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!
Sir good at the sex Sic, I asked a while ago but why do you think modern religions can't be called cults, when from what I know they fit under a definition of cults?
chimpanzee can recognise themselves in a mirror, elphants will put themselves in danger to save a baby, and crows and squarrels can think outside the box to solve puzzels for food, seems we're not that special
A professor of Theology with no experience or knowledge outside his own field of study, and proves he knows nothing .. I am Shocked, Shocked I tells you
I honestly am shocked. I'm used to theology school right at the beginning teaching you all of the problems with your religion. But I guess some programs are WAY worse than others.
Honestly, "theology" isn't even a field of study (not in the way he means anyway). They can't show us any god they've studied, so it isn't "the study of god(s)". Given that every argument for any god is fallacious, they aren't doing philosophy. It's isn't normally even "the study of religion", because they invariably "study" only their own religion, and maybe the close relatives. Ask a christian, islamic, or judaic "theologian" about Aboriginal Australian religion, or traditional Chinese religion, see how many blank stares or dismissals you get. The people who actually study religion tend not to believe any of them.
@@jursamaj It is frequently an abstract look at the concept of beliefs which then dials into some focus; something that is even undertaken by atheists. I guess it just frequently isn't as well. So any time someone claims to have any degree in theology, it's pretty important to find out what sort they're talking about.
@@verdatumyeah, because there are proper universities that teach proper theology, which is somewere between of philosophy and history with the fokus in religion and religiouse texts. And others are more like these apologetic courses that are used by evangelicals to prop up their skill on BS. Since it technically is theology, they can say they have a degree in it. Just like a nurse helper has technically a medical degree....
@RobertWilkinsonJKekMaloy For the umpthousandth time, Atheist don't have faith in nothing. That is a lie spread by conmen, idiots, and idiotic conmen. Stop spreading this lie and listen to what we actually think. You might just learn something.
You are wrong, that is just because there are no true scotsman! This guy for example pretends to believe in the Abrahmic god, yet can you see his shovel? I bet he does his business in IN HIS house!
@@madtabby66 wrote: "How many Christian’s follow the Biblical Christianity?" Same number of Atheists who follow Charles Darwin's teachings. I wager more Atheists follow Karl Marx's teachings than Charles Darwin's teachings. I wager more Atheists follow Karl Marx's teachings than Christians following Jesus' teachings.
Professor of *theology* , it means nothing (by definition) until they come up with a single testable claim. You can't have knowledge of the supernatural... by definition.
@@SirSicCrusader l have a question for a British person. Sure I could probably Google it, but Google hasn't earned my trust like you have. Does "bollocks" mean bullshit, balls, or both. It seems like I've heard it used for both, but I'm not sure what the relationship between balls and bullshit would be.
@@MudflapNicholsIt's all contextual. It does mean both talking BS and a reference to testicles. It goes further, to "give someone a bollocking" means to give them a serious telling off, to say something is "the bollocks" aka "the dogs bollocks" means it's a great thing, the best.
If I was playing the "Logical Fallacy Drinking Game", after playing his video, I would need to be taken me to the ER to be treated for alcohol poisoning.
Professor Plink reacted to this a month ago. His was very thoughtful and analytical. Yours was wonderful shit talking with valid points sprinkled in. Thank you for being you Sir Sic.
About the watchmaker argument, there's one way of debunking it that I don't see often even though it is the most effective at showing why it's total nonsense, and it consists of one question: In contrast to what does the watch seems created? The watchmaker argument states that if you find a watch in nature, then it will seem obvious to one that the object is artificial, made, crafted, created. But this means that the nature it's found in does not seem obviously created in the same manner. Hence, it can not apply to nature to conclude that it is created. The argument contradict its own purpose. Brilliant! GG theologists.
To that I'd add that, well, imagine a rocky beach with the ground full of pebbles, except some of those pebbles are different, some are seashells and other things you typically find on beaches in our world, but some also are pocket watches. How would you react? It wouldn't strike you as something more special than other things in this nature. Sure, if you open it, it exhibits some very complex and unique structures, but it's not that different from what you can find in living organisms. It could very well be the exoskeleton of a weird bivalve-like animal from the sea you don't know of for example. This thought experiment shows clearly that the watchmaker argument is completely dependant on context. A unique watch seems special, it could be reasonably speculated to be something crafted, common multiple seem just normal, it seems natural, an object that can seem so complex that you wouldn't think it's natural can actually totally is, and it truly seems intuitive because we know for sure they're created.
I've been pointing that out for years and I believe you're the first other person I've seen mention it. A random rock is, according to them, just as designed as a smartphone, so the fact they can even _perceive_ a difference is proof the argument is trash. It debunks itself in its own premises. The watchmaker argument is *_that bad._* The only worse "argument" is presuppositionalism, and that's literally just a tantrum, so _ain't nobody getting first place after that._
@@victzegopterix2 'fraid it is and you're lucky you haven't been presup'd in the face yet. So brace yourself. Presuppositionalism is the position that the bible says everybody believes in God so atheists are lying and they're also christians so if you believe God exists then God exists. That's the whole thing. _If I believe I'm right, then I'm right._ Popularized by one of the most irritating shills on the planet (at least, at the time...) Sye Ten Bruggencate, who would famously declare that he knew atheists didn't exist and would use the bible as justification for that lie of his, but when challenged about what other nonsense the bible said would refuse to discuss the bible with nonbelievers. Which he said didn't exist. Literally just throwing a tantrum for a living. _You DO believe in God, so THERE!_
They haven't had a SINGLE NEW THING in DECADES!!!! It's always the same arguments parroted over and over again, like no one has ever heard them before. It's more proof that they aren't interested in what the other side says. They don't listen when the other side answers.
Pulling his 'professor of theology card' with the full cognitive disonence that a degree in theology is a degree in rationalization. Theology in its proper place should be a sub-discipline within cultural anthropology.
Fought a rat for it and licked off all the grease stains. It may not have his name on it, and may in fact be a receipt for a Happy Meal, but actually if you read it together with this other piece of paper he got from a traffic cop, it's clearly a metaphor for a PhD, so it's basically still useful. Those spiteful "academics" wanna tell him he has no degree, but they're using a definition of "degree" he doesn't agree with, man!
There’s a scene in the movie Black Robe, where the Huron-Wendat people can’t believe the definition of heaven (paradise) - according to the Jesuits - is sitting around on clouds looking at God forever. Sounds f-ing terrible.
@@tomperone9338 it is. Just not for their side. Brings to mind the expression: with friends like that, who needs enemies. Nothing will ruin religion quicker then the religious.
So it's "My god is real, and yours isn't." Weird argument. This guy is the living embodiment of why it's called 'belief'. There is no proof for belief.
"I don't believe in God because he's evil" Man really heard "I wouldn't worship the biblical God even if he _did_ exist, because he's evil!" and only understood about half of the sentence.
Yep. Hit them all the time with the good life thing. If their god is benevolent he will accept that I lived a good life, if he sends me to hell for not worshiping , then I’ll follow the Buddhist path and do what I can there.
That duncecap moment is probably the -best- only evidence that he might actually _be_ a "theology professor" because 90% of "theology" degree holders seem to have gotten the same class of How To Repeat Tired Platitudes For A Living 101. Every time you see an apologist with a name, you can look them up, and almost without fail they have some unrelated degrees in business management followed by some grandiose PhD in fakeology from Religious Propaganda Milluniversity. The counterargument is that he's got the performance all wrong. He's _too_ incompetent to be a real fake; he's a hobbyist.
Not entirely. Oxymorons make a degree of sense, and while one may have a fairly reasonable way of arriving at a particular religion on the surface, it'll likely fade away with some analysis and learning. Needless to say, this is just the opinion of one regular jackoff on the internet (me).
Kind of, but not really: An Oxymoron is a rhetorical device usually used to illustrate some point or insight by use of an internal contradiction. Saying something contradictory just because you don't know what you're talking about is just being a moron.
@@LadyDoomsinger Do you mean like - jessus is Against abortions, but don't tell that too Genuine Authentic Indingeous America's, the few that are Alive, after jessus provided all them Abortion's??
My nerd brain is screaming "well actually" at me and won't shut up until I explain that there are experiments demonstrating the Casimir effect in which two plates placed extremely close to each in a vacuum are pushed together due to what is known as vacuum fluctuations where particles continuously pop into and out of existence. The plates are pushed together because more particles are created outside the plates then between them.
Meanwhile I was just thinking "virtual particles, dude" for his entire argument from ignorance. And then I was thinking he was WAY too careful about his sentence there to be ignorant because he's basically describing virtual particles without saying those two words so he fully knows he's lying. "Scientists have done tests with vacuums and they have never seen -virtual particles- um uh um things pop into existence -the way virtual particles do- UM UH" we see right through the pathetic charlatan.
"Love Is beyond comprehension". WTF? No, it's not. If it's beyond comprehension, then how tf is he comprehending it with his God?!? Love is 100% explainable by biology, chemistry, and psychology.
God, who is outside of time, outside of space, non material, but personal and wants a relationship with us.... is beyond comprehension. Yet "he" has written a book ( which is incomprehensible itself and not two Christians agree on the fundamentals)
"if people meet many selfish or angry people in the world, their image of a god may become skewed" has... has he considered this is a much more effective argument against theism? "sure my god killed everyone on earth except for eight people, but the people at my place of worship are SO NICE!"
He's saying that his invisible sky wizard, despite all the genocidal sadism is actually a nice guy sort of like an abusive partner if you only see them at other times you would know.
Alternative title: "Supposed professor of theology makes several arguments from incredulity and non-arguments while committing a fallacy in every single point he makes."
Y'know... point number 8: "There is no way to encounter a person who is truly transformed by God and to still have doubt of his existence." I still have doubts of God's existence, therefore I've never encountered anyone who has been truly transformed by God... UA-cam staircase theists included.
Reminds me of my old mathematical disproof of god, which you might find amusing, so here you are. 2+2=4 God is in all things. 2+2+God=4+God God hides himself to avoid interfering with our free will. 2+2+God=4 Simplify. (2+2)+God=(4) God=0
I know a lot of people who have stories about how they were the biggest and baddest atheist until -a head injury- god came into their lives. I’m just struggling to believe the 90lb tech nerd was head of the Hells Angels.
Entropy does not lead to chaos, but to homogeny. Everything is at rest, with equal size, mass, charge, equally spaced, etc. Entropy is not destruction, but equalisation.
cause, his Sky Buddy is BEST?? I actually was one, then I really read them book's, became a nasty person alonng the way. Then I got more realistic about the content's and figured out the Evil Doulble speak ingrained in. Further reading then made me Atheistic and deeply acknowledge religion is actually the Best Proof of Alien's ever. all 10,ooo+ MY SKY BUDDY IS, BEST, religion's I think are only proof of Alien's needed to know there are definitely Alien's contrlling Earth through religious DIVISION... 10,ooo+ division's keep Humanity Stalled and Ignorant, using ridicule and Verbal abuse when that fail's out with the torches and pitch forks.. GET THE NON-BELIEVER...... INFIDEL.....ANTI-CHRIST BLA, BLA, AND bla.. I have many reasons to credit my Hypothisis, that are Unquestionable, including religious text that directly says Flesh from above(Heavens) or SKY.. Liturally hundreds of Verses of Old bible are Banned from public due to direct wording, angel;s are flesh and can be Killed... As well as reproduce with human's, at least some humanoid species can and Have, this is FACT.... Religion control's voting, nomanies, police, Medical, Gov and Military, "Perched on top, of US feeding off us, from Birth till Death. Are Our master. They haave US. They Control US. THEY are our Owner's. Their are all about you" John Carpenter "THEY LIVE, we shleep". More truth in that movie than every version of bileBULL..
First "reason" of his, and I'm already going, "Okay, which trailer did you buy that 'doctorate' of yours from, assuming that you did not just make up - a.k.a. lie - about having a doctorate?"
Actually, an experiment to determine is something could come from nothing would take no time. No. Literally, no time. You'd need an absence of both space AND time. Otherwise you would have started from something. However, if you managed to create this absence, then that would be *something*. So, the main reason we've not been able to get something from nothing is because something keeps superseding nothing!
I love how they keep misquoting the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. That's of a closed system. A human body isn't a closed system. A planet isn't a closed system.
Close. It’s of an isolated system. The law only applies to systems that don’t gain or lose energy, something you can’t even observe in reality since observations would require transfer of energy.
@@archapmangcmg Isolated is just another word for closed. You are also wrong in that it cannot be observed. When a person dies they become a closed system. While alive they are not because they are taking in food and then using that energy. Once they are deceased they are no longer taking in anything and entropy increases. This is 9th grade science.
@@madtabby66 It's closed because the body is dead and no longer taking in and digesting anything. The bacteria and other organisms are helping in the decaying process. They aren't adding to it.
The Problem of Evil is a response to guys like him saying God's all Good when we see horrible pain and suffering in the world. Good thing he just defines all that away. Very big brain.
I keep telling them I’ll believe when they empty St Jude’s hospital. After all, doesn’t their god say ask and it will be given unto you. Mark 11;4 John 15 And so on and so on. I figure that’s something neither one of us will personally benefit from, but as someone who has walked a pediatric ward (not kidding we do rock paper scissors when they do a tech call. Worst ward in the hospital) Children don’t deserve that shit.
This is what you get from seminary students who memorize made up apologetics and spew them with mid-level confidence until they are swatted to the 10th row by anybody with logic and common sense
And terrestrial living things need water to survive. But, despite our world being covered with enormous amounts of water, most of it is salty and therefore hostile to the life that needs it. Great job on that creation plan, god. 🙄
He is less a professor of religion than I am. He doesn't understand epistemology, so I'm pretty sure he's never taken a college level ethics course, and he's clearly gotten his arguments from idiots.
Also fallacy of the single cause: "This one naturalistic explanation for religion doesn't explain everything, therefore magic real." Uh, what if there's more than one thing going on? Oh no, I have made his head explode.
Why is their god never the guy described in the Bible. Can’t remember who said it but someone stated that people’s image of God tends to be based on their relationship with their father. Huh, no wonder I’m an atheist.
@@madtabby66 The way AronRa puts it is that your god is you. Paraphrasing, "he believes what you believe, loves who you love, hates who you hate, and understand when you do something wrong." Hateful and stupid people believe in a hateful and stupid god. How else to you explain all those MAGA cultists telling people that God moved the bullet that would have killed Trump? Infinite God that thought reality into existence, but he can only nudge a quarter ounce bullet a little bit, enough to clip Trump's ear. What, did he forget he can do literally anything, like, say, erasing a bullet or turning the shooter's heart so he doesn't want to commit violence? Must be hateful and stupid.
He's also like a flat earther, attempting to prove the Earth is flat _only_ by trying to prove it's not a globe. It's not arguing _for_ one's case, it's just satisfying their egotistical need for superiority. (Also, conflating "atheism" with "science acceptance," take a shot. Already assumed to apply to Sir Sic, of course.)
"Without God's influence, the universe tends towards entropy: Any rise in complexity, such as the world we live in, is proof that God exists." "But you came to the conclusion that the universe tends towards entropy by observing the world, therefore your premise itself proves the absence of God."
This is why I will always horse laugh when someone uses philosophical "arguments" for their special brand of imaginary friend. This man literally sat himself in front of a camera and read off every terrible fallacy he could think of.
Can we please get a unique argument. At this point I’m going with Cthulhu. His only promise is to eat the faithful first so they don’t have to live through his horrors. I like a god that makes reasonable promises.
A degree in theology is as useful as a degree in understanding Cinderella, Red Riding Hood, The Three Little Pigs, etc... which is why when you actually dissect what the religious apologists say, none of it is based on real world knowledge since they don't know anything.
No, that was Redeemed Zoomer, wasn’t it? Honestly, when it’s this hard to tell the difference between the best and the worst arguments from a group, it’s way past time to pack it in and retire it to the scrap heap.
I'll never understand how "I wouldn't like it if someone tried to unalive me, so I'll agree with everyone that we shouldn't unalive each other," is so difficult for theists to understand.
Can you call something a debate when one side uses the same argument for 2k years and the other side uses the same arguments to successfully refute it?
"Dogs must be dogs" Funny that. I used to know a shitzu that thought it was a cat. Seriously, he growled every time you pet him, thinking he was purring.
And I’m sure that somewhere, somehow, the French bred cat into the Brittany. Seriously, don’t like cats? They’re not your breed. Most cat like dogs I’ve ever met.
It's one heck of a straw man to be sure. It's hard to tell whether the man really is as completely ignorant as he appears, or if he's just a pathological...
Don’t be a dick takes a god? I mean the Buddhists don’t believe in a creator god (and depending on which end of the spectrum you go to, they may not believe in any god) but their morality seems better for some reason.
He films in a hallway yet dresses up and uses a makeup light so he has glowing eyes. He then does everything he can to fight only strawmen at the bottom of poisoned wells. In other words, a vain coward.
A smart person would never unironically say "The probability is unstatistical" as the phrase is in all respects nonsensical in the contexts of probability and statistics. An idiot would say that same phrase without a second thought.
Even the capacity for kindness and cruelty (which require free will) have been found in most mammal species, like Dolphins, seals, and Orcas. Humanity REALLY isn't special in that regard.
Not only can you train animals to go against their best interests. You can train a horse to gallop at full speed into a block of men carrying fancy pointed sticks. Moose on the other hand will tell you to go fuck off and refuse to participate in human warfare. Yes, it's been tried.
>Claims to be a professor who studies ethics >Hasn't found a single convincing argument that ethics could be grounded in something other than god Okay, he's just lying. Straight up, that is just a lie.
Was expecting dumb reasons like the Kalam and the moral argument. The first one is literally more dumb than that. Well done believer in the perfect god by definition.
“They’ve tested something coming from nothing using a vacuum- which is not nothing….” So what you’re saying is they have NOT tested something coming from nothing.
I’m still a believer in the “exploding” black hole. Supposedly that is wrong and expanding vs exploding is a big deal for some reason but physics was my weak spot.
"Look how many religions exists on Earth! They all can't be wrong!" "Aren't all religions disagreeing on basically everything with each other? And contradicting each other's claims all the time?" "Let's not talk about it."
My lord. This guy’s beliefs about animal behavior is absurd. He clearly has never EVER watched any footage about honey badgers. They are contradictory as all hell! 😂
Honey Badgers are badasses they fight with anything. Any creature that can fight of lions while being less then a quarter of their size.... I'm more impressed with the humble honey badger then gawd.
@@danielkeizer4174 Taz is a great cartoon but reality is a different story... Wolverines fight wolf packs and brown bears. Taz devils are not in the same league....
This is just an example of the saying, "every argument for any god is a logical fallacy, and every logical fallacy has been used in arguments for any god."
12:34 I was walking along the beach and I found a pile of pebbles in a heap, a random pile, different sizes, shapes and colors. I saw the randomness of this pile of pebbles and I thought to myself, "There is no way this random pile of mismatched pebbles was placed there by a being so great that he could design and maintain an entire universe. Therefore gods cannot exist." That's the "reverse watchmaker" argument and it's just as ridiculous. If I were to use it I would rightfully be laughed out of the room by every theist present. But they use their version and expect to be taken seriously.
Shit like this is why I can't take things like "I have a degree" or "I published a book" seriously. Seems like the standard to achieve these things is so low that it might as well be a "I didn't kill myself while getting dressed" award. Weird flex but ok.
"You can't reproduce the universe coming out of nothing" 1 - Neither science nor atheism claim anything of the sort. 2 - You can't, either, despite creatio ex nihilo being a religious concept. 3 - It is impossible to do so without a sample of 'nothing'. This guy is a _professor?_ This is 101 logic, and he fails it.
Since, at most, only a third of the planet agree with his ridiculous god, he disagrees with them. Therefore, he is wrong because he disagrees with all those people.
I was walking through a forest and saw a bird, and thought, "Wow, the person who made this was really detailed and precise!" Literally the same as the watchmaker argument.
As a Professor of Spider-Manology, I find his degree in Theology to be a waste of his degree mill's resources. I mean, even when compared to other people's degrees in Theology.
Is there even a reason somewhere in their? Because all i heard was "gOd rEaL bEcAuSe i bElIeVe". Like bruh its just like flat earthers, they only repeat the same shit and cant find something new.
"I believe in a god that does X and Y." "X and Y make your god evil because of objection A and B." "Ok, let me quickly redefine my god so that A and B don't apply."
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!
Sir good at the sex Sic, I asked a while ago but why do you think modern religions can't be called cults, when from what I know they fit under a definition of cults?
Blob be upon Us! May your whiskey soaked splendor engulf us all!
@@kristofdavidkoltai4774 Pedantry mostly.
I'll do all of the above, plus enjoy a beverage !!!!
Nice whiskey day that is everyday
chimpanzee can recognise themselves in a mirror, elphants will put themselves in danger to save a baby, and crows and squarrels can think outside the box to solve puzzels for food, seems we're not that special
:0
I am the big shonk.
One only needs to watch an octopus to know that humans are not the only intelligent species on this planet.
Squarrels! That's a funny accent you got! Texas?
*_I, for one, welcome our cephalopod overlords._*
A professor of Theology with no experience or knowledge outside his own field of study, and proves he knows nothing .. I am Shocked, Shocked I tells you
ah
I honestly am shocked. I'm used to theology school right at the beginning teaching you all of the problems with your religion. But I guess some programs are WAY worse than others.
Honestly, "theology" isn't even a field of study (not in the way he means anyway). They can't show us any god they've studied, so it isn't "the study of god(s)". Given that every argument for any god is fallacious, they aren't doing philosophy.
It's isn't normally even "the study of religion", because they invariably "study" only their own religion, and maybe the close relatives. Ask a christian, islamic, or judaic "theologian" about Aboriginal Australian religion, or traditional Chinese religion, see how many blank stares or dismissals you get. The people who actually study religion tend not to believe any of them.
@@jursamaj It is frequently an abstract look at the concept of beliefs which then dials into some focus; something that is even undertaken by atheists. I guess it just frequently isn't as well. So any time someone claims to have any degree in theology, it's pretty important to find out what sort they're talking about.
@@verdatumyeah, because there are proper universities that teach proper theology, which is somewere between of philosophy and history with the fokus in religion and religiouse texts. And others are more like these apologetic courses that are used by evangelicals to prop up their skill on BS. Since it technically is theology, they can say they have a degree in it. Just like a nurse helper has technically a medical degree....
Ever notice that people who claim "atheism requires faith" are inherently acknowledging that faith is belief without evidence?
And that they believe faith is BAD while promoting faith in God.
@@archapmangcmgno they believe that faith in nothing is what is wrong with a person
@@RobertWilkinsonJKekMaloy When they are mocking atheists for having too much faith, they're admitting having faith itself is a bad thing.
@@archapmangcmg atheists don’t have faith as theists define it.
@RobertWilkinsonJKekMaloy For the umpthousandth time, Atheist don't have faith in nothing. That is a lie spread by conmen, idiots, and idiotic conmen. Stop spreading this lie and listen to what we actually think. You might just learn something.
Never mind religions not agreeing with other religions, most don't even agree with themselves.
I see
You are wrong, that is just because there are no true scotsman! This guy for example pretends to believe in the Abrahmic god, yet can you see his shovel? I bet he does his business in IN HIS house!
How many Christian’s follow the Biblical Christianity?
@@madtabby66 wrote: "How many Christian’s follow the Biblical Christianity?"
Same number of Atheists who follow Charles Darwin's teachings.
I wager more Atheists follow Karl Marx's teachings than Charles Darwin's teachings.
I wager more Atheists follow Karl Marx's teachings than Christians following Jesus' teachings.
There are 1000's of Christian secs and denominations.
And hundreds of bibles.
When the Christians get Christianity figured out let's us know
he's clearly not a professor. Even for an apologist he's ignorant of how arguments work...
so bad...
Professor of *theology* , it means nothing (by definition) until they come up with a single testable claim.
You can't have knowledge of the supernatural... by definition.
@@oscargr_Yeah, but he's extra bad at even theology.
@@TheLithp Hey, he is trying. 🫣🤣
He is bad at apologetics too.
Maybe he's selling courses on udemy or something and just calling himself a professor 🤷♀️
It really bothers me when theists attack my morality, considering that their version of morality is blind obedience.
I see
@@SirSicCrusader l have a question for a British person. Sure I could probably Google it, but Google hasn't earned my trust like you have. Does "bollocks" mean bullshit, balls, or both. It seems like I've heard it used for both, but I'm not sure what the relationship between balls and bullshit would be.
So morality is stoning my brother who wore two different types of fabrics? Seems this guy is expert at cherry picking.
And also, just being moral because some man in the sky is watching and judging you. Not because you think it is the right thing to do.
@@MudflapNicholsIt's all contextual. It does mean both talking BS and a reference to testicles. It goes further, to "give someone a bollocking" means to give them a serious telling off, to say something is "the bollocks" aka "the dogs bollocks" means it's a great thing, the best.
Only "8 Stupid Reasons"? I need about 10 stupid reasons to REALLY believe in GAWD.
thats all he gave.. although multiple of them arent even reasons
18 stupid reasons = consent = REALLY believe in GAWD.
10? Like the 10 commandments? Are you trying to give them actual hope by using a metric they attribute to their big book of bullshit?
@@jameshunter-davis5629 PSHAW! God doesn't need your puny _consent..._
@@Brickerbracknon consenting sky daddy? New kink unlocked
I can see why he thinks atheists are angry, that person is infuriatingly arrogant.
No kidding. Christian Excusegists are the Number 2 biggest reason I get angry.
Why single out atheists in particular? I imagine everyone he's ever talked at is exasperated beyond all reason.
Good point.
All the atheists he's ever met were angry
If I was playing the "Logical Fallacy Drinking Game", after playing his video, I would need to be taken me to the ER to be treated for alcohol poisoning.
I mean...
@@SirSicCrusader To be clear, I meant the "Professor's" video, not yours. 😃
Sir Sics whiskey pool would be empty
Professor Plink reacted to this a month ago. His was very thoughtful and analytical.
Yours was wonderful shit talking with valid points sprinkled in.
Thank you for being you Sir Sic.
I do do valids
I think I remember him being taken on by others, too (longer ago). Logicked maybe? Need to check. Yeah, indeed, that's where I remember him from.
Damn. This guy is trying to speed run every stupid, debunked, religious argument he can think of.
aka a "Gish Gallop"
About the watchmaker argument, there's one way of debunking it that I don't see often even though it is the most effective at showing why it's total nonsense, and it consists of one question: In contrast to what does the watch seems created?
The watchmaker argument states that if you find a watch in nature, then it will seem obvious to one that the object is artificial, made, crafted, created. But this means that the nature it's found in does not seem obviously created in the same manner. Hence, it can not apply to nature to conclude that it is created. The argument contradict its own purpose. Brilliant! GG theologists.
heh
To that I'd add that, well, imagine a rocky beach with the ground full of pebbles, except some of those pebbles are different, some are seashells and other things you typically find on beaches in our world, but some also are pocket watches. How would you react? It wouldn't strike you as something more special than other things in this nature. Sure, if you open it, it exhibits some very complex and unique structures, but it's not that different from what you can find in living organisms. It could very well be the exoskeleton of a weird bivalve-like animal from the sea you don't know of for example.
This thought experiment shows clearly that the watchmaker argument is completely dependant on context. A unique watch seems special, it could be reasonably speculated to be something crafted, common multiple seem just normal, it seems natural, an object that can seem so complex that you wouldn't think it's natural can actually totally is, and it truly seems intuitive because we know for sure they're created.
I've been pointing that out for years and I believe you're the first other person I've seen mention it. A random rock is, according to them, just as designed as a smartphone, so the fact they can even _perceive_ a difference is proof the argument is trash. It debunks itself in its own premises. The watchmaker argument is *_that bad._* The only worse "argument" is presuppositionalism, and that's literally just a tantrum, so _ain't nobody getting first place after that._
@@EdwardHowton, what is presuppositionalism? It can't be worse than the absolute idiocy that is the ontological argument, right? 💀
@@victzegopterix2 'fraid it is and you're lucky you haven't been presup'd in the face yet. So brace yourself.
Presuppositionalism is the position that the bible says everybody believes in God so atheists are lying and they're also christians so if you believe God exists then God exists.
That's the whole thing. _If I believe I'm right, then I'm right._
Popularized by one of the most irritating shills on the planet (at least, at the time...) Sye Ten Bruggencate, who would famously declare that he knew atheists didn't exist and would use the bible as justification for that lie of his, but when challenged about what other nonsense the bible said would refuse to discuss the bible with nonbelievers. Which he said didn't exist. Literally just throwing a tantrum for a living. _You DO believe in God, so THERE!_
What gets me the most about these clowns is that they all think they are coming up with a gotcha but keep repeating the same debunked nonsense.
ah
They haven't had a SINGLE NEW THING in DECADES!!!! It's always the same arguments parroted over and over again, like no one has ever heard them before. It's more proof that they aren't interested in what the other side says. They don't listen when the other side answers.
It would be nice if they came up with something unique.
There hasn't been a new apologetic in a 1000's years
Humans don't have to be human?? Ok. Then I'm a halfling druid named Gin'ger Seabreeze.
Pulling his 'professor of theology card' with the full cognitive disonence that a degree in theology is a degree in rationalization.
Theology in its proper place should be a sub-discipline within cultural anthropology.
He probably got his degree from the same place as Kent Hovind.
ah
Gawd gave it to him... according to his mom who handed it to him.
Damn. I was going to say exactly the same thing.
Really? So they are putting TWO prizes in one box of Cracker Jack these days? 🤨
Fought a rat for it and licked off all the grease stains. It may not have his name on it, and may in fact be a receipt for a Happy Meal, but actually if you read it together with this other piece of paper he got from a traffic cop, it's clearly a metaphor for a PhD, so it's basically still useful. Those spiteful "academics" wanna tell him he has no degree, but they're using a definition of "degree" he doesn't agree with, man!
So having to spend eternity with people like him supposed to be some kind of reward?
:0
That's torture I tell you ..that truly would be hell...
It's really not the selling point they seem to think it is.
There’s a scene in the movie Black Robe, where the Huron-Wendat people can’t believe the definition of heaven (paradise) - according to the Jesuits - is sitting around on clouds looking at God forever. Sounds f-ing terrible.
@@tomperone9338 it is. Just not for their side. Brings to mind the expression: with friends like that, who needs enemies. Nothing will ruin religion quicker then the religious.
So it's "My god is real, and yours isn't." Weird argument. This guy is the living embodiment of why it's called 'belief'. There is no proof for belief.
heh
@@NoelMcGinnis I have no faith in this fella. I mean, a mirror at the top of the landing where he chooses to stream from? Oh lordy lord
@@Jedbullet29 bad Feng Shui! Can’t trust him
"I don't believe in God because he's evil"
Man really heard "I wouldn't worship the biblical God even if he _did_ exist, because he's evil!" and only understood about half of the sentence.
I see
So… better than this “professor” usual success rate.
Yep. Hit them all the time with the good life thing. If their god is benevolent he will accept that I lived a good life, if he sends me to hell for not worshiping , then I’ll follow the Buddhist path and do what I can there.
Never trust a person who's office is on their landing. Trust them even less when they put a mirror at the top of a staircase.
OOF
Vanity is a Christian thang. I mean...just look at their Gob fella.
Also, watch out for people who booby-trap their stairs with potted plants at the top.
@@proxythotz9995 I don’t have to boobytrap my stairs, my cat does that for me.
@@kellydalstok8900 Never trust a cat.
Claims to be a Professor, offers the old Watchmaker argument. 😒
Professor of theology = Apologist.
(= is memorizing a short list of quick and dirty excuses for a belief in God)
That duncecap moment is probably the -best- only evidence that he might actually _be_ a "theology professor" because 90% of "theology" degree holders seem to have gotten the same class of How To Repeat Tired Platitudes For A Living 101.
Every time you see an apologist with a name, you can look them up, and almost without fail they have some unrelated degrees in business management followed by some grandiose PhD in fakeology from Religious Propaganda Milluniversity. The counterargument is that he's got the performance all wrong. He's _too_ incompetent to be a real fake; he's a hobbyist.
@@oscargr_To be fair, he likely also writes boring regurgitating articles about these already proven wrong ideas.
being a doctor in theology must be the most useless, easiest job in the world.
*Elliot:* *_What about love?!_*
*The Devil:* _Chemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate._ 🍫
Isn't "reasonable religion" an oxymoron?
As No Bar Bill proves with his Reasonable Faith stuff.
I think so
Not entirely. Oxymorons make a degree of sense, and while one may have a fairly reasonable way of arriving at a particular religion on the surface, it'll likely fade away with some analysis and learning.
Needless to say, this is just the opinion of one regular jackoff on the internet (me).
Kind of, but not really:
An Oxymoron is a rhetorical device usually used to illustrate some point or insight by use of an internal contradiction.
Saying something contradictory just because you don't know what you're talking about is just being a moron.
@@LadyDoomsinger Do you mean like - jessus is Against abortions, but don't tell that too Genuine Authentic Indingeous America's, the few that are Alive, after jessus provided all them Abortion's??
My nerd brain is screaming "well actually" at me and won't shut up until I explain that there are experiments demonstrating the Casimir effect in which two plates placed extremely close to each in a vacuum are pushed together due to what is known as vacuum fluctuations where particles continuously pop into and out of existence. The plates are pushed together because more particles are created outside the plates then between them.
Came here to say this.
The world is endlessly more fascinating than exist in your syphilitic goatherd learnings, Horatio.
Meanwhile I was just thinking "virtual particles, dude" for his entire argument from ignorance. And then I was thinking he was WAY too careful about his sentence there to be ignorant because he's basically describing virtual particles without saying those two words so he fully knows he's lying.
"Scientists have done tests with vacuums and they have never seen -virtual particles- um uh um things pop into existence -the way virtual particles do- UM UH" we see right through the pathetic charlatan.
Sir Sic, how do you not go mad listening to this shit? Oh, right, the whiskey. Might help.
a bit
"Love Is beyond comprehension". WTF? No, it's not. If it's beyond comprehension, then how tf is he comprehending it with his God?!?
Love is 100% explainable by biology, chemistry, and psychology.
ikr
All scientific fields and thus things this guy knows nothing about.
God, who is outside of time, outside of space, non material, but personal and wants a relationship with us.... is beyond comprehension. Yet "he" has written a book ( which is incomprehensible itself and not two Christians agree on the fundamentals)
"if people meet many selfish or angry people in the world, their image of a god may become skewed" has... has he considered this is a much more effective argument against theism? "sure my god killed everyone on earth except for eight people, but the people at my place of worship are SO NICE!"
He killed everyone but 8 people but still couldn’t stop evil. He didn’t know Ham would uncover his father’s shame?
Did anyone complete their logical fallacy bingo cards?🤣
ah
Multiple times... it's insane how much fallacies this guy spouts in one sitting.
😂
He's saying that his invisible sky wizard, despite all the genocidal sadism is actually a nice guy sort of like an abusive partner if you only see them at other times you would know.
I see
As many an abusive partner has claimed, the abuse towards me is a sign they love me.
Still trying to figure out why a being that can create the entire universe cares about what 8 billion bald apes think of him.
Alternative title: "Supposed professor of theology makes several arguments from incredulity and non-arguments while committing a fallacy in every single point he makes."
I think that was the worst "why I believe in god" video I've ever seen. What an accomplishment! Thank you for showing it to us.
I swear he said something can't come from nothing and then immediately followed it up with how his worldview God can create something from nothing.
because theists are the only ones who believe that nonsense
time to play the "Logical Fallacy Drinking Game"
You don't mind if I use your whiskey reserves for that right?
Y'know... point number 8: "There is no way to encounter a person who is truly transformed by God and to still have doubt of his existence."
I still have doubts of God's existence, therefore I've never encountered anyone who has been truly transformed by God... UA-cam staircase theists included.
shonk
Reminds me of my old mathematical disproof of god, which you might find amusing, so here you are.
2+2=4
God is in all things.
2+2+God=4+God
God hides himself to avoid interfering with our free will.
2+2+God=4
Simplify.
(2+2)+God=(4)
God=0
I know a lot of people who have stories about how they were the biggest and baddest atheist until -a head injury- god came into their lives.
I’m just struggling to believe the 90lb tech nerd was head of the Hells Angels.
“Professor of goddamn anything” 😂😂😂 well spoken sick. Give the man his phd
But I dont want a toilet phd
@@SirSicCrusader Hey, c'mon. Free toilet paper.
Entropy does not lead to chaos, but to homogeny. Everything is at rest, with equal size, mass, charge, equally spaced, etc.
Entropy is not destruction, but equalisation.
Wtf is this narcissistic obsession with
"Me special"
cause, his Sky Buddy is BEST?? I actually was one, then I really read them book's, became a nasty person alonng the way.
Then I got more realistic about the content's and figured out the Evil Doulble speak ingrained in.
Further reading then made me Atheistic and deeply acknowledge religion is actually the Best Proof of Alien's ever.
all 10,ooo+ MY SKY BUDDY IS, BEST, religion's I think are only proof of Alien's needed to know there are definitely Alien's contrlling Earth through religious DIVISION... 10,ooo+ division's keep Humanity Stalled and Ignorant, using ridicule and Verbal abuse when that fail's out with the torches and pitch forks.. GET THE NON-BELIEVER...... INFIDEL.....ANTI-CHRIST BLA, BLA, AND bla..
I have many reasons to credit my Hypothisis, that are Unquestionable, including religious text that directly says Flesh from above(Heavens) or SKY.. Liturally hundreds of Verses of Old bible are Banned from public due to direct wording, angel;s are flesh and can be Killed...
As well as reproduce with human's, at least some humanoid species can and Have, this is FACT....
Religion control's voting, nomanies, police, Medical, Gov and Military, "Perched on top, of US feeding off us, from Birth till Death. Are Our master. They haave US. They Control US. THEY are our Owner's. Their are all about you" John Carpenter "THEY LIVE, we shleep".
More truth in that movie than every version of bileBULL..
First "reason" of his, and I'm already going, "Okay, which trailer did you buy that 'doctorate' of yours from, assuming that you did not just make up - a.k.a. lie - about having a doctorate?"
His meth dealer promised him it was a legit degree and if you can’t trust meth dealers in clown masks, who can you trust, eh?
Actually, an experiment to determine is something could come from nothing would take no time. No. Literally, no time. You'd need an absence of both space AND time. Otherwise you would have started from something. However, if you managed to create this absence, then that would be *something*. So, the main reason we've not been able to get something from nothing is because something keeps superseding nothing!
Damn that something, getting in the way of my nothing.
I love how they keep misquoting the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. That's of a closed system. A human body isn't a closed system. A planet isn't a closed system.
Close. It’s of an isolated system. The law only applies to systems that don’t gain or lose energy, something you can’t even observe in reality since observations would require transfer of energy.
@@archapmangcmg Isolated is just another word for closed.
You are also wrong in that it cannot be observed. When a person dies they become a closed system. While alive they are not because they are taking in food and then using that energy. Once they are deceased they are no longer taking in anything and entropy increases. This is 9th grade science.
@@TheEnterthedreaming
Not sure who your 9th grade science teacher was but how is it closed if bacteria and other organisms are working on it?
@@madtabby66 It's closed because the body is dead and no longer taking in and digesting anything. The bacteria and other organisms are helping in the decaying process. They aren't adding to it.
I misread it as "mosquitoing" and the meaning remained the same.
The Problem of Evil is a response to guys like him saying God's all Good when we see horrible pain and suffering in the world.
Good thing he just defines all that away. Very big brain.
I keep telling them I’ll believe when they empty St Jude’s hospital.
After all, doesn’t their god say ask and it will be given unto you.
Mark 11;4
John 15
And so on and so on.
I figure that’s something neither one of us will personally benefit from, but as someone who has walked a pediatric ward (not kidding we do rock paper scissors when they do a tech call. Worst ward in the hospital)
Children don’t deserve that shit.
Spontaneous combustion in a vacuum? Yeah that sounds totally like something people would try to confirm experimentally 😂
:0
What that not work? Wonder why?
its already been attempted
This is what you get from seminary students who memorize made up apologetics and spew them with mid-level confidence until they are swatted to the 10th row by anybody with logic and common sense
Nah, they just keep going no matter how many times they’re proven wrong.
“Bye, definition!!” 🤣🤣🤣
See I didn't know if I should leave that in cause its just so dumb but... well that's why I left it in :D
@@SirSicCrusader I keep saying it to myself in a five year olds voice, and laughing hysterically
1. Paycheck
2. Peer pressure especially during childhood and youth
3. Fantastic expectations
4. - 8. Financial profits
Did your god invent cancer? If we define God as good, we may have to redefine Good.
And terrestrial living things need water to survive. But, despite our world being covered with enormous amounts of water, most of it is salty and therefore hostile to the life that needs it. Great job on that creation plan, god. 🙄
It’s really terrifying when they claim a 6 month old child deserves it due to their parents sin.
So his whole argument is "Well, your beliefs and definitions don't match with mine, it means you're wrong."
What a dork.
I'm a dork, and I deny any similarity to this man.
He is less a professor of religion than I am. He doesn't understand epistemology, so I'm pretty sure he's never taken a college level ethics course, and he's clearly gotten his arguments from idiots.
Also fallacy of the single cause: "This one naturalistic explanation for religion doesn't explain everything, therefore magic real." Uh, what if there's more than one thing going on? Oh no, I have made his head explode.
Why, why, why do ALL deists believe they can just define their gods into existence?
Because philosophy creates an unearned sense of power. You have all these fancy-sounding thoughts, they *must* prove what you believe in!
Why is their god never the guy described in the Bible. Can’t remember who said it but someone stated that people’s image of God tends to be based on their relationship with their father.
Huh, no wonder I’m an atheist.
@@madtabby66 The way AronRa puts it is that your god is you. Paraphrasing, "he believes what you believe, loves who you love, hates who you hate, and understand when you do something wrong." Hateful and stupid people believe in a hateful and stupid god. How else to you explain all those MAGA cultists telling people that God moved the bullet that would have killed Trump? Infinite God that thought reality into existence, but he can only nudge a quarter ounce bullet a little bit, enough to clip Trump's ear. What, did he forget he can do literally anything, like, say, erasing a bullet or turning the shooter's heart so he doesn't want to commit violence? Must be hateful and stupid.
I've never seen anyone complete the apologist bingo card as fast and as thoroughly as this guy.
He's also like a flat earther, attempting to prove the Earth is flat _only_ by trying to prove it's not a globe.
It's not arguing _for_ one's case, it's just satisfying their egotistical need for superiority.
(Also, conflating "atheism" with "science acceptance," take a shot. Already assumed to apply to Sir Sic, of course.)
I see
"Without God's influence, the universe tends towards entropy: Any rise in complexity, such as the world we live in, is proof that God exists."
"But you came to the conclusion that the universe tends towards entropy by observing the world, therefore your premise itself proves the absence of God."
This is why I will always horse laugh when someone uses philosophical "arguments" for their special brand of imaginary friend. This man literally sat himself in front of a camera and read off every terrible fallacy he could think of.
Can we please get a unique argument.
At this point I’m going with Cthulhu. His only promise is to eat the faithful first so they don’t have to live through his horrors. I like a god that makes reasonable promises.
A degree in theology is as useful as a degree in understanding Cinderella, Red Riding Hood, The Three Little Pigs, etc... which is why when you actually dissect what the religious apologists say, none of it is based on real world knowledge since they don't know anything.
is it me, or was this guy just speedrunning every apologist video ever?
No, that was Redeemed Zoomer, wasn’t it? Honestly, when it’s this hard to tell the difference between the best and the worst arguments from a group, it’s way past time to pack it in and retire it to the scrap heap.
I'll never understand how "I wouldn't like it if someone tried to unalive me, so I'll agree with everyone that we shouldn't unalive each other," is so difficult for theists to understand.
But their book follows that statement with around 200 pages of how and when it’s okay.
Better bust that hymen on your wedding night.
Can you call something a debate when one side uses the same argument for 2k years and the other side uses the same arguments to successfully refute it?
At this point we’re arguing with parrots.
"Dogs must be dogs"
Funny that. I used to know a shitzu that thought it was a cat. Seriously, he growled every time you pet him, thinking he was purring.
And I’m sure that somewhere, somehow, the French bred cat into the Brittany.
Seriously, don’t like cats? They’re not your breed. Most cat like dogs I’ve ever met.
Zero atheists say, "I don't believe in God because God is evil."
The closest you'd ever get is "And if I did believe in a god, your evil bastard is not one I would worship, anyway."
What I want to know is, does god believe in people!?
It's one heck of a straw man to be sure. It's hard to tell whether the man really is as completely ignorant as he appears, or if he's just a pathological...
@@jonathanj8303 Why not both?
@@discontinuedmodel232stupid, ignorant or evil? This guy chooses all of the above so he can be more like the character in his book.
"you cannot defend those ethical claims without god"
What a tool
Don’t be a dick takes a god? I mean the Buddhists don’t believe in a creator god (and depending on which end of the spectrum you go to, they may not believe in any god) but their morality seems better for some reason.
7:40 Always remember these quotes because it demonstrates that *Christians KNOW faith is a bad thing.*
"I'm not going to believe in god as you define him. Now you have to believe in atheists, as I define them!"
Dude staring at the camera is creeping me out. Not gonna lie, I'm more focused on how little he's blinking.
"I'm gonna pull the professor card here. I'm a professor of make-believe."
He films in a hallway yet dresses up and uses a makeup light so he has glowing eyes. He then does everything he can to fight only strawmen at the bottom of poisoned wells. In other words, a vain coward.
One of things that I have noticed in people that do not believe in god is they are not stupid.
"The probability is unstatistical" i feel like i heard that specific nonsense line somewhere else before...
Google gave me nothing.
A smart person would never unironically say "The probability is unstatistical" as the phrase is in all respects nonsensical in the contexts of probability and statistics. An idiot would say that same phrase without a second thought.
If this guy is a real professor, I'm Ronald McDonald.
You must know him, he flunked out of McDonald’s
Theist arguments speedrun world record contender
indeded
I love how these people somehow make videos in places it looks like absolutely no one lives in. That or cars
This guy is just a parrot. Not a novel point in the entire video, just regurgitated bs.
I don't think there's been a new apologetic in a 1000 years.
Even the capacity for kindness and cruelty (which require free will) have been found in most mammal species, like Dolphins, seals, and Orcas. Humanity REALLY isn't special in that regard.
Not only can you train animals to go against their best interests. You can train a horse to gallop at full speed into a block of men carrying fancy pointed sticks. Moose on the other hand will tell you to go fuck off and refuse to participate in human warfare. Yes, it's been tried.
There’s a reason we never domesticated zebras.
>Claims to be a professor who studies ethics
>Hasn't found a single convincing argument that ethics could be grounded in something other than god
Okay, he's just lying. Straight up, that is just a lie.
Was expecting dumb reasons like the Kalam and the moral argument.
The first one is literally more dumb than that. Well done believer in the perfect god by definition.
Thanks, one of the best you've done.
“They’ve tested something coming from nothing using a vacuum- which is not nothing….”
So what you’re saying is they have NOT tested something coming from nothing.
I’m still a believer in the “exploding” black hole. Supposedly that is wrong and expanding vs exploding is a big deal for some reason but physics was my weak spot.
"Look how many religions exists on Earth! They all can't be wrong!"
"Aren't all religions disagreeing on basically everything with each other? And contradicting each other's claims all the time?"
"Let's not talk about it."
Christians can’t even agree on Christianity. How many call this church or that not real Christian’s.
My lord. This guy’s beliefs about animal behavior is absurd. He clearly has never EVER watched any footage about honey badgers. They are contradictory as all hell! 😂
indeded
Honey Badgers are badasses they fight with anything. Any creature that can fight of lions while being less then a quarter of their size.... I'm more impressed with the humble honey badger then gawd.
Lovely bits they are but their Yankee cousins wolverines rule ....
@@c.guydubois8270 how about tasmanian devils...those little buggers are fierce...
@@danielkeizer4174 Taz is a great cartoon but reality is a different story... Wolverines fight wolf packs and brown bears. Taz devils are not in the same league....
I don’t think I’ve ever heard a ‘professor’ be so wrong before even when talking outside areas of expertise…. If he actually has one.
I see
This is just an example of the saying, "every argument for any god is a logical fallacy, and every logical fallacy has been used in arguments for any god."
But bringing up other Gods sure is fun. At least polytheistic religions have petty arguments and jealousies to explain why they screw with us.
This so-called 'professor' makes the row of broad beans in my allotment look like a highly-intellectual, logical, likeable and eloquent philosopher.
Atheism requires faith like not collecting stamps requires stamps.
12:34 I was walking along the beach and I found a pile of pebbles in a heap, a random pile, different sizes, shapes and colors. I saw the randomness of this pile of pebbles and I thought to myself, "There is no way this random pile of mismatched pebbles was placed there by a being so great that he could design and maintain an entire universe. Therefore gods cannot exist."
That's the "reverse watchmaker" argument and it's just as ridiculous. If I were to use it I would rightfully be laughed out of the room by every theist present. But they use their version and expect to be taken seriously.
Shit like this is why I can't take things like "I have a degree" or "I published a book" seriously. Seems like the standard to achieve these things is so low that it might as well be a "I didn't kill myself while getting dressed" award. Weird flex but ok.
ah
The stuff I’ve heard come from “experts”
this guy: Something can't come from nothing, trust, I'm definitely a scientist
virtual particles:
"You can't reproduce the universe coming out of nothing"
1 - Neither science nor atheism claim anything of the sort.
2 - You can't, either, despite creatio ex nihilo being a religious concept.
3 - It is impossible to do so without a sample of 'nothing'.
This guy is a _professor?_ This is 101 logic, and he fails it.
Aww, I saw “Whiskey Club” in your description and it got my hopes up for a second!
Since, at most, only a third of the planet agree with his ridiculous god, he disagrees with them. Therefore, he is wrong because he disagrees with all those people.
I was walking through a forest and saw a bird, and thought, "Wow, the person who made this was really detailed and precise!"
Literally the same as the watchmaker argument.
Was it one of the new robotic birds?
@@madtabby66 Yep, it was on a villain's island lair, it was cool as hell.
As a Professor of Spider-Manology, I find his degree in Theology to be a waste of his degree mill's resources.
I mean, even when compared to other people's degrees in Theology.
fair
This guy is just a greatest hits collection of terrible apologetic arguments
This guy doesn't believe in an evil god? Yeah, right... I guess we're just gonna ignore the entirety of the bible.
I mean
Why not? They all pick and choose which parts to ignore.
If I believed god was evil, I would believe in god, but it’s not evil because I don’t believe in it .. paradox
8 reasons sobriety is overrated
I don't consider myself to be very smart. This guy makes me feel like a genius.
Is there even a reason somewhere in their? Because all i heard was "gOd rEaL bEcAuSe i bElIeVe". Like bruh its just like flat earthers, they only repeat the same shit and cant find something new.
I mean
I loved arguing the flat earth side. Nobody knows how to debate anymore. It’s so sad.
@@madtabby66 im not surprised at this point. They don't even know what they want anymore.
"I believe in a god that does X and Y."
"X and Y make your god evil because of objection A and B."
"Ok, let me quickly redefine my god so that A and B don't apply."