A large number of these memes can be summarised with the phrase- 'Checkmate theists, I have already depicted myself as the chad, and you as the soyjak."
I get a lot of arguments about hospitals, and they always frustrate me. It's true, as you say, that many hospitals have religious roots, but the same principle applies to countless charities, schools and social programs. Let me share some personal experiences. When I faced serious legal trouble, someone from the Salvation Army offered free legal advice. Similarly, while driving through a remote area recently, I came across a Lutheran Church mission providing free coffee to drivers - a much-needed pick-me-up on a long journey.
But if it takes 100,00,000 books of religion to argue with one persons lack of belief in any god(s) I think I know what is valuable. You can see how meaningless this sounds right?
@@shreddedhominid1629 except nobody here said anything to deliberately downplay his importance nor condone his persecution, they're just adding on to what was said in the video, which was only there to rebuke the pointless claim about Turing's contributions to computer science as if that random fact has anything to do with the truth or significance of theism
@@wet-read Survival of the fittest is the idea that the strongest in nature survive. Altruistic things like a protective instinct has nothing to do with it
2:65 As a Lutheran I've struggled to argue against the "One less God" argument for awhile and the argument itself annoyed the crap out of me because it most often isn't used an argument but more of a sarcastic, snarky, and shallow insult. Thank you so much for giving me the answer to strike it down.
I'm Lutheran too (though I'm exploring Catholic theology as well). Anyway, I will recommend also reading the Catholic philosphy professor Edward Feser on this subject - he has written a lot about it on his blog. For example check out his blogpost with the title "A further thought on the “one god further” objection" - it goes a step deeper than Trent does in this video. Feser has written lots of interesting texts about how we can know that God exist, simply by using reason. Some of his texts are more difficult to understand than others, especially if you aren't that used to reading philosophical texts, so you might want to read some texts more than once, or check his references to other posts he has written which explain what he means by various terms he uses. Anyway, I can highly recommend checking his blog out :)
8:00 I am reminded of the time Einstein was asked to comment on the book 'One hundred authors against Einstein' he just said if he was wrong one should have been enough.
@@velkyn1 if you are talking about christian denominations and their own version of the Bible, you might want to check how 'different' they are... even to the most Christians the different version will all looks and reads the same.
@@velkyn1 if something mattered you, mattered more than life and death itself, and you saw people getting it nearly right but doing important but subtle things wrong wouldn't you want to argue your case?
Which is a sick one liner, but logically doesn't follow. Because Einstein was primarily a public figure. As we have seen from the last several years, one scientist speaking out against a public figure is indestinguishable from none
He doesn't WEAR his account. His ACCOUNT was created because he normally does not talk about atheism and the ACCOUNT was created to addressed the bad arguments of theists. Its like you are trying to show how clueless you are.
@@darrylelam256 Don't matter, it's the same principle. If there's anything wrong with the simple act of wearing a cross, that logic should also apply to usernames.
It's a shame such low hanging fruit needs to be addressed. Not because Trent is petty or whatever, but because many people buy these low hanging fruit without any real thought. Ironic, considering they always accuse us of being "irrational".
@@garrysmodsketches nope not wrong like trent said all the other "gods" aren't really god cause most of them are not all powerful and are limited. God infinite and enternal and all powerful.
I love this channel, even as a non-denominational Protestant. To the is Genesis literal point, the Bible clearly states that there was already light and dark before the stars and planets were made. Ergo, there could be days before suns.
Although that may reach a lot of people, they needn't necessarily explore Trent's long form videos. I've seen a lot of channels posting viral shorts with a lot of views but their normal long form content doesn't even get half of it most of the time.
You know, for a group that claims to be guided by pure reason and hard scientific data, they come up with the most nonsensical arguments I've ever heard. "Eric the god eating pengiin". I bet that atheist felt really intellectual when he came up with that one.
@@SenorCinema here is the major problem with their logic, one assertion being incorrect does not inherently mean both are incorrect. For example, 2 men are accused of theft, one is innocent and the other is guilty. However, there is no evidence to prove either man committed a crime. Now, does the innocence of man #1 mean that man #2 didnt commit the crime? The second problem with the logic is that the author makes a faulty assertion that because the penguine is named "the god eating penguin" that means the penguine is actually cappable of actually devouring God. Thats not how names work. You cannot prove an attribute based off of a name alone. Nor is there any definition actually used to support this claim as the author states. And here is the problem with their entire premise, the events of the new testemant are supported by eye witness testimony that has been thoughoughly examined for 2000 years. The existence of this penguin is supported by nothing at all. Even the original poster never so much as claimed to have seen him. Essentially, the whole argument is filled with blatent logical fallacy.
@@SenorCinema "its called satire". No, it isnt. See, satire would be imitating something in a mocking manner, unless he was trying to movk the arguments atheists make, this isnt actually satire, its just someone who tried to act smart without thinking.
The irony. I started watching the show, The Big Bang Theory. I find it ironic because Sheldon is a vocal atheist and condemns religious thinking as essentially delusion. Yet, the show promulgates the Big Bang Theory as a marvel of modern secular science, going so far as to name the show after it and the theme music. The irony? The Big Bang Theory was devised by a Catholic Priest lol
@@Joe-gi3nj there's an episode of Young Sheldon where Sheldon is eating dinner with his family. His mother asks him "Sheldon, would you like some water?" Sheldon responds: "why yes, Mother, I would quite like some dihydrogen monoxide" His father then beats him
@@HorseloverFat1984It appears so 🤔 Come to think of it, that man on the screen doesn't exactly look like Donkey Kong from Donkey Kong Country for the SNES 🤔 (Don't know how I ended up here 😅)
"An atheist believes a deed must be done instead of a prayer". Sure, but most of the time when I see something tragic on the news, people just get mad because someone said "thoughts and prayers". Yet, do they end up donating? or anything? Not the ones I've seen mad at least. So I would say as a christian, that we believe at the very least you should say a prayer, instead of NOTHING
Ahhh I like this, but it’s sad we still hear these memes that show that secularism is not rooted in intellectualism but rebellious teenage like thinking
The makers of the first meme have clearly never heard of Old Earth Creationists and Christian Evolutionists. The 4 days was in God's time, but it was billions of years in our time! The Bible even says that a day is ten thousand years and vice versa. Ten thousand is a very clean round number so it doesn't mean ten thousand exactly, it could mean any long amount of time like a billion years! :D
@@KobeBryant-m9y Sorry i wasn't clear. I'm an Atheist and I HATE the soviet union. Because I'm Lithuanian and they tried erasing our language and traditions (most of which are pagan ironically).
Trent, you should make a video responding to the video “error of the Catholics” the guy who made it keeps showing off how he has “near 0 rebuttals” so It would be nice if you humbled him.
Good vid but “Survival of the fittest” in evolution (and not popular cultural parlance), means survival of the trait that best fits an environment and changes therein, and not social indifference to “the weak”. Empathy and care for one’s species is a well-evidenced positive “fit” trait for our species.
Social Darwinism, the view that survival of the fittest ought to be the rule of society, is a well documented philosophy. It’s true that empathy is well documented as a trait associated with fitness, but empathy to whom is an open question there. From a purely naturalistic standpoint, only empathy towards one’s tribe or social group seems particularly useful for survival. It obviously allows for greater cohesion which is important for humanity as we are political and social animals who can typically accomplish more while co-operating. Empathy towards tribes and social groups whose influence is opposed to you, however, is not useful evolutionarily. Resources are finite and humans are also selfish and individualistic to a large extent. We have our own philosophies and needs and those things inevitably come into conflict within and without our immediate tribal groups, due to this natural scarcity and intellectual diversity. Thus, being able to stifle empathy towards outside groups and do what you like to them in conflict is also an easy thing for mankind to do and justify to itself. That’s why it is so common throughout history. The notion of universal fraternity in contradiction to these darker tendencies is the product of Judeo-Christian philosophy, not evolutionary processes drawn out by survival of the fittest. This is actually demonstrated precisely by Social Darwinism. SD doesn’t posit that empathy is always bad. It posits, simply speaking, that utilizing societal resources to prop up the lives of people who posses little to no qualities that benefit their communities, from a survival standpoint, is essentially irrational. Empathy, in the eyes of SD, is meant to be spent on those who posses the potential to benefit you or society and that those who prove themselves unable to survive with some degree of independence lack this potential. Thus, following the normal course of evolution, they should be allowed to perish and society should reserve its compassion for others. This, generally speaking, is perfectly rational from an evolutionary standpoint. The only meaningful intellectual competition it gets is the Judeo-Christian worldview, which I am happy to say I subscribe to. While Trent’s commentary might be a bit heavy handed, I believe that this idea is what he was commenting on.
All top-down origin scenarios (gods or the like first) necessarily include the infinite regression issue, something that cannot be defined away. If you reject the possibility of infinite regressions in objective reality then you also necessarily reject all top-down origin scenarios. If you accept the possibility of infinite regressions in objective reality then you also necessarily accept that no deity can sit at the origin because infinite regressions have no origin. Top-down origin scenarios just don't work. They are illogical, irrational, or both. Bottom-up origin scenarios (quantum fields or something similar first) can work because quantum theory, supported by innumerable objective empirical experiments, shows that there are hard limits to how small and simple things can be. All of our available objective empirical evidence points exclusively and unambiguously to an objective reality that is built from the bottom up, from the quantum fields and nothing more.
An interesting thing about that “5000 gods argument” is it doesn’t realise that most religions actually have God as the absolute, ground of being. God has different names and is interpreted differently. The meme would be better to ask, “which interpretation of God is correct: the personal Trinitarian God of Christianity or Allah of Islam; or the impersonal notion of Brahman in Hinduism or Tao, or the Great Spirit in Native American religion?” but I guess that wouldn’t serve the ridiculing purpose of the meme, and instead pose an actually serious philosophical/theological question.
Exactly. If you want to make a Hindu mad, call them a polytheist. They would repudiate you and say they only worship one god. Which in their viewpoint, they are. Ancient Greeks believed in a single supreme god as did the ancient Germanic religions, who they called All Father. It's a silly misconception by both Christians and Atheists who don't quite understand the nuances in different belief systems.
He did address this using the example of people hearing sounds. Trent was only demonstrating the meme fails to disprove the existence of God. Many primitive tribes in Australia and the Americas used to worship a father God and most Christian theologians won't have a problem with entertaining the thought that it might have been the same God.
I don’t even think you need to hold to the Augustinian defense for creation happening over successive days. A day is a measure of time, therefore it doesn’t really matter what physical phenomena we use as a reference. The definition of a second has changed over time, so it can truly be a 24 hour period without there needing to be the rising and setting of the sun.
Re: the sun and day without sun meme. The creation account is of this earth, not the whole universe. So, there were other planets with suns and motion, hence time and days. The earth's movement is the thing measured by days. The earth moving without the sun would still be the earth moving.
Apart from depicting "the big bang theory" as an awful show, I agree with virtualy everything you've said. Great video, keep up the good content, may God be with you always.
I don't see how not having created the sun yet keeps 24-hour periods from passing. It's not like God needed the sun for light or time-keeping while He created things on days 1-3
The days/sun one is even easier. Has anyone of these guys ever considered that we as humans use the cycle as a visual cue? I'm sure as hell that a being who can be named a "God" doesn't need to.
Them's some weaksauce excuses mah dude. Maybe try to look past that mountain of unfounded presuppositions in front of your bonce at some point, it could allow you to be less stubbornly wrong. TMM's recent video explains a bunch of those wrongs, if anyone here cares to learn.
I can't watch the whole thing when you screw up on the first one. Aquinas gave a refutation, but it's a bad refutation. Genesis is written as if it were literal. Nowhere does it allude to being figurative in any way. It's supposed to display the power of god that he can do all those things. Only god could do the things as written. The hoops apologists jump through to make their ideas "acceptable".
Also, while there might be more nones than Christians one day in the US. The nones are not all athiest by a long shit. In fact, the number of people that identify as athiest is still very low.
Why would you lie about Nick Fuentes during the Easter Celebrations, then double down when shown the proof of your wrongdoing!!! Thats not Catholic, thats jewish!! Apologize!!
It's such a minor thing but I'm so glad he snuck in a big bang theory diss lol. It's so horrible and it's blatantly written for social engineering purposes but people dont criticize it that much, I guess because it's innocuous?
"unlimited in power, knowledge and goodness." Yeah, just think about that for a second and you'll realise why it debunks itself. Correct, Buddha is not god but his teachings are universal. Unrestricted by time, place or culture. Meaning, Buddhism is logically sound as it's derived from first principle ethics and therefore can be the only true religion. Also, the majority of jesus teachings are nothing new. They were taught by the Buddha some 500 years earlier. Buddhism had made it to Greece by this point as a historical fact so it's not out of the question that jesus encountered a few. It also explains why Buddhists (myself included) generally have a positive view of Jesus.
hello, I'd like to present to you my point of view without trying to impose it on you. I wish we can have an actual dialogue, and hopefully I'll see any mistakes I have made. I, a former Christian, currently an atheist and non-religious person, actually see little practical utility in Jesus' teachings. forgiving is good on average, but forgiving all will only lead to an opressed society (just like the Jews under Roman domination). "love your enemy", "whoever is not with me is against me", "I didn't come to bring peace but to bring the sword" created a polarizing view of reality, classifying people as friends or foes (just like Jews and Romans). Jesus didn't taught how to heal people, resurrect the dead, or multiply food when resources are scarce. I cannot even say Jesus taught people how to pray, because I'm sure prayers already existed. Unlike Buddha, who wanted us to analize and not just believe, who taught us how to meditate, who understood compassion is the best policy, Jesus' teachings lacked all of that. I wish you be well and can understand me.
@@holaguacamole4058 i understand you perfectly well buddy and I see your point completely. The bit you fail to notice in my point is that I didn't say that jesus was on a par with Buddha, I probably should have worded it better but the point I was making is that Christianity is a very patchy imitation of Buddhism but never the less a lot of jesus teachings and ethics are derived from the teachings of the Buddha. I do agree with you though.
@@braddarkstar thanks for the clarification, it was my fault for not getting your idea. I actually feel good with this interaction and I wish all interactions between people with different ideas were just like this one. may your days be full of peace!
When you say God is not a being but is being itself, you can't say he has personhood and wants a relationship with his creation. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I mean, push God further into deism territory and see how that will work out for Christianity. Also to say God is the ground of all being, what does that mean exactly and what is the methodology you used to determine it's true? And God being 'good'. I think that's a lens that Christians need to use to view other God matters through. On it's own though, its indistinguishable from a made up statement. Men have been making things up about God(s) for thousands of years and it won't end any time soon.
Hello Trent! I would like to know what are the best non-bias books to learn about the accurate history of the Inquisition; Vatican wealth and bad Popes. I would like to know more about them as I'm having difficulty defending the position of the Catholic Church in these topics. Btw, if you do have videos on these subjects, kindly direct me to them. Thanks a lot!
I kind of forgive the Medieval Church for its ignorance, as we can not change past. its wealth, is certainly questionable as peoole around the world starve and suffer diseases while the Vatican has a positive balance, a very positive balance perhaps. bad Popes is where things get hairy, as they represent God here on Earth, and if they act badly, God's reputation is damaged. the argument "human beings are imperfect" is not valid because God must act as the Pope's supervisor, unless: -God doesn't care or -God cannot do it or -God is O.K. with a bad Pope. you haven't mentioned the topic of child abuse by God's servants and the indolence and sometimes complicity of the organization known as the Roman Catholic Church. this is checkmate, as I wouldn't entrust the Church with my children and no reasonable person should ignore that if the moral compass is broken, trusting it can be actually harmful.
Meme #8. This is something I've been thinking about lately. Can anybody name 1 argument for atheism, that cannot also be an argument for Deism? Arguments against Christianity (contradictions within scripture, textual criticism of the NT, moral objections to the Bible, ect) are not arguments for atheism. Rather they're arguments against Christianity. These arguments could imply some other God exists. Arguments like the Problem of Evil and Divine Hiddenness are also no arguments for atheism, but arguments against an All-knowing, All-loving, and All-powerful God. These arguments could imply a non-loving God exists (Deism). What are arguments in support of atheism? I can only think of about 2 or 3, and even they are absent in the serious scholarly debates for being fallacious.
Europe is essentially non religious and they treat people far better than religious Europe treated anyone. My son was not baptized and never taken to church except for weddings/funerals - he is the most moral person I know. The argument that his "god" is real and the older forms of "god" are not is silly. His god does not exist either. The infinite is matter and energy, not a conscious sky wizard.
3:05 If I redefine God, to a definition that fits my narrative, then i can call victory.... only, not so fast. Even if we ignore your special pleading.... There are many Gods that fit your description. The most common example would be Abrahamic religions, but I can see you saying that only your brand of Arbrahamic religion is the right one. So, there is Sikhism. A religion believes in only one true God, that is infinite, timeless, unlimited in power and goodness. God is also the ground of being in Sikh, even more so than Christianity. Infinite in all respects. Given that you go for Thor and Zeus, but ignore all other religions that fit your description. Shows how ignorant or dishonest you are on the topic. Have you tried Sikhism? It fits perfectly on your definition of what a true God would be.
ok. only 4 Gods are only in compete out of 1000 of religions with millions of claimed god in that definition. how is it dishonest when millions of gods are out of question. only 3-4 option is left. Islam can't be true since its literally copy of Christianity after 500 years since death of Jesus. Judaism is not true because they don't accept prohercy of Jesus and don't believe God can't make himself born in flesh which is absurd since God is all powerful and not limited so Islam, Judaism and Sikhism believe in same thing. Sikhism also believe in karma and reincarnation. so it seems Sikhism is copy and mix of Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. Sikhism also believe in other gods like Vishnu Shiva and brahma.
I think your response to Fred the god eating penguin was weak: the meme is even more dumb than you think. If God doesn’t exist then Fred cannot exist. If God does exist that doesn’t follow that Fred exists. Why would God create a god eating penguin to be eaten by? And if Fred did exist God by definition would be able to destroy Fred. Additionally the onus isn’t on theists to disprove your absurd claim of a god eating penguin, likewise the onus isn’t on the atheist to disprove the existence of God
"For the Lord is the great God, the King who surpasses all other gods." Ps. 95:3 (NCB) So even the Bible admits that there may be other small g gods, but the Christian God is the supreme among all.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 *📖 Analysis of Atheist Memes* - Examining common atheist memes. - St. Augustine's interpretation of Genesis as thematic, not literal. - Rebutting the idea of the "Dark Ages" and the role of the Church in preserving knowledge. 01:11 *💭 Critique of Atheist Assumptions* - Highlighting historical examples of atheist regimes' treatment of religious individuals. - Contrasting projections of global religious demographics with atheist assumptions. - Challenging atheist memes that utilize the argument from geography. 02:47 *🛤️ Defining God and Critiquing Atheist Meme Logic* - Defining the concept of God as the infinite Act of being itself. - Refuting atheist memes that fail to accurately define God. - Reconciling biblical descriptions of God with philosophical reasoning. 05:47 *🎯 Addressing Logical Fallacies in Atheist Memes* - Addressing logical fallacies in atheist memes regarding the existence of God. - Clarifying the concept of God's existence in relation to hypothetical scenarios. - Applying philosophical principles to debunk flawed atheist arguments. 06:55 *🏛️ Reframing Atheist Perspectives on Religion* - Reframing atheist perspectives on religion through historical examples. - Highlighting the contributions of religious institutions to societal welfare. - Addressing misconceptions about religion and altruism. 08:02 *📚 Evaluation of Philosophical Arguments* - Contrasting the quantity of literature on atheism versus theism. - Acknowledging the academic depth of philosophical debates on theism. - Disputing claims about the prevalence of arguments for mythical creatures. 09:00 *💻 Debunking Stereotypes and Misconceptions* - Debunking stereotypes about the contributions of atheists to science. - Providing counterexamples of religious individuals' contributions to science. - Challenging misconceptions about the compatibility of religion and scientific progress. 09:41 *🤦♂️ Addressing Denial of Jesus' Existence* - Critiquing memes that deny the historical existence of Jesus. - Citing scholarly consensus on the existence of Jesus. - Highlighting the fringe nature of denying Jesus' existence in modern scholarship.
"the role of the Church in preserving knowledge."... You people have never read a book other than the bible, huh... The church burned books, documents, destroyed knowledge on MASS. Hunted doctors, healers and scientists. There is not a SINGLE organization in this history of mankind that has been more damaging to knowledge and development than the church.
@@haydencarn8737 Then explain their preservation of works from the likes of Plato and Aristotle. If they were destroying knowledge as you say, the church wouldn't be utilizing and studying the works of what were essentially pagan philosophers. Then there's the fact it was the Catholic Church that established the first universities where these things where studied, and produced people that paved the way for science to even exist as it is now. Edit: Even if you make the claim that it was "stolen" (Plato's Academy, for example), it would be counter-intuitive for the church to emulate such a means for the purpose of education. This doesn't even touch on the countless church libraries that regarded the works they held (including pagan texts) as treasures and protected them as such. Even if it wasn't open to public or wide academic use at the time, that was because the copies they had were old/rare and were only available by either direct access or paying to have someone perform the ardius task of copying the text by hand (among the other tasks they were writing/studying). Kinda seems counter-intuitive to the "knowledge-suppressing" aspect of the church.
@@haydencarn8737 "Hunted doctors, healers and scientists." There's not a single documentation of the Church ever killing let alone hunting "scientists or doctors" purely on the basis that they're scientist and doctors.
@@Cklert ...They called them witches, satanists and nonsense of the sort. Of course the church did not say "We gonna hunt some docs and scientists" they called everyone who did science or healing witches and such things. And actually, that is well documented, there are literally museums in which you can read and learn about these matters. For example, the church also at times tortured women that were healers until they "Admitted" that they were witches, then they were burned. Honestly, it's disgusting how many people from the church try to cover the churches past up with the usual lies and lazy deception. Disgraceful. If Jesus were alive to see all this happen, he would be horrified by the abomination that was created in his name and the structure of lies that was built on his dead body.
How about proving your imaginary friends instead of failing to debunk the memes? Eric the god-eating magic Penguin is real and your arguments against him failed. Evidence for Eric is that no gods has ever been proven.
Failed with the first meme. In Genesis 1 evening and morning are present. You cannot have evening and morning for 3 days without a sun. Genesis 20:8-11 shows it was literal days as it is related to 6 days you will work.
Have your god report to me for inspection, I will decide if it’s a god. A no-show, at my prescribed time, that i only know, is a demonstration of its fiction. i LACK a belief in your god! just as much as i LACK a belief in everybody else’s god. This video is chock full of reasoning fallacies. You have wholeheartedly reinforced my lack of belief in your petty god. How about joining the rest of humanity in the 21st century?
A large number of these memes can be summarised with the phrase-
'Checkmate theists, I have already depicted myself as the chad, and you as the soyjak."
You can be summarized thusly: "I eat bits of dead Jesus at least once a week, and I do it without gaining weight!"
@@Jamienewman0
Nice try, but I actually am in Sin, I cannot receive communion.
@@Jamienewman0tell me you don't understand Communion without telling me you don't understand Communion
@@Jamienewman0 understand transubstantiation before commenting, please. thanks
Right on
I get a lot of arguments about hospitals, and they always frustrate me. It's true, as you say, that many hospitals have religious roots, but the same principle applies to countless charities, schools and social programs. Let me share some personal experiences. When I faced serious legal trouble, someone from the Salvation Army offered free legal advice. Similarly, while driving through a remote area recently, I came across a Lutheran Church mission providing free coffee to drivers - a much-needed pick-me-up on a long journey.
Trent's mind is literally mine in the hot shower after an argument
You are definitely not male. Men don't do this. 😂
He admitted the largest growing population globally are Muslims.
As a Muslim it gives me satisfaction to know I am in the winning population.
Underrated comment
Fr
Literally me
8:00 it takes 100 pennys to make 1 dollar.
If it takes 100,000,000 books of atheism to argue with 1 book of theism. I think i know what is valuable
But if it takes 100,00,000 books of religion to argue with one persons lack of belief in any god(s) I think I know what is valuable.
You can see how meaningless this sounds right?
@@Dock284 ...no
Except that the single book of theism quotes itself to prove itself. So its value is zero.
Atheist: "You can thank gay atheist Alan Turing for the computer."
>mfw he hasn't heard of straight protestant Charles Babbage
XD
so, all you have is that a gay and a straight man gave us computers. Cool.
@@velkyn1 Low IQ Velkyn, back at it again
@@velkyn1 Alan Turing did not invent computer science so the base proposition is false anyways.
@@TheJman423Nobody said he did. You gonna keep trying to downplay a genius persecuted gay man because of your own religious tribalism? Pathetic.
@@shreddedhominid1629 except nobody here said anything to deliberately downplay his importance nor condone his persecution, they're just adding on to what was said in the video, which was only there to rebuke the pointless claim about Turing's contributions to computer science as if that random fact has anything to do with the truth or significance of theism
"Survival of the fittest and altruistic hospitals don't really go together."
I chuckled at that. Thanks!
Really? It's moronic.
You 'chuckled' at that because you are clueless as to what is meant by survival of the fittest.
Survival of the fittest is not a moral position unless you are a theist
Social Darwinism would like to have a word with you.
@@wet-read Survival of the fittest is the idea that the strongest in nature survive.
Altruistic things like a protective instinct has nothing to do with it
2:65 As a Lutheran I've struggled to argue against the "One less God" argument for awhile and the argument itself annoyed the crap out of me because it most often isn't used an argument but more of a sarcastic, snarky, and shallow insult. Thank you so much for giving me the answer to strike it down.
I'm Lutheran too (though I'm exploring Catholic theology as well). Anyway, I will recommend also reading the Catholic philosphy professor Edward Feser on this subject - he has written a lot about it on his blog. For example check out his blogpost with the title "A further thought on the “one god further” objection" - it goes a step deeper than Trent does in this video. Feser has written lots of interesting texts about how we can know that God exist, simply by using reason. Some of his texts are more difficult to understand than others, especially if you aren't that used to reading philosophical texts, so you might want to read some texts more than once, or check his references to other posts he has written which explain what he means by various terms he uses. Anyway, I can highly recommend checking his blog out :)
8:00 I am reminded of the time Einstein was asked to comment on the book 'One hundred authors against Einstein' he just said if he was wrong one should have been enough.
curious how there are thouands of books with christians each insisting that only their version is the right one.
@@velkyn1 if you are talking about christian denominations and their own version of the Bible, you might want to check how 'different' they are... even to the most Christians the different version will all looks and reads the same.
@@velkyn1
And all but 3 of them cropped up in the 16th century
@@velkyn1 if something mattered you, mattered more than life and death itself, and you saw people getting it nearly right but doing important but subtle things wrong wouldn't you want to argue your case?
Which is a sick one liner, but logically doesn't follow. Because Einstein was primarily a public figure.
As we have seen from the last several years, one scientist speaking out against a public figure is indestinguishable from none
Atheistdad: "I don't wear anything that states my lack of belief."
Atheistdad: Names his account "Atheistdad"
He doesn't WEAR his account. His ACCOUNT was created because he normally does not talk about atheism and the ACCOUNT was created to addressed the bad arguments of theists. Its like you are trying to show how clueless you are.
@@darrylelam256 Don't matter, it's the same principle.
If there's anything wrong with the simple act of wearing a cross, that logic should also apply to usernames.
@@darrylelam256 Did you black out during the part where he was shown wearing a shirt affirming his atheism
@@darrylelam256 Nope, by "wear" he obviously meant "openly exposing". That statement was quite dumb of his.
It's a shame such low hanging fruit needs to be addressed. Not because Trent is petty or whatever, but because many people buy these low hanging fruit without any real thought. Ironic, considering they always accuse us of being "irrational".
These are the equivalent of Moon-Landing denier or flat earth memes, it seems convincing if you don't do any research beyond looking at memes.
@@TheStarshipGarage Wait, I can't use memes to cite my work? CRAP
it's ironic that the "rational" people who accuse us of "not thinking" are far, faaaar more likely to outsource their thinking
It hurts me so much knowing that people can believe these are true in the slightest.
You are irrational if you believe in anything that can't be proven
Atheist: So you really think your God is correct over the 5,000 other gods on earth?
Me: Yes, yes I do.
1 divided by 5000, that's 0.02% chance that you are correct. So you're probably wrong.
@@garrysmodsketchesI don't care better than not choosing at all and all the other gods are immoral and god almighty isn't immoral
@@garrysmodsketches nope not wrong like trent said all the other "gods" aren't really god cause most of them are not all powerful and are limited. God infinite and enternal and all powerful.
@@champion1859 we all choose. Some choose to believe in fairytales while others choose to believe in facts
@@garrysmodsketches Go to rehab, no way you ain't high
I love this channel, even as a non-denominational Protestant.
To the is Genesis literal point, the Bible clearly states that there was already light and dark before the stars and planets were made. Ergo, there could be days before suns.
Same here
I'm also a non-denominational protestant, and that's how I interpret Genesis, the sun was just a vessel for the light.
@@TheStarshipGarage And how do you interpret the _firmament?_
Right there with you, although, I’m currently looking into orthodox.
@@SergeantSkeptic686 magnetic field?
1:48 good “meme” response- a painting of the martyrs of Compiègne, the Carmelite nuns executed during the Reign of Terror for being nuns.
I love the back and forward of serious thoughtful discussions on deep topics and more lighthearted ones like busting memes. Keep it up Trent!
Trent should cut videos like these into shorts so it reaches morep ppl
Although that may reach a lot of people, they needn't necessarily explore Trent's long form videos. I've seen a lot of channels posting viral shorts with a lot of views but their normal long form content doesn't even get half of it most of the time.
@@dynaspinner64 doesn't change the fact that it's still planting seeds
You know, for a group that claims to be guided by pure reason and hard scientific data, they come up with the most nonsensical arguments I've ever heard.
"Eric the god eating pengiin". I bet that atheist felt really intellectual when he came up with that one.
You’ve asserted a theism claim that god exists without any empirical evidence to back your claim. So did the atheists.
Also, it’s called satire
@@SenorCinema here is the major problem with their logic, one assertion being incorrect does not inherently mean both are incorrect.
For example, 2 men are accused of theft, one is innocent and the other is guilty. However, there is no evidence to prove either man committed a crime. Now, does the innocence of man #1 mean that man #2 didnt commit the crime?
The second problem with the logic is that the author makes a faulty assertion that because the penguine is named "the god eating penguin" that means the penguine is actually cappable of actually devouring God. Thats not how names work. You cannot prove an attribute based off of a name alone. Nor is there any definition actually used to support this claim as the author states.
And here is the problem with their entire premise, the events of the new testemant are supported by eye witness testimony that has been thoughoughly examined for 2000 years. The existence of this penguin is supported by nothing at all. Even the original poster never so much as claimed to have seen him.
Essentially, the whole argument is filled with blatent logical fallacy.
@@SenorCinema "its called satire". No, it isnt. See, satire would be imitating something in a mocking manner, unless he was trying to movk the arguments atheists make, this isnt actually satire, its just someone who tried to act smart without thinking.
9:42 To be fair, probably a lot of people who think Jesus didn’t exist probably also don’t know the history of Christian scientists.
The irony.
I started watching the show, The Big Bang Theory.
I find it ironic because Sheldon is a vocal atheist and condemns religious thinking as essentially delusion.
Yet, the show promulgates the Big Bang Theory as a marvel of modern secular science, going so far as to name the show after it and the theme music.
The irony?
The Big Bang Theory was devised by a Catholic Priest lol
@@Joe-gi3nj there's an episode of Young Sheldon where Sheldon is eating dinner with his family.
His mother asks him "Sheldon, would you like some water?"
Sheldon responds: "why yes, Mother, I would quite like some dihydrogen monoxide"
His father then beats him
@@Joe-gi3nj Ironically I don't think the show ever actually mentions the Big Bang Theory outside of its theme.
It's a real shame that darkmatter2525's artistic style rubbed off on the larger atheist community. It's so embarrassingly awful.
People with no sense of the good use art that is not good. More at 11
Oh YES!!! One of my all time childhood favorites!!
The music, the visuals, the gameplay: 10/10
You're lost buddy
@@HorseloverFat1984It appears so 🤔
Come to think of it, that man on the screen doesn't exactly look like Donkey Kong from Donkey Kong Country for the SNES 🤔
(Don't know how I ended up here 😅)
@@kevindiamant415 Lmao
"An atheist believes a deed must be done instead of a prayer". Sure, but most of the time when I see something tragic on the news, people just get mad because someone said "thoughts and prayers". Yet, do they end up donating? or anything? Not the ones I've seen mad at least. So I would say as a christian, that we believe at the very least you should say a prayer, instead of NOTHING
"Not the ones I've seen mad at least" Oh? How do you know?
@@DarkMatter2525 Because I know a lot of athiests personally
These memes were predestined to be cringe 😂 great episode Trent
5:50 lol tell me you don't understand the ontological argument without telling me you don't understand the ontological argument
Ahhh I like this, but it’s sad we still hear these memes that show that secularism is not rooted in intellectualism but rebellious teenage like thinking
Secularism reduced "reason" to a worthless slogan.
@@mr.iankp.5734 🤣
The makers of the first meme have clearly never heard of Old Earth Creationists and Christian Evolutionists. The 4 days was in God's time, but it was billions of years in our time! The Bible even says that a day is ten thousand years and vice versa. Ten thousand is a very clean round number so it doesn't mean ten thousand exactly, it could mean any long amount of time like a billion years! :D
God bless you Trent
Atheist trying to pretend like soviet russia never existed
Why ? My country got fucked HARD by the soviets
uhhhhhhh I don't really understand what you just said @@MemeLordCrusader
@@KobeBryant-m9y Sorry i wasn't clear. I'm an Atheist and I HATE the soviet union. Because I'm Lithuanian and they tried erasing our language and traditions (most of which are pagan ironically).
Or the reign of terror in the French Revolution
Danke für deine Best-ofs, wenn schon Marah aktuell keine Best-ofs schneiden kann.
Bitte
Trent, you should make a video responding to the video “error of the Catholics” the guy who made it keeps showing off how he has “near 0 rebuttals” so It would be nice if you humbled him.
8:39 Aron Ra's "there is no God" T-shirt disagrees with this guy. lol
Good vid but “Survival of the fittest” in evolution (and not popular cultural parlance), means survival of the trait that best fits an environment and changes therein, and not social indifference to “the weak”. Empathy and care for one’s species is a well-evidenced positive “fit” trait for our species.
Social Darwinism, the view that survival of the fittest ought to be the rule of society, is a well documented philosophy. It’s true that empathy is well documented as a trait associated with fitness, but empathy to whom is an open question there. From a purely naturalistic standpoint, only empathy towards one’s tribe or social group seems particularly useful for survival. It obviously allows for greater cohesion which is important for humanity as we are political and social animals who can typically accomplish more while co-operating.
Empathy towards tribes and social groups whose influence is opposed to you, however, is not useful evolutionarily. Resources are finite and humans are also selfish and individualistic to a large extent. We have our own philosophies and needs and those things inevitably come into conflict within and without our immediate tribal groups, due to this natural scarcity and intellectual diversity. Thus, being able to stifle empathy towards outside groups and do what you like to them in conflict is also an easy thing for mankind to do and justify to itself. That’s why it is so common throughout history. The notion of universal fraternity in contradiction to these darker tendencies is the product of Judeo-Christian philosophy, not evolutionary processes drawn out by survival of the fittest. This is actually demonstrated precisely by Social Darwinism.
SD doesn’t posit that empathy is always bad. It posits, simply speaking, that utilizing societal resources to prop up the lives of people who posses little to no qualities that benefit their communities, from a survival standpoint, is essentially irrational. Empathy, in the eyes of SD, is meant to be spent on those who posses the potential to benefit you or society and that those who prove themselves unable to survive with some degree of independence lack this potential. Thus, following the normal course of evolution, they should be allowed to perish and society should reserve its compassion for others. This, generally speaking, is perfectly rational from an evolutionary standpoint. The only meaningful intellectual competition it gets is the Judeo-Christian worldview, which I am happy to say I subscribe to.
While Trent’s commentary might be a bit heavy handed, I believe that this idea is what he was commenting on.
@@robertdolcetti450Well summarized! Thank you.
@@robertdolcetti450 true! Also true that he didn’t say “social Darwinism”. That may be his intent, but was not his language.
Trent you are a blessing for us. Thanks to God ❤❤🙏❤️❤️
Yay! I love refuting stupid atheist memes! You should make this a recurring series.
Who allowed eric the penguin to recieve communion?
All top-down origin scenarios (gods or the like first) necessarily include the infinite regression issue, something that cannot be defined away. If you reject the possibility of infinite regressions in objective reality then you also necessarily reject all top-down origin scenarios. If you accept the possibility of infinite regressions in objective reality then you also necessarily accept that no deity can sit at the origin because infinite regressions have no origin. Top-down origin scenarios just don't work. They are illogical, irrational, or both.
Bottom-up origin scenarios (quantum fields or something similar first) can work because quantum theory, supported by innumerable objective empirical experiments, shows that there are hard limits to how small and simple things can be.
All of our available objective empirical evidence points exclusively and unambiguously to an objective reality that is built from the bottom up, from the quantum fields and nothing more.
An interesting thing about that “5000 gods argument” is it doesn’t realise that most religions actually have God as the absolute, ground of being. God has different names and is interpreted differently. The meme would be better to ask, “which interpretation of God is correct: the personal Trinitarian God of Christianity or Allah of Islam; or the impersonal notion of Brahman in Hinduism or Tao, or the Great Spirit in Native American religion?” but I guess that wouldn’t serve the ridiculing purpose of the meme, and instead pose an actually serious philosophical/theological question.
Exactly. If you want to make a Hindu mad, call them a polytheist. They would repudiate you and say they only worship one god. Which in their viewpoint, they are. Ancient Greeks believed in a single supreme god as did the ancient Germanic religions, who they called All Father. It's a silly misconception by both Christians and Atheists who don't quite understand the nuances in different belief systems.
He did address this using the example of people hearing sounds. Trent was only demonstrating the meme fails to disprove the existence of God. Many primitive tribes in Australia and the Americas used to worship a father God and most Christian theologians won't have a problem with entertaining the thought that it might have been the same God.
I don’t even think you need to hold to the Augustinian defense for creation happening over successive days. A day is a measure of time, therefore it doesn’t really matter what physical phenomena we use as a reference. The definition of a second has changed over time, so it can truly be a 24 hour period without there needing to be the rising and setting of the sun.
Re: the sun and day without sun meme. The creation account is of this earth, not the whole universe. So, there were other planets with suns and motion, hence time and days. The earth's movement is the thing measured by days. The earth moving without the sun would still be the earth moving.
The light before the sun is a nebula.
I feel like a lot of these people haven't read any recent history regarding missionary saints,
Apart from depicting "the big bang theory" as an awful show, I agree with virtualy everything you've said. Great video, keep up the good content, may God be with you always.
Love it! Great content!
Make more please, this was very nice to listen to
great video brother. Glory to God alone
Trent, could you make a video about Jesus' childhood? Birthplace, Nazareth, Bethlehem etc...
God bless you, Trent, and all glory to Christ
6:53 what about Saint Pio? He built a hospital?
I don't see how not having created the sun yet keeps 24-hour periods from passing. It's not like God needed the sun for light or time-keeping while He created things on days 1-3
No Christians think the earth is flat.
Almost none do it’s an unpopular but existing position
@@dylanarmour6727 Historically not among Christians.
Thankyou Trent
Augustine directly calls genesis "true history". He does not call it thematic.
What an idiot then
The days/sun one is even easier. Has anyone of these guys ever considered that we as humans use the cycle as a visual cue? I'm sure as hell that a being who can be named a "God" doesn't need to.
For Memes 4,5, and 6. You are doing something called special pleading.
Them's some weaksauce excuses mah dude. Maybe try to look past that mountain of unfounded presuppositions in front of your bonce at some point, it could allow you to be less stubbornly wrong. TMM's recent video explains a bunch of those wrongs, if anyone here cares to learn.
You didn't really rebut the first meme. You just presented somebody's opinion about how the Bible should be interpreted.
5:35 do you have proof of your God?
It's literally all around and within you.
And it is what?
@@GumbyJumpOff lol
your brain is busted
@@SwolllenGoatSo you don't actually have evidence.
@@gunnarneumann8321 but look at the trees.............................
If anything, that realistic Jesus meme seems more like a Christian meme, his body rose and went to heaven so you can't find him here on Earth
Yeah. Says you
I can't watch the whole thing when you screw up on the first one. Aquinas gave a refutation, but it's a bad refutation. Genesis is written as if it were literal. Nowhere does it allude to being figurative in any way. It's supposed to display the power of god that he can do all those things. Only god could do the things as written.
The hoops apologists jump through to make their ideas "acceptable".
Also, while there might be more nones than Christians one day in the US. The nones are not all athiest by a long shit. In fact, the number of people that identify as athiest is still very low.
One thing is certain, if a theist is criticizing atheism, that theist will also be misrepresenting it.
Why would you lie about Nick Fuentes during the Easter Celebrations, then double down when shown the proof of your wrongdoing!!! Thats not Catholic, thats jewish!! Apologize!!
Says these memes are silly. Believes a serpent talked to a human and is not silly. Comical. LOL.
Serpent was a Seraphim
@@Orthosaur7532 That would be your imagination.
@@jakegreen5081 Why are you liking your own comment?
@@Orthosaur7532 What's not to like
@@jakegreen5081 Your own comment. Why would you of all people like your own comment.
Well done!
Says its not literal, quotes from “On the Literal Meaning of Genesis” 🤦♂️ 0:52
I guess this proves Jesus rose from the dead.
The mental gymnastics required to maintain your belief in god are ridiculous
It's alright, I've seen more ridiculous arguments from atheists in order to maintain their self-esteem.
Proverbs 14:26 - In the fear of the LORD one has strong confidence, and his children will have a refuge. The phrase, “fear of the LORD,” appears
So god isn’t love then
It's such a minor thing but I'm so glad he snuck in a big bang theory diss lol. It's so horrible and it's blatantly written for social engineering purposes but people dont criticize it that much, I guess because it's innocuous?
You don’t believe in the Big Bang? You do know we can see! We have an image of it. We can observe everything in the universe expanding farther away.
@@CaptainFantastic222I don't think he is refering to the actual theory about how the universe came into being, but rather the TV-series ;)
@@herlocksholmes9369 hehe. Thanks
I love you Trent and i agree with many things you say and many of them are very helpful to me but why did you say TBBT show is awful whyyyy😂😭
Robert Sungenis would be a great addition to this. 😊
Iant trent horn to review soren kierkegaards take on religion. to me it makes sense faith is a leap you can't prove
"unlimited in power, knowledge and goodness."
Yeah, just think about that for a second and you'll realise why it debunks itself.
Correct, Buddha is not god but his teachings are universal. Unrestricted by time, place or culture. Meaning, Buddhism is logically sound as it's derived from first principle ethics and therefore can be the only true religion.
Also, the majority of jesus teachings are nothing new. They were taught by the Buddha some 500 years earlier. Buddhism had made it to Greece by this point as a historical fact so it's not out of the question that jesus encountered a few. It also explains why Buddhists (myself included) generally have a positive view of Jesus.
hello, I'd like to present to you my point of view without trying to impose it on you. I wish we can have an actual dialogue, and hopefully I'll see any mistakes I have made. I, a former Christian, currently an atheist and non-religious person, actually see little practical utility in Jesus' teachings. forgiving is good on average, but forgiving all will only lead to an opressed society (just like the Jews under Roman domination). "love your enemy", "whoever is not with me is against me", "I didn't come to bring peace but to bring the sword" created a polarizing view of reality, classifying people as friends or foes (just like Jews and Romans). Jesus didn't taught how to heal people, resurrect the dead, or multiply food when resources are scarce. I cannot even say Jesus taught people how to pray, because I'm sure prayers already existed. Unlike Buddha, who wanted us to analize and not just believe, who taught us how to meditate, who understood compassion is the best policy, Jesus' teachings lacked all of that.
I wish you be well and can understand me.
@@holaguacamole4058 i understand you perfectly well buddy and I see your point completely.
The bit you fail to notice in my point is that I didn't say that jesus was on a par with Buddha, I probably should have worded it better but the point I was making is that Christianity is a very patchy imitation of Buddhism but never the less a lot of jesus teachings and ethics are derived from the teachings of the Buddha.
I do agree with you though.
@@braddarkstar thanks for the clarification, it was my fault for not getting your idea. I actually feel good with this interaction and I wish all interactions between people with different ideas were just like this one.
may your days be full of peace!
When you say God is not a being but is being itself, you can't say he has personhood and wants a relationship with his creation. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I mean, push God further into deism territory and see how that will work out for Christianity.
Also to say God is the ground of all being, what does that mean exactly and what is the methodology you used to determine it's true?
And God being 'good'. I think that's a lens that Christians need to use to view other God matters through. On it's own though, its indistinguishable from a made up statement.
Men have been making things up about God(s) for thousands of years and it won't end any time soon.
Funny is the Atheist who wonders what the next life is.
Great video Trent. Thank you and God bless🙏
Good morning
MORE!
Hello Trent! I would like to know what are the best non-bias books to learn about the accurate history of the Inquisition; Vatican wealth and bad Popes. I would like to know more about them as I'm having difficulty defending the position of the Catholic Church in these topics. Btw, if you do have videos on these subjects, kindly direct me to them. Thanks a lot!
I kind of forgive the Medieval Church for its ignorance, as we can not change past. its wealth, is certainly questionable as peoole around the world starve and suffer diseases while the Vatican has a positive balance, a very positive balance perhaps. bad Popes is where things get hairy, as they represent God here on Earth, and if they act badly, God's reputation is damaged. the argument "human beings are imperfect" is not valid because God must act as the Pope's supervisor, unless:
-God doesn't care or
-God cannot do it or
-God is O.K. with a bad Pope.
you haven't mentioned the topic of child abuse by God's servants and the indolence and sometimes complicity of the organization known as the Roman Catholic Church. this is checkmate, as I wouldn't entrust the Church with my children and no reasonable person should ignore that if the moral compass is broken, trusting it can be actually harmful.
This isn't 2012: hardly anyone makes memes anymore......
2:55 who invited these mfs
Meme #8. This is something I've been thinking about lately. Can anybody name 1 argument for atheism, that cannot also be an argument for Deism?
Arguments against Christianity (contradictions within scripture, textual criticism of the NT, moral objections to the Bible, ect) are not arguments for atheism. Rather they're arguments against Christianity. These arguments could imply some other God exists. Arguments like the Problem of Evil and Divine Hiddenness are also no arguments for atheism, but arguments against an All-knowing, All-loving, and All-powerful God. These arguments could imply a non-loving God exists (Deism).
What are arguments in support of atheism? I can only think of about 2 or 3, and even they are absent in the serious scholarly debates for being fallacious.
Here's my favorite one:
I find the evidence for God unconvincing.
The lack of empirical evidence for anything supernatural existing is a pretty good argument against deism in my book
To eve write “argument for atheism” suggests you don’t understand what atheism is
I hate how your first defense of the Bible is not defending the first chapters of the Bible.
5:49 this meme is just messed up.
not as messed up as god commanding the murder of the amalekite infants
10:00 Most christians are using the same standards to measure false gods. That atheist meme is making a false accusation.
4:30
except people in scripture saw god, talked with god, ate food with god.
This is true, somewhat. Not to be Nestorian, but Jesus was both human and divine
@@prdarlin yep.
he was both human and divine.
what he wasn't, was a trinity.
trinity is unbiblical.
Europe is essentially non religious and they treat people far better than religious Europe treated anyone. My son was not baptized and never taken to church except for weddings/funerals - he is the most moral person I know.
The argument that his "god" is real and the older forms of "god" are not is silly. His god does not exist either.
The infinite is matter and energy, not a conscious sky wizard.
Trent when will you debate a Muslim about Islam? Think Dr. Shabir Ally for example. Would be a good debate to see.
3:05 If I redefine God, to a definition that fits my narrative, then i can call victory.... only, not so fast. Even if we ignore your special pleading.... There are many Gods that fit your description. The most common example would be Abrahamic religions, but I can see you saying that only your brand of Arbrahamic religion is the right one.
So, there is Sikhism. A religion believes in only one true God, that is infinite, timeless, unlimited in power and goodness. God is also the ground of being in Sikh, even more so than Christianity. Infinite in all respects.
Given that you go for Thor and Zeus, but ignore all other religions that fit your description. Shows how ignorant or dishonest you are on the topic. Have you tried Sikhism? It fits perfectly on your definition of what a true God would be.
ok. only 4 Gods are only in compete out of 1000 of religions with millions of claimed god in that definition. how is it dishonest when millions of gods are out of question. only 3-4 option is left.
Islam can't be true since its literally copy of Christianity after 500 years since death of Jesus.
Judaism is not true because they don't accept prohercy of Jesus and don't believe God can't make himself born in flesh which is absurd since God is all powerful and not limited so Islam, Judaism and Sikhism believe in same thing. Sikhism also believe in karma and reincarnation. so it seems Sikhism is copy and mix of Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.
Sikhism also believe in other gods like Vishnu Shiva and brahma.
TMM's response: ua-cam.com/video/_WL5ma34dJw/v-deo.html
I think your response to Fred the god eating penguin was weak: the meme is even more dumb than you think. If God doesn’t exist then Fred cannot exist. If God does exist that doesn’t follow that Fred exists. Why would God create a god eating penguin to be eaten by? And if Fred did exist God by definition would be able to destroy Fred. Additionally the onus isn’t on theists to disprove your absurd claim of a god eating penguin, likewise the onus isn’t on the atheist to disprove the existence of God
Councel of based
Is this guy serious 💀
"For the Lord is the great God, the King who surpasses all other gods." Ps. 95:3 (NCB)
So even the Bible admits that there may be other small g gods, but the Christian God is the supreme among all.
🏫d ‘em
Not even close.
Would rather be 5 ft 1 than a new reddit atheist
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 *📖 Analysis of Atheist Memes*
- Examining common atheist memes.
- St. Augustine's interpretation of Genesis as thematic, not literal.
- Rebutting the idea of the "Dark Ages" and the role of the Church in preserving knowledge.
01:11 *💭 Critique of Atheist Assumptions*
- Highlighting historical examples of atheist regimes' treatment of religious individuals.
- Contrasting projections of global religious demographics with atheist assumptions.
- Challenging atheist memes that utilize the argument from geography.
02:47 *🛤️ Defining God and Critiquing Atheist Meme Logic*
- Defining the concept of God as the infinite Act of being itself.
- Refuting atheist memes that fail to accurately define God.
- Reconciling biblical descriptions of God with philosophical reasoning.
05:47 *🎯 Addressing Logical Fallacies in Atheist Memes*
- Addressing logical fallacies in atheist memes regarding the existence of God.
- Clarifying the concept of God's existence in relation to hypothetical scenarios.
- Applying philosophical principles to debunk flawed atheist arguments.
06:55 *🏛️ Reframing Atheist Perspectives on Religion*
- Reframing atheist perspectives on religion through historical examples.
- Highlighting the contributions of religious institutions to societal welfare.
- Addressing misconceptions about religion and altruism.
08:02 *📚 Evaluation of Philosophical Arguments*
- Contrasting the quantity of literature on atheism versus theism.
- Acknowledging the academic depth of philosophical debates on theism.
- Disputing claims about the prevalence of arguments for mythical creatures.
09:00 *💻 Debunking Stereotypes and Misconceptions*
- Debunking stereotypes about the contributions of atheists to science.
- Providing counterexamples of religious individuals' contributions to science.
- Challenging misconceptions about the compatibility of religion and scientific progress.
09:41 *🤦♂️ Addressing Denial of Jesus' Existence*
- Critiquing memes that deny the historical existence of Jesus.
- Citing scholarly consensus on the existence of Jesus.
- Highlighting the fringe nature of denying Jesus' existence in modern scholarship.
"the role of the Church in preserving knowledge."...
You people have never read a book other than the bible, huh...
The church burned books, documents, destroyed knowledge on MASS.
Hunted doctors, healers and scientists.
There is not a SINGLE organization in this history of mankind that has been more damaging to knowledge and development than the church.
@@haydencarn8737 Then explain their preservation of works from the likes of Plato and Aristotle. If they were destroying knowledge as you say, the church wouldn't be utilizing and studying the works of what were essentially pagan philosophers. Then there's the fact it was the Catholic Church that established the first universities where these things where studied, and produced people that paved the way for science to even exist as it is now.
Edit: Even if you make the claim that it was "stolen" (Plato's Academy, for example), it would be counter-intuitive for the church to emulate such a means for the purpose of education. This doesn't even touch on the countless church libraries that regarded the works they held (including pagan texts) as treasures and protected them as such. Even if it wasn't open to public or wide academic use at the time, that was because the copies they had were old/rare and were only available by either direct access or paying to have someone perform the ardius task of copying the text by hand (among the other tasks they were writing/studying). Kinda seems counter-intuitive to the "knowledge-suppressing" aspect of the church.
@@haydencarn8737 "Hunted doctors, healers and scientists."
There's not a single documentation of the Church ever killing let alone hunting "scientists or doctors" purely on the basis that they're scientist and doctors.
@@Cklert ...They called them witches, satanists and nonsense of the sort.
Of course the church did not say "We gonna hunt some docs and scientists" they called everyone who did science or healing witches and such things.
And actually, that is well documented, there are literally museums in which you can read and learn about these matters.
For example, the church also at times tortured women that were healers until they "Admitted" that they were witches, then they were burned.
Honestly, it's disgusting how many people from the church try to cover the churches past up with the usual lies and lazy deception.
Disgraceful. If Jesus were alive to see all this happen, he would be horrified by the abomination that was created in his name and the structure of lies that was built on his dead body.
How about proving your imaginary friends instead of failing to debunk the memes?
Eric the god-eating magic Penguin is real and your arguments against him failed. Evidence for Eric is that no gods has ever been proven.
Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas already proved the existence of God.
@@herlocksholmes9369 ahahhhahaahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahaahha
Failed with the first meme. In Genesis 1 evening and morning are present. You cannot have evening and morning for 3 days without a sun. Genesis 20:8-11 shows it was literal days as it is related to 6 days you will work.
Jake, I'm begging you to actually read some patristic commentaries on things and quit presuming you know things that you don't.
@@newglof9558 Learn what evening and morning is. LOL
Have your god report to me for inspection, I will decide if it’s a god. A no-show, at my prescribed time, that i only know, is a demonstration of its fiction. i LACK a belief in your god! just as much as i LACK a belief in everybody else’s god. This video is chock full of reasoning fallacies. You have wholeheartedly reinforced my lack of belief in your petty god. How about joining the rest of humanity in the 21st century?
Sorry I'm atheist. I respect your belief but why would you respect mine?
Your ignorance of atebisys only ever makes them rightfully reinforced .
All you did was prove the bible is just fiction.
how