Theist Revises History in Order to Create Anti-Atheist Propaganda
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2025
- #hitlerwasnotatheist #meaningoflife #atheismandhistory.
A video where I react to a video by Bible Books Explained called "The Dark Side of Atheism: A Lesson from History".
Original Video:
• The Dark Side of Athei...
The Rabyd Atheist on Facebook:
/ rabydatheist
PayPal: www.paypal.com...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @therabydatheist
Important Links:
Recovery from Religion: www.recovering...
The Clergy Project: clergyproject....
#atheism
#reason
#apologetics
#deconversion
#exchristian
#formerpastor
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Well, you know what they say: If you can’t beat them, cheat!
I think it's "If you can't beat them, pretend you did" they use more often.
@ not surprising since religion is based entirely on pretense. If someone wants to larp their entire life, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that; the real problem arises when they try to pretend play about science, history, archeology, etc.
@@davidmgilbreath Also when they want to make the larping mandatory for all.
I consider myself an absurdist due to the absurdity of my life.
It’s crazy to hear that this UA-cam channel uses a voice similar to renowned and loved scientific documentary host David Attenborough. The irony is crazy.
You caught that too. I wonder if it is AI for that reason.
It's 100% AI.
There is an Atheist channel that uses the same AI David Attenborough voice.
pretty sure DA is an atheist. He's definitely not a Xian.
@@therabydatheistI was gonna say, it's definitely ai. You can catch it in the slightly off kilter cadence of the speech. It's better than some, but AI just can't create natural cadence or inflection.
I love it when they bring up the Nazis. I ask them to explain why every German soldier went to war wearing a belt buckle embossed with "GOTT MIT UNS"
(God is with us)
And then I have to tell them that this is the worst argument and example given the history of that specific motto.
I generally just ask them if they'd read anything, anything at all about the history of persecution of Jews by Christians, with documentation (papal letters) going back as far as the year 600.
@@finestPlugins A Prussian army belt buckle inherited by the German state, then Weimar Republic then kept unchanged by the Nazis when they changed so much else. It's a weak argument that really only points to the Germans as a whole being Christians. It doesn't tell us whether the Nazis were Christians or whether they were non-Christians who didn't care or didn't want to spend effort removing the motto.
I mean, the Nazis were Christians but just go to their membership, don't bother with belt buckles.
Had a guy come at me with the Stalin/Hitler/Mao rhetoric, yet when I brought up all the priests caught being inapproriate with minors on a regular basis they wanted to pull the "that has nothing to do with Christianity" card. It's fine for them to paint their opposition as all the bad things an individual does but how dare their opposition do the same.
You might point out to the next one who makes that false argument that it has everything to do with Christianity, since their religion proved itself unable to stop those atrocities.
I have quite a long post to point out what nonsense the "Staling/Mao" argument is, hang on, I'll find it.
Incidentally, I found this on the way to my post:
By: @Jo Polanco
"Evidence that Stalin was christian: Some evidence suggests Stalin, although not following a particular religion, may have been spiritual (had personal faith, but did not practice a religion). English historian Simon Sebag Montefiore studied Stalin’s hobbies and personal library, what Stalin liked to read, what kind of marks he left in his books. He found that Stalin liked to quote long quotes from the Bible. Stalin left such mark about God in the book by Anatole France "Last pages. Dialogues under a rose. About God": "Don‘t know traces, don‘t see. There is no Him for them." ("Следов не знают, не видят. Его для них нет."). It seems that Stalin thought he knew God’s traces and saw God, not like others. Stalin "denied categorically to prescribe atheistic literature to his personal library, fastidiously calling it ""antireligious waste-paper (junk)"". ("Secret life of Stalin : By materials of his books and archive : According to Stalinism" by Ilizarov.B.S. 2004) Source: freethoughtpedia -> Was Stalin an atheist?"
Here we go, I should probably edit it, as it deals with more than just christianity.
I am thoroughly sick of explaining to religious people why this is nonsense. In the Soviet Union _some_ people were killed because they were religious, but these numbers are dwarfed by the numbers killed in order to cement political power, settle personal scores, sheer incompetence (look at what Collectivisation did in Russia, the deliberate Holodomors in Ukraine, or at how many people died of starvation in China due to Mao's "Great Leap Forward").
Look at the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century, Stalin studied to be a priest at Tiflis seminary for five years (and took the notion of the All Knowing Leader Who Must Not Be Questioned from it, so that religious education worked out well, didn't it?). Pol Pot also studied to be a priest, Hitler claimed to be doing god's work (and who was it who had Got Mit Uns on their belts, again?) and Mao just clumsily tried to emulate Stalin.*
Then we've got the number of people killed in islamic expansions, with some estimates well over 100 million. We've also got the more nebulous numbers of dead; for example, how many people have died as a result of religious opposition to scientific, especially, but not exclusively**, medical knowledge? How many people have died due to the catholic church's immoral opposition to condom use, even actively lying about them spreading Aids? We also have the fact that the religious are dishonestly not comparing like with like, as, firstly, the population of the world was far smaller (barely more than 400 million in Leonardo Da Vinci's time) and secondly the weapons available were far less effective, *so how many people would religious nuts have killed if they had tanks, rockets, nuclear weapons and aircraft, and a population of billions to go at?*
We've also got the sheer number of people who were (and in some places still are) oppressed by religious idiocy, and lastly, we have the fact that the more secular states and countries in the world are superior to the more religious ones by virtually every metric, from levels of violence to income, to levels of education to teen pregnancies, to STDs, etc.
The people mass murdered in the 20th century were done so by Authoritarians, but the religious have the gall to worship the most Authoritarian being ever (albeit an imaginary one), who judges thoughtcrimes and is more intrusive and controlling than even Big Brother. Hypocrites!
* Bizarrely, despite millions dying due to Mao's incompetence, the average lifespan for Chinese people actually went up, compared to similar, nearby countries, during his time in control.
** Some scientific advancements have then led to medical advancements, when medical innovation hadn't been the primary, secondary or even tertiary reason for the experimentation.
@@pineapplepenumbra Christians like to demonize the likes of Stalin as acting out of atheism when that's pure projection. Like those they demonize, Christians aren't doing these awful things for anything other than getting power...pure secular power.
When ever have people said "We must kill millions of people, because we do not believe in a magical fantasy daddy-god-friend."
Not even once!
There was an Atheist movement in the soviet union, killing religious people, but it pales into comparison with religious killings.
Great video. Mussolini, fascist leader, could not have come to power without the R. C. Church. In Italy, home of the church.
I would also point out AFAIK no one has committed atrocities in the name of atheism, especially the most cited (misrepresented and mischaracterized and alleged) atheist political leaders, or pushed an atheistic agenda (whatever that could be) on the other hand every atrocity perpetrated by theists is always in the name of religion and to further the religion and push the religious goals and agenda.
People don't commit atrocities for what they lack belief in. That wouldn't make sense, what people believe based on their worldview is what matters, I've read books by both sides of the theological fence that would make the average modern man sick, and I've met both atheist and Christian who are kind and peaceful.
@@bignoob1790 agreed, but atheism is not a worldview, it can be a part of one but in itself it is not a worldview, being simply a single stance on whether a 'god' or 'gods' exist. I will say religion tends to rob one of their humanity and the vast majority of theists I've interacted with have been morally bankrupt.
@@bignoob1790 agreed, but atheism is not a worldview, it can be a part of one but in itself it is not a worldview, being simply a single stance on whether a 'god' or 'gods' exist. I will say religion tends to rob one of their humanity.
@@bignoob1790 I would also say most of the central doctrines of christianity are immoral despite most modern apologists trying to euphemise the religion and solely focusing on the touchy-feely 'love thy neighbour' aspects and ignoring all the problematic parts of the religion
@waveman0
In my own spiritual walk, I can see how religion (especially the organized variety) can rob someone of their individuality and possibly even their divine skills, but in other ways it can help others live out their paths and be a part of a community.
I agree with the idea that lacking a belief in something isn't going to be the center of a worldview, atheists can be materialists, Buddhists, etc
But there are so many definitions and ideas of God that there's probably one you might believe in.
Well I was swayed by this guys arguments. Guess I'll turn to Christianity which never slaughtered millions. *starts Genesis* Oh no.
In terms of raw numbers, Moses couldn't compare to Hitler, but he had the same mindset to order the murder of anybody he didn't like or whoever opposed him. If the Bible is to be believed, Moses led two and a half million Hebrews from Egypt. This number comes from Exodus 12:37 which counts 600, 000 men. To give an idea of how grossly exaggerated this number is, historians estimate it was the size of the Roman Empire army at the height of its power.
Aha! But they did it for a higher moral authority instead of because they wanted to or because they were bad people.
Not sure if that makes it better or worse.
@@harveywabbit9541 When you can write about your own death in the past tense, nothing is impossible.
@@pineapplepenumbra
The Hebrews led from Egypt (winter/night) are the six signs/days/months in Genesis one.
Drop all the zeroes and you get the correct number of six.
Blaming the Holocaust on atheism is argumentum ad nauseum at this point. I love your point that the atrocity was pulled off largely by playing on irrational fears of Christians. Seems familiar -_-
Thank you, I appreciate!
It's a good thing for this twisted apologist that there have never been any wars or massacres over religious purposes and views on a god or gods...what a load of crock 🙄
What I find ironic about the "Stalin was an atheist!" argument is the naive assumption that he would have committed _fewer_ atrocities if he believed that he had a holy savior forgiving him of all his sins.
The Barely etc: I seem to recall that he was training for the priesthood in his early life. I have certainly found no good, credible evidence that he, personally, was an atheist. There may be some; I simply have never seen it.
@@Nai61a
Atheism is a central Tennant of Marxism and dialectic materialism. Although one can be a buddhist and an atheist too.
I think if he believed he was being judged by God for all of his actions, he would have to do a bunch more hoop jumping to justify it, or find a way to say God wanted him to do so.
@@bignoob1790 Well, it was Marxism-Leninism, so it was already somewhat different from what "pure" Marxism might be.
Be that as it may, it is not a requirement of Marxism that the individual is an atheist. The key point, I think, is the tension between the power of the State and the power of the Church. Stalin - like Herr H of Germany - did not want the latter to get in the way of the former.
@@bignoob1790 Sadly, there is always a way for people to tell themselves that they are doing what their "God" wants them to do.
The soviet union was against Evolution in the usual sense, and that refusal to accept it resulted in millions dying from starvation as a result of going with a ridiculous alternative.
Whenever one of these anti-atheist theists come out with their ideas, while just parroting other theists and not doing any research, I being out my logical fallacy bingo card. Gee, I struck gold today. Had it been for real I had won a washing machine!
They just keep making the same dumb arguments over and over. But none of them have the stones to actually have a debate with a real atheist that will stop them when they try to misdefine terms or make fallacious statements. You're right, these videos are just to make the sheep happy to stay in the pasture, not to convince anyone that actually has thought about it for two seconds. It's vibrations in the echo chamber.
I really wish one of these people really would man up to a real debate, I'm tired of the one sided blathering.
Not a fundamentalist at all, but i know a lot of that variety that do debate. Jeff Durbin and James white off the top of my head.
"the Catholics said that the Jews killed Jesus ergo the Jews were supposed to be despised" (paraphrasing) - which IMHO adds one more layer of CONFUSION to Christianity in general. By this I mean I there is the "Jesus sacrificed himself to himself if Jesus = God" but now another layer of confusion is this: the son of the biblical god (the same god worshipped& followed by the Jews) was killed by the Jews who didn't believe Jesus was the son of their god BUT (PLOT TWIST!) if Jesus WAS indeed actually part of (their) god himself as posited by Christianity, then Jesus was not just sacrificed TO himself....he was sacrificed BY himself! 😵 It was a sue-aside mission! Cosmic (posthumous) Medal of Honor awardee right there.
Bottom - line Jesus committed sue-aside to convince future generations that he USED TO be a bad guy but saw the error of his ways, so 1/3 of himself was born again (this time in human form) as a new & improved peaceful version of himself. But wait! His new version AKA Jesus walks softly but carries a big stick. Accept his new version or face not just a physical death (like he used to inflict upon humans before he convinced himself that he needs to pivot) but a spiritual/supernatural death of eternal fiery TORMENT! 😨 So we have (sort of) the plot of the Clint Eastwood movie "Unforgiven" if Unforgiven was directed by M. Night Shyamalan. 😕Nice guy on the surface but wigs out then becomes a bad guy then goes back to being a nice guy....or IS he? 🤨
Christian will never ever admit the wrong doings done by their fellow christian , if point out they would just say something like " they don't represent us" they aren't christian" etc etc how convenient eh, it seem like they only want to claim the good one. Greeting from 🇬🇷
Whenever someone says the word nihilist, I always think of The Big Lebowski.
First time viewer glad I found it and will look forward to seeing more of your stuff…good job
Thank You so Much, welcome.
6:13 the connection of the Darwinism to Fascism is actually a fascinating study of broken telephone because it is rooted in a double misunderstanding of what evolution is.
First of all there is the famous slogan of natural selection "Survival of the fittest". Which intuitively is interpreted as "the stronger ones survive [because they are able to defeat weaker ones]". This interpretation is wrong. "Fittest" has no relation to physical form or strength/fitness. It is about being able to fit into a niche in the environment.
The environment - the nature - is an overwhelming force that no individual species (with limited exception of human) can resist. It is like a huge wall with some "niches" in it that can offer limited safety. Only species that can find a niche and *fit* into it will survive. And the better they can *fit* into a niche or the more niches they can *fit* into - the more likely they will survive. Hence - survival of the fittest.
So here you have one misinterpretation assuming that natural selection for some reason favours strong over weak.
Second misconception is that principles of natural selection should apply to humanity. They do, but to very limited extent, because our intelligence actually enable us to carve out niches that fit us, rather than seek out niches that we can fit into. There are still chance that rapid changes can collapse the niches some of us survive in (natural disasters) short term, and there is a risk of us carving more niches for ourselves collapsing the whole structure, but in huge majority of cases humans defeated natural selection, for better or worse. So no. In general rules of natural selection no longer apply to us.
But if you still think they do, and you mix it with "Strong>weak" misinterpretation, you arrive at the idea that it is natural and actually obligatory for stronger nations to dominate weaker nations. So you arrive at colonialism and it's (marginally) uglier cousin - Fascism.
Stalin applied an important lesson for dictators: make sure you're deified during your reign so that you can create a religion centered around you. The name of his: stalinism. Here's some evidence.
- Watch some statues and paintings of him. They're religious icons, portraying him as the messias of the common people.
- read Pablo Neruda's Ode to Stalin.
- "I get up in the morning and pray (!) that Stalin is alive and well. Only Stalin can save the peace!" (Molotov).
Apologists are so desperate to portray atheists as miserable, lonely and purposeless. Sorry guys - brownnosing to your invisible friend is not on my "to do" list.
So that as usual was a let's-proclaim-the-bable-is-right-about-atheists hit piece... But what's sad about that is that they swallow the sweet lies others have made up, for emotional reasons at best. For just 10% even! Just forget that all the rewards are after death and therefore unverifiable..
Was there ever any doubt? The entire script of every apologist is one gigantic circle jerk where everyone copies off everyone else's homework and never bothers to check if the original was correct to begin with.
If this theist brings up Hitler...then what is the difference between Hitler and YHVH who called for genocide in the Lavant because he wanted it for the YHVH'ists, his chosen people.
The religious appear to be using the respected Sir David Attenborough’s voice. Does he know? I very much doubt it.
Yep, the irony of using an AI Richard Attenborough to dump on evolution, you couldn't make it up!
It's a deliberate attempt to trick people into trusting the content. More cynical than ironic.
By the way, Hitler's antisemitism somewhat remembers Luther's "On the Jews and Their Lies"...
David Attenborough should sue these guys for using his voice
Someone doing an impression or AI. Done deliberately to trick the viewer into trusting the content, and so obviously cynical that the video's subtext becomes clear - an expression of the ignorance and fear of atheism.
@@richardcooper9167 That's a stretch, there just using it because its a great voice and almost free to use lol Very very few people are fooled by it because it's blatantly obvious it's AI
@@whygodisscience "it's a great voice" is the same as "why can't I use someone's likeness for free to promote my product". Especially in this case where DA's voice is being used to promote an opinion he himself definitely does not agree with. So, yes, cynical.
@@richardcooper9167 I didn't say they should be allowed to use it. I said it was a stretch to attribute all the cynical motivation to the creator of the video. Their just making a video about something they passionately believe and using the tools available. It's up to law makers to figure out how we manage AI
@ AI or not, DA's voice is not a resource for video-makers. I don't know if you're British but DA is probably the most trusted broadcaster in the UK. The video's producers are definitely exploiting that fact, otherwise why choose that voice?
How would you feel if the video was voiced by Gollum? Or if the video was voiced by DA but was about praising Satan?
It is definitely and obviously cynical, and nauseatingly so - are you really saying you have no doubt about the integrity of the producers?
16:01 yeah, they forgot to mention he was a young Earth creationist. Which is a fringe belief system now. So I guess they can get away with saying he wasn't a Christian, because I don't think they believe young Earth creationists are real Christians
What if God never wrote bible?
it was invented by crazy old men that didn't know how to make soap... so they stunk...
Many parts was collected from other cults and cultures and eras. That is maybe one reason that story book is so illogical and contradictory.
Come on now, Darwin's Origin of Species was one of the books that ended up in the fire with Nazi Book Burnings.
I thought lying was something Christians aren't supposed to do.
For the agnostic, I don't know if the "do you have an active belief" necessarily works. I would more go with the, "Which god or gods do you believe exists?" I didn't ask which god is possible or do you believe could exist, but that you actually believe exists.
Make a list of all the gods you believe exist. If that list does not have anything on it, then you are not a theist.
I guess, but the result is the same regardless of how you put it.
In the idea of egregors and thoughtforms, it's possible that All of the gods exist, but that is another can of worms
Both sides of this God or god debate are "in the dark' because neither side defines their intended meaning with respect to the ambiguous words (God or god) they are using. Who could know what they are claiming without having to engage in religious speculation? Just once I would love to see the religious person start off by providing a clear definition and use for the ambiguous concept they promote. But if someone walks in the room and affirmatively claims to not believe in God or god, it's exactly the same problem.
I guess from my personal experience, what is known as God, source, or the All is what originated everything and established all the laws that govern the universe. People through out history of become somewhat conscious of some of the aspects of God or the laws of nature, and have tried to explain it to others via stories and mythology.
Some people took the stories completely literally and became fundamentalists or exoteric
Some people took the stories as metaphor and allegory for something even greater
Others completely reject it all together.
If you look at many major scientists and thinkers throughout history, you'll see a lot of them tended to go the more mystical route
@@bignoob1790 That was a superb comment.^
@@prestonbacchus4204
Thanks
When he used the Nazi example, didn't god choose one people over all others and encourage genocide?
Yeah. most apologists conveniently forget that part. The morals and ethics of the Bible are questionable at best.
How did the pious fraudsters get David Attenborough to narrate?
Well there is a difference between beliving in a god and just benifiting from its delusuions.
Expect nothing less....blah....blah....blah
Is that David Attenborough?
AI probably
Such a lazy pratt show, with Mother Theresa on top. Are we sure this isn't a poe channel?
Well, I think that Ed in his comments basically proved the point being made in the Bible Books Explained video.
First, it should be pointed out the Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were all atheists. As for the Nazis, they were greatly influenced by Nietzsche, who was a leading atheist thinker.
As Ed himself pointed out, atheism denies the existence of an objective morality, which reinforces the point that the Bible Books Explained video makes. It makes morality subjective, and has the effect of removing moral restraint from secular governments. They are free to do what they want, since there is no Higher Power that says things like "Thou shalt not kill." Atheism doesn't force an atheist to commit atrocities, but leaves him free to do so.
And then Ed points out that an atheist can find meaning and purpose in life, which is true. But in what? And herein lies the problem. Once you remove God from the picture, you will look for meaning and purpose in something less than God, something temporal. And in modern Western thought that has led in two different directions. Those on the left find meaning and purpose in the class struggle, in revolution, which villainizes the group identified as the oppressor class. This, then, provokes a nationalist reaction on the right, in which people find meaning in their national identity -- blood and soil. (And I would argue that "Christian nationalism" is a contradiction of terms!).
And so that is what we have in the Western world today.
And what of all the hundreds and thousands of "Christians" that slaughtered millions in the name of their faith? Or Islam? Or literally other religious war from time immemorial? 'My God said so' has been the excuse for atrocities since the dawn of time. So much for deific moral superiority.
"Atheism" doesn't deny anything, much less the idea of objective morality. An atheist can very much believe in the idea of objective morality if they so choose. We don't need a higher power to tell us not to commit atrocities, we have common sense for that.
Why does something have to be eternal to have any value? The fact that things are finite is what gives them value.
Exactly. Morality is a human thing... a social contract to improve the survivability of social groups. It demonstrably changes over time and depending on the needs of the social group it applies to. No deity needed. If it was some perfect divine creation, then it would be uniform and stable for millennia, and it's so, so very not. Even the most basic 'moral law' of not killing goes out the window if the other person is a different faith, or color, or has some land you want.
@@vectorwolf
Usually when the topic of morality comes up I bring up the fact that duels to the death were an accepted form of settling disagreements until the early 19th century and how they weren't ended due to any moral reason but because they were being misused. Basically because people were ruining the "honor" of the duel.
Why do Christians insist on objective morality and then ground it on the whims of a subject? If what they claim made sense, I might start taking them seriously.
The lazy use of AI voices in videos like the one scrutinized here are already becoming cliche and tiresome
You've just deleted another one of my conversations. Now I know its the channel because I made the first comment in that thread. Why delete them? I thought if was people that believe in God that can't defend their beliefs? And @waveman0 (because I can't speak to you now) Do you see what I mean? Dogmatic zealots
I did not delete your comment or your conversation. So, are you making it up? There are several alternatives actually. One of my moderators has the power to do it, YT can delete them and it is also p[possible for you to delete these conversations yourselves.
@@therabydatheist I deleted it, whygodisscience is a very dishonest interlocutor and continually mischaracterizes atheism, will not correct his mistakes even when you show him how he is wrong, and claims not to be christian and yet argues from a christian perspective. He also used Turek's line 'it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in god' and calls atheism a worldview.
His entire strategy is a mischaracterization, misrepresentation, equivocation and dogmaticly sticking to a script.
I asked him to demonstrate his 'god (he clearly stated in one of his posts 'god exists'), and he stated he had no burden of proof as he wasn't promoting religion, apparently you only shoulder a burden when you are promoting a religion. Never once did he even attempt to demonstrate his 'god'.