to convince the Church. He's preaching to illiterate people centuries before we discovered science and began to examine the world objectively. And 2Tim 3:16 isn't Pauline and is just another opinion. This guy is trying to convince himself. All apologists are.
Can I say how I really don’t like how “happy” Allen Parr look ? He look like he think he already won.
What can be known about God has been made plain to me.
And what can be known about God is that God is pretend
30:40 _"It had to have come from God, because if it didn't come from God, then that means that every single person on Earth would have their own standard of morality versus there being a general common morality that is shared amongst all human beings..."_
Please, get 3 Christians to agree on what the exceptions are to one of their favorite moral commandments, "Thou shalt not kill," and I'll even bother to consider whether we have a shared morality in the first place.
And that's if I grant that it follows that a shared morality must have been from a god - which I don't, because that's just a free-standing assertion extracted directly from his butt.
“I hate doing this”
Proceeds to do “this” and secretly loves it
I like the numbers spiel, btw 😊
This old trope again. The claim that everybody believes in a god, even so-called "non-believers".
That is not slung about to make non-believers suddenly believe in a god, but rather to reaffirm to the believers that what they believe is true.
" Everyone believes in a god. Some people just deny it."
With this in their heads, they can confidently say to themselves, "It's not us that are wrong, it's the others that are stubbornly resisting the truth".
😂 From "Because the Bible tells me so." to "Look at the trees."
These are some of the worst arguments for a god 😂
And... the best?
I would assume those are the arguments that involve confusing the reader with convoluted topics.
Its a perfect world always trying to kill us.
"fuckin magnets, how do they work?"
Years of making thumbnail faces in order to grift have broken this man's mind.
Good one 😂😂😂😂
When this guy hears bump in the night, he knows it's a ghost, and his name is Casper.
3:22 "If the earth was round, there would be no one identifying as flat-earthers, there would be no flat-earthers"
11:45 why he still got an iPhone 8 I KNOW that shit slow asf. Apple hates when people don’t upgrade and slow old phones on purpose that shit gotta be running at a crawl
No high horse I’m on the 11 and my shit be acting up too
You are supposed to end on your strongest argument, and what does Allen end on? The ontological argument. The Prosperity Gospel version of an argument.
Not only do his arguments suck, he can't even put them in the right order.
I know deep in my heart that police, courts and justice system exist but I am denying them because I don't want to follow the law.
Well, you can actually met a policeman, lawyer or judge in person. You can't prove God exists at all - thus "faith" and "belief".
Yep, that's pretty much the argument Christians are accusing us of using. Insulting that they think we're that delusional just because we don't believe in invisible sky men, wizards, and talking animals.
@@FrikInCasualMode they're making an analogy to the absurdly of the claim that people deny god exists because they want to sin. It's just as ridiculous.
KkklM M
Allen Par really just regurgitated all the most basic arguments for God that we've all heard a million times.
I'd love to tell Allen that he, personally, is fantastic evidence against his god, because he's an awful representative of logical thinking but a great example of religion-induced brain soup.
1:20 Parr put the wrong verse reference. This is Romans 1:21/25 (he's also cobbling two separate verses together to look like one sentence)
i always try to go see the Bible in context with these pastors to see what's being distorted. Obviously Parr needs some QA on his videos
RadioShack? What the hell?😂😂
To be fair, I kind of miss Radio Shack. They mostly sucked, but it was nice to have a cheap place nearby to find LEDs when you were trying to light up your nerdy wargaming models.
@@jeremysmetana8583 I hear ya. But in reference to a modern cell phone, it’s kinda funny.
The more I see of this guy the more I am convinced that his approach to apologetics is to throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. He is, at the least, anti-intellectual... and obviously never leaves his echo chamber. And is it just me, or does anyone else think he resembles Bojack Horseman somehow?
We should not forget that people like Mr. Parr are making a living out of this.
He can't recognize any other view or position on this subject because it would mean the end of his career.
Thats what makes Atheism so comfortable with me, I can entertain any thought imaginable without having to act upon them concequentially.
"Plastic if you will, he's getting fancy on us oh my" 😂
Allen Parr? More like subpar
Goteem
"There's an intelligence going on". Not on Parr's channel.
brutal
@@danger.snakes - He set himself up for it. lol.
Why is a real god more impressive than an imagined one?
Think about it. God doing things while being fake would be even greater! "But that's impossible" you say? Why would that matter when the whole thing is just dreaming shit up?
2:05 An internal sense that something is true is not knowledge. It's an assumption.
*God : **_"My hands is tied"_** ;* (not all powerful)
God can only make life within very narrow parameters.
Far more amazing, would be to exist in a universe, that should instantly _kill us all._
4:25 Excellent point!!
3:00 How?
32:28 - "If the maximally great being you've imagined only exists in your mind then there must be another being that's even greater because that being actually exists"
So I exist, therefore I'm a greater being than god. Makes sense.
His proof is "you should know it". That isn't proof.
I am really enjoying your videos.
There are also huge swaths of land that get covered in water every year and become ecosystems for all kinds of critters that live in and near water in both Africa and South America.
I truly hate that script "a fool says in his heart there is no god.." heard it my whole life. It just simply is NOT true because there is NO unequivocal "way" to know that god exist let alone that Christianity is TRUE. Comparing individual spiritual experiences of any one religious belief system reveals experiences are very similar therefore no way to determine which way is right... So glad I am done with this kind of stuff!
I want to add something in the exoplanets part: yes it's true than 1% of planets is in the habitable zone. However, in our Solar System, even Venus and Mars are, and the first is a scorching hell while the second is a barren desert, so being in the habitable zone isn't a guarantee for life. Also we have Jupiter acting as a shield from comets coming from outer space (if the Schumaker-Levy 9 comet hit us it would've wiped all life from Earth), so the chance of having life is even less than 1%. Even having said that, there still can be millions of planets with life out there, but it's just because we have a mindbendingly large pool of possible planets to apply that percentage on.
Still, that percentage means life is a very rare occurrence in the Universe. And that creates a problem when you pair it with the concept of design: there are far far more common occurrencies in the Universe than life, like barren planets, or stars, or Black Holes, or inert gas clouds that have yet to form a star, and so on and so forth. If I want to design something, I would set things up so that my desired outcome would be a very common occurrence. If there was a god who designed the Universe, the fact that life is so rare, and intelligent life is even rarer, means that either we weren't his goal but an accident, or that he's a terrible designer.
Also, the ontological argument that guy presented is hylarious. Basically he said "my god exists because yes, so if I imagine a god, the god I'm imagining is lower than the god that I said exists because yes".
So John Locke a philosopher type said there were no innate ideas. This dates from 1689 "On Human Understanding". He says people were born as a blank slate. Allen is thus flying in the face of over 300 years of human knowledge. Allen has to establish that people do have innate ideas before he can establish what they are. John Locke by the way was a Christian. He has to flay in the face of given knowledge due to his version of Christianity. Salvation is by faith alone. Isn't this a bit unfair to all those people in China who have been brought up in ano0ther cultural tradition? People in China get eternal conscious torment for where they were born? No it is not fair these Chinese folk flew in the face of knowledge that was in their hearts.
The hardest part of the ontological argument to wrap your head around is the fact that there are actual, living humans who think it's a good argument.
I would like to know what is going on with your comb over.
Even if every single person has an innate sense of God doesn't prove they're right.
Plus, most people do not believe in Jesus, most believers Believe that Jesus is NOT GOD.
MOST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD POSITIVELY BELIEVE THAT JESUS IS NOT GOD.
Notice when he presents the argument about things having a cause he starts with the example of the phone having a cause and then proceeds with the cup. Now why is it that he starts with the phone and so forth? Because he knows that the phone DOES have a cause!! And he knows who caused that phone to come into existence!! The argument is manipulative!!
Why doesn’t he start with a rock just laying there on the ground?
I grew up young earth creationist, so I understand how they twist things to make it seem reasonable. But now that I no better, whenever they basically say "look at the trees" as their reason they believe a god exists, it demonstrates they don't understand science and what we know so far about the universe. I've learned so much in such a short period of time since deconstructing.
Also, I find it amusing whenever they say what the world would be like if morality was subjective, and then they just describe reality. What? You mean if morals were subjective, we would all have a different sense of morality and not agree with each other? How shocking! lol
All of these are such poor arguments... they only convince those who already believe there is a god. Which is more and more what I'm realizing apologetics is. It's not to make non-believers believe. It's too keep those who already believe from leaving.
It's like he's never even bothered to look at the critiques of his arguments
that's because he hasn't
My "internal witness" says there's no gods. My internal witness is clearly more honest than Allan Parr's internal witless.
Do not bear false witness.
@@tryme3969so you aren’t going to lie to people and tell them it is reasonable to believe in god?
Practice what you preach.
Allan:
"Deep down inside everyone knows there is a god. My god."
Me:
Deep down inside where, Allen? I occupy every cell of this body. Where do I go to find your god or belief in your god if, I am a 75 year old atheist?
Yeah there's a lot of flooding going on right now in Kenya.
Invisible qualities being seen is referring to perception or general ability to sense.
We can reject that idea as *not* self-evident because they're using post hocs to define what God's qualities are, using selective evidence, and then arguing in a circle.
If I'm perfect any perfect being I could imagine would be filled with imperfections.
Argument from Rainfall. Well, that's a new one.
If anything, the floods, tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes,etc.-are a sign of bad design and that there is no "god" in control, or, at least a good one.
Given that Paul lived in a time and place where everyone was a theist and being an atheist was a crime (in fact, it was THE crime which Christians were fed to lions for), that line in Romans couldn't have been talking about atheists specifically. It had to be addressing EVERYONE who didn't believe in Paul's god. Meaning that, yes, Paul unironically thought that every single person secretly believed in the Hebrew war god. If you push back on modern Christians, a lot of them will probably try to water this down.
Back then, an atheist was just someone who didn’t believe in your own god or gods that you believed in. That’s how the term was used.
The feeding of Christians to lions has been vastly exaggerated by Christians....😑
Mr. Judge, sir, I call my internal witness to testify I followed my internal laws.
Parr doesn't believe any of this, it's just his job to convince others.
And he's not really trying to convert people, but to confirm people who already believe.
There is a great counter to the ontological argument which is if you can imagine the universe being created by a God that does not exist it must have more power than a God that does exist.
9:58 i was just going to post the same thing.
I'd like to see something other than the same tired arguments that apologists always use.
I'm confused on how something could be both pink (a color which you have to see) and invisible (meaning you can't see it).
technically, it could be pink only in a part of the light spectrum I can't see
it could also be invisible in this universe but multi-dimensional and pink in another universe or dimension
or, more likely, it could not exist at all, since I was drawing a comparison to a god that has contradictory characteristics
Jim Carrey's hamming it up was a big change for entertainment at a time when Hollywood was taking itself a bit too seriously.. A subtle form of breaking the fourth wall humor.
Also Robin Williams, Chevy Chase etc..
A predictive Poe of the nutjobs on YT..
The thing I hate most about how Allen and other apologist use the watchmaker argument is the comparison they have to make. The example they use always has to be a manmade device and they only ever break it down by parts up until a human intelligence is involved. IE someone had to build the transistor or who designed the engine. They always completely ignore that technology like that is just utilizing natural processes. Its honestly starting to feel completely deliberate. Id love to see Allen explain how a battery works then attempt to connect that to the bible.
Allen. Allen? *HEY ALLEN!*
Paul was talking about the polytheistic pagans of his time, NOT ATHEISTS! No, it doesn't work even close to the same if applied to atheists, you just show every one of us that you have no idea what you're doing.
Both Venus and Mars are situated within the habitable zone.
And I don't think bad eye sight is a point against design, other than perhaps against a designer with a specific goal in mind, namely humans with a certain ability to see. It doesn't really say anything about a hypothetical designer of the universe or the first living cell etc.
Ok… so “the designer” didn’t have the specific goal of us in mind.
There goes every single theistic religion on the planet. It clearly wasn’t their god.
ok that was the best DIGRESS LOL
when I hear 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' I'm thinking of a clock that stopped running but it still tells you the right time twice a day, now good luck making good use of that knowledge...
Maybe he's also a flat earther who believes in a sky dome and doesn't accept the stars are humongous plasma balls.
Or maybe he does, given how he talks about the sun.
But the "stars not falling down" doesn't make any sense at all in a universe like ours where they are much more massive and larger than Earth itself.
Truth= degree to which the statement corresponds with reality.
Lie=degree to which the statement corresponds with reality
"How can we know that god exists?" : Can't, unless god shows up personally.
We don't care what your book says, dear.
The cosmo argument is the dumbest of the god botherer talking points. They assume god exists and then use the cosmocrap to assert this god is the cause of the cosmos.