Answering The 10 Strangest Questions For Atheists
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 січ 2022
- I appreciate when Theists like to know an atheists position. I often search for 'questions for atheists' to see what folks like to know about how some of us aren't convinced about the existence of a god or gods... then I discovered this video. The questions were quite strange, and not entirely related to atheism... I answered them anyway...
Warning... there may be some scenes that appear smug...
The original video can be found here - • 10 Questions For Athei...
Answering 3 Questions for Atheists - • Answering 3 Questions ...
More Atheist Responses - • Atheist Responses
Patreon - / theskeptick
Instagram - / theskeptick
Twitter - / the_skeptick
TikTok - tiktok.com/theskeptick
Everything in this video is just an opinion, and should be treated as such - though it is important to ask questions. Any humour or sarcasm is aimed towards the words and actions of the individuals, and not intended to be a personal attack on any individual themselves, under the act of free speech
TAGS - atheism,atheist,christianity,proof of god,answering atheist questions,questions for atheists,10 questions,10 questions for atheists,is atheism wrong,are atheists wrong,is atheism right,are atheists right,strange questions,best questions,god,god belief,is there a god,theskeptick,skeptic,sceptic,skepticism
To anyone who ever said, "There are no stupid questions..." I offer this video as a rebuttal.
word!
The only stupid question is one that you already know the answer to. This video is full of them!
I stand by it.
There are no stupid questions.
There are stupid people with questions.
@@david2869 That's what I was going to post...
I thought you were overexaggerate before I watched the video. But wow, just wow. And his face and expression made everything worse.
The fact he added 'innocent' into that question told you all you needed to know about christian morality.
I wonder if that gives him an out if one were to ask A. Keyton if gay men should be stoned to death, since he would not consider them innocent?
And yet their preferred deity commanded the killing of innocent children and cutting unborn children from the womb.
@@kellydalstok8900 And having sex slaves.
@@agimasoschandir Exactly - this "innocent" trick is used by fundamentalist Islam terrorists too, as anybody who's not sharing their faith is by default a sinner and therefor not innocent and can be rightfully killed (or something in this line of thinking, even if it is not followed by the majority of Islam religious authorities). Oh, this was the Christian way of thinking too, at least most of the time (and it is supported by the NT too, not only the OT, as far as I can remember from what I've read there; at least by this Paulus guy, who clearly was a misogynist, homophobe, sociopath and psychopath - did I miss something?).
But you don’t have a morality you shouldn’t even speak about morality
Sorry, TheSkepTick, I was distracted from your thoughtful responses by watching someone who, if made in the image of god, makes me think god is a mashup of sanctimony and condescension.
"Hello police I just witnessed a murder"
This actually sounds like an apt description of the Christian god, if you also add in sociopathy. A sanctimonious, condescending, sociopath. Yup. Mhmm. That’s him.
I know. Watching that guy, I just kept feeling this urge to slap him. So full of himself.
@@matthewgordon3281 - Yeah, his smug tone and the “I’m not actually taking you seriously” look on his face was nauseating. The whole time he was talking down to people and acting like his inane prattle was some kind of “gotcha” even though he said that wasn’t his intent. Typical Christian hypocrisy and “holier than thou” attitude.
I like Paulogia's definition of truth. "That which comports with reality as adjudicated by predictive power." It's basically your definition with expensive words. Another fine video. Thank you.
I throw this definition at people all the time 🤣 nice!
Agreed. Saying a book is "The Truth(tm)" is lunacy. It is especially hard to buy-bull found in most religious texts. Were the 3000 men, women and children slaughtered by Moses all guilty ? Is anything in Leviticus god's idea of the truth ?
Fetishes for a "holey" book is a mental disorder.
@@onedaya_martian1238 - It’s laughable when people talk about a “moral god” given the laundry list of heinous acts. When confronted with the moral depravity of their god, they default to special pleading (the immoral acts were moral because god did them.) When they see those same deeds performed today by serial killers, despotic tyrants, and cult leaders, they recoil in revulsion. Somehow when it’s their god being the despicable monster, it’s not only excusable, but good. What a warped religion. I’m glad I left.
@@onedaya_martian1238 But.., but... muh book of Harry Potter, that is the truth, some moral values in there, a bad guy and a good guy, a magical wizard that was killed, another magical wizard who can fix things, some wizards that can do things, but not as well as Harry Potter, but he can't fix everything apparently. Yup. My book is the truth, and morally good, and no slavery... well unless you count Dobby. ☺
@@briannewton3535 Sarcasm, right ?
This guy is hilarious, so proud of himself.
…and as much a simpleton as 99% of theists who make these sorts of video.
He is trying to sound deep by the way his speaks but comes out at annoying. I have somehow came to think of christian types very strange, you know the more fundamentalist types, even just in their mannerisms and speech patterns. Recently saw a video some atheist made of a man who was threatening his congregation with exposing withes among their ranks and some few of those televised ones as well - it is amazingly strange when one just looks at their non-verbal communication, expressions and such. Just highlights really why they seem so - impossible to tolerate. That said I am not american and my culture isn't the kind that appreciates grand gestures in sense of behavior and expressions - any more than in form of fantastical claims. But I been to US enough many times to have seen some of it and can only say that it does not look like normal mannerism and behavior to me.
He’s so unbelievably cringy
@@lyrigageforge3259 The smug is strong with this one.
@@mouthofspaghetti7817 lol - And can you imagine... With the war over here in Europe going on - rather refreshing to see a comment about something else, never mind that religious fools are annoying too. Well not that far apart the topics either. Russia has long had - due in part religion - this political culture where 'you don't challenge the ruler'. It was obvious more so in Tsar's Russia - where the ruler was literally 'unable to error, because his position of power came from god'. So people were not supposed to challenge him. Suffering was a literal virtue. And people were expected to sacrifice them selves for the ruler. Which is why their land-slavery system stuck around for far too long... and even when removed, was replaced with other laws which still prevented those people from bettering their lives or for that reason leaving. Part of the very reasons for their Bolshevik Revolution making USSR - which then replaced religion with religion-like non-religious ideology aka communism. Where the leaders position ended up being much the same. And because that is the era Putin thinks as a mistake when the USSR fell - alas he has been slowly removing the freedom of press and all that, replacing so called 'nobility' with his terribly rich corrupt billionaires and so forth. And alas people again have to accept the 'tactical truth' aka lies aka propaganda their media pushes on them to not end up in jail even for using the word war for fifteen years if got having referred to what's going on in Ukraine with what it actually is. And in part he has raised the church back into position there, so it stands for him and so do other cultural actors like Cossack, the tradition of whom he has revitalized. Literally so that Cossack will beat up people for opposing him. I know that history cause I am a Finn, and because I have followed enough about the darn war by now to have landed on one our military intelligence officer's (retired) estimation on Russia and its political culture which over all seems to explain what seems to have gone in the head of Putin to cause this all. But well, I started to explain a bit of it - because it is some what of an example about how religion can twist even general culture in ways - which is very hard to get rid of later. People have tendency to go back to what they know familiar even if it is not good for them and sometimes even non-religious ideologies can indeed be turned into similar short of 'drug for the masses' as religion is too often built into.
Loved the answers, found the questioner a typical self righteous theist asserting their correctness between each question as fact, with almost zero justification for doing so.
A number of those questions didn't logically follow, even as a question to anyone.
Yes, wasn’t he a smug bastard.
"Almost" zero justification? You're giving him more credit than he deserves.
Though I don't disagree that most people on UA-cam asking such questions are pretty dumb, I do however agree with them that God does exist.
I simply ask why it gives you so much joy to talk toxically about people like the guy in the video and laugh about how he's "self righteous" and all that? Is it simply because it feels like a victory over such people, even though you didn't do anything to disserve the victory (the credit, if any, goes to the maker of this video)?
The reason I ask this is because I'm a lover of psychology and always like to ask why people believe what they believe, both Theist and Ashiest.
@@thephoenix8421 perhaps you should direct that question to the smug, toxic person who made the original video denigrating atheists.
And you can stop projecting. No one said anything about being ‘joyful’ here.
The funniest part is how he asked if the Bible is speaking for all Christians and then immediately excluded the by far biggest denomination of Christians from his list without saying who would qualify as a Christian to him.
This video is well titled. These are the strangest questions for atheists I've ever heard. I wasn't always sure what he was even asking and am not convinced he was either. His affect is also completely bizarre and a little creepy.
It makes a lot of sense from an American Christian perspective.
He really has that sense of entitlement I’ve seen in those people.
Answers seem easy:
1. No objective evil exists, just subjective definitions of good and evil, and an objective analysis of such subjective views.
2. Yes. Satan, if you're a Christian, is the "evil" as a noun.
3. Yes, I've tried Jesus. Tasted kind of funny during eucharistic rituals.
4. Too long for this video, but I'd bet on big bang cosmology and planet formation, not a deity, for the beginning of the world.
5. Belief is the Christian God is definitely inconsistent, given the thousands of denominations and billions of followers who think differently about God.
6. Humans understand morality, except some sociopaths, but there isn't ONE view on morality because it is a dynamic concept. (Miniskirts got women shunned 100 years ago because they were immoral, now they're mostly okay, for example).
7. Whoever has views consistent with reality, they're likely right.
8. Bible doesn't speak for all Christians... they don't even know the Bible well, and there are thousands of denominations and various views within denominations.
9. Murder is wrong because of well-being standards/view. If all murder is wrong (which it is), then his deity has a lot to answer for in the Old Testament and Revelations.
10. Truth is that which comports with reality.
Simple questions. Simple answers. 😀
Yup, totally agree. It is almost infinitely more likely that the universe originated naturally and wasn't poofed into existence by some omnipotent entity from another dimension. :)
@@TheTruthKiwi Yet we could be in some diabolical Sims game in a Kardashev 3+ scale civilization.
Tbh though the Big Bang is far easier to demonstrate occurring (within a planck second) than an invisible magic man that supposedly has more power than the Infinity Gems combined and only has eyes for the narcissistic followers.
@@edisoncarter3841 Haha, yes we absolutely could but the only time to believe that we actually are is when it has been shown to be probable or even possible.
There is as much chance and possibility of Thanos existing as there is the abrahamic god of the bible or any other documented gods.
the only people who believe in satan are christians
@@DAYBROK3 well, yes. That's why I stated that Satan was evil, for Christians. But most religions have an analog to Satan, some evil deity or force.
I have seen dozens of these lists of questions for atheists (seems like thousands) this guy's questions are easily the weirdest and most nonsensical. That is an accomplishment of sorts lol.
By "murder" we usually mean "unjustified killing" so yes murder, by its very definition, is wrong.
The problem then becomes who or what justifies it. And that depends greatly on the culture and circumstances.
For example, self-defense is considered a justification for killing another person and so isn't murder. And in other societies, speaking things that are considered blasphemous is enough to justify a lunch mob. And still others, a specific ethnicity or social group acting ‘out of their place’ is enough to justify being murdered.
@@Lobsterwithinternet Exactly. The question is not "is murder wrong?" Of course it is.*** The more important question is, what constitutes murder?
If we, as a society, say that abortion is legal, then it is not murder. By definition.
***This is why the whole revision of the 10C to make it say "Thou shalt not murder" instead of "thou shalt not kill" is stupid. Of course murder is forbidden. That's why it is called murder. Why does there need to be a commandment against something that is, by definition, wrong? "The first rule of the jail is obey all rules."
I would never define murder as "unjustified killing". I would define it as "unlawful killing". As in, killing someone in a way that it is against the laws of the place in which you currently are in.
In which case, murder is not necessarily wrong.
@@Diviance Bah, distinction without a difference. Whether it is justified or not is determined by the law, so justified = lawful and unjustified = unlawful.
@@flowingafterglow629
Well, no. If I killed someone that I knew, with as close to absolute certainty as is humanly possible, was going to kill my family if I did nothing... if I did it before the threat actually manifested, that would be unlawful... but as far as I am concerned, justified.
I love how he said that "those are not Christians", referring to Catholics. I was raised in an Irish Catholic family, and I can most assuredly state that if anybody are Christians, they are.
I say they, because it's nearly 50 years since I "thought" my way out of organised religion.
I have always thought it ,mildly amusing that American fundamentalists don't think Catholics are Christians.
Same but about 20 years for me
4:13 The world wasn't created 13B years after big bang, more like 9B after the big bang
That’s actually correct. I got muddled with my numbers 😅
OH MY GOD HOMESTUCK NUMBER
@@TheSkepTick omg it proves everything you said is wrong /s
@@TheSkepTick and of course all of that is pure assumption hehe again who is blind following oh I know the atheists
I'm thinking this theist might be attempting to mimic his dog with all his head movement.
Something struck me as he posed the decidedly odd question: Does the bible speak for all Christians?
That little side story with no true Scotsman written all over it, sounded to be the sort of thing that might be said in response to an accusation that atheism leads to morally bankrupt societies. Usually mentioning USSR, and Cambodia.
About the only way to make these questions thought provoking, is to use them to try and reverse engineer the arguments the questions are supposed to be applicable to.
The big bang obviously goes to the cosmological arguments.
The moral questions are probably intended on addressing the problem of evil. Because I'd be shocked if he understands the problem of evil is addressing an internal inconsistency of Christianity.
Actually, I'm not that interested in going through all of them.
The bits and hints I'm getting from these questions, imply that his arguments, and his personal attitude, make him the sort I'd just as soon not even bother engaging with.
I definitely agree the order of the first two questions is odd. And more odd being that he wants us to define something he proposed a question about. And for the record, I'm not convinced of the existence of objective good and evil. But those are complex topics that require context, and agreement upon definitions, before a meaningful conversation is possible.
It's actually a rhetorical trick. By demanding an answer without a definition, he'll either (1) lock the atheist up in admitting to an objective morality which allows him to insert God as the Objective Moral Law-Giver, or (2) get the atheist proposing Subjective morality. Which then when the atheist goes on to define "objective morality" he can invalidate it with hack rhetorical tools...such as declaring that a given understanding of "objective morality" doesn't 'actually' *define* the phrase. This is two-fold in that it drains the atheist's mental energy (which is important for the atheist giving lackluster answers to the other questions, especially Question #9) and allows him to declare a philosophical 'victory' over the atheist due to the atheist's "lack of knowledge".
(Coincidentally, Matt Walsh's recent appearance on Dr. Phil takes this same rhetorical tactic in relation to the concept of gender...wherein Matt Walsh demands that the trans/non-binary speakers he's presenting against define "gender" and all he does is say "That doesn't define 'gender'. Define 'gender'. Or do you not know what 'gender' even is?"...even as Mr. Walsh conflates gender identity with physiological sex repeatedly in the episode and on his own platforms.)
This is further supported by question 9, about "is it wrong to murder an innocent person?", including the morally-loaded term 'murder' (which means either unlawful killing or immoral killing depending on context) so as to tempt the atheist to admit to a statement having an objective moral truth and thus demanding the atheist concede to an objective morality.
@@onijester56 Definition arguments really are annoying, and usually pointless.
If one person has a differing definition than the other, that doesn't mean one person is right and the other wrong necessarily. It just means they're probably going to keep talking past each other instead of addressing the real subjects.
And sometimes there are cases where there is a relevant consensus definition, and someone that has disagreement with the ideas, will attempt to essentially define a concept out of existence. And in reality, they aren't doing much except avoiding talking about the subject, and probably trying to deny reality as well.
If someone can't even grant another person's definition for the sake of an argument, their pretty much saying they don't even want to discuss the subject at all. Except of course to preach their side.
I imagine the tactics Matt Walsh used in that interview work quite well for his target audience. And he probably has no problems whatsoever that other folks find it shallow and dishonest.
Comparing USSR to Kampuchea already makes them ignorant.
Damn it, Tick, you beat me to it this time! I was getting an answer video to this guy ready for Monday.
You should definitely still do it!
The more the merrier?
Just do it!!
He did, it’s on his channel, check it out!
Answering his questions before I listen to yours because I'm curious on the differences in our views.
1 *Does objective evil exist* - No. Good and evil are subjective labels that we apply to things. Being a social animal, and relying upon one another for survival, there are things that most people will agree are, but they aren't objective. Unless you clearly define what they are, then you can objectively measure it, but there is no reason that people will always agree on the definitions.
2 *Can you define objective evil for me?* No. Not giving it a really good definition, at least where it covers all bases and it still be readable by most people rather than reading like a 200 page contract. But a quickie, low level, and not all encompassing definition, and equating evil with immoral, that which decreases human well being more than increasing it, taking into consideration the effect said decision has on all people affected by said decision.
3 *Have I ever tried Jesus/God out?* Yes. Although I'm sure that he'd just say "but you weren't the right type of Christian" or something else like that which completely dismisses my answer.
4 *What is a better explanation for the world, the Big Bang or god?* Pedantically, neither is a good explanation for the world, as in the planet. The Big Bang is the explanation of the initial expansion of the universe, and may or may not be correct, but we have massive amounts of evidence for the expansion of the universe, etc, and pretty much nothing remotely reliable for a god or gods. So lets replace Big Bang with a scientific model based upon the facts and evidence.
5 *is belief in god an inconsistent view or do I not like it?* This is a pretty weird question, I really dislike the wording, but I'm going to go with what I think he's getting it. A belief in god isn't really supported by good evidence, which is why I reject said belief. If a god did exist, whether or not I liked said god, I'd believe it existed. It doesn't mean I'd worship it or anything else. Its like cancer. I really dislike cancer. I despise cancer. I want cures for every cancer to eventually be made. But I certainly believe that cancer is real because of evidence.
6 *Do all humans understand morality the same way?* No. I mean, I don't even have to go to the extremes with some people being psychopaths. The trolley problem shows a big difference in people's morality. Vegans vs non-vegans show a big difference in show they view morality. Hell, me as a LGTBQ+ ally vs many Christians show a huge difference in their morality.
And quick side track, god, the way he tilts his head and looks into the camera is just so creepy. You're not a damned emu.
7 *How do we know who is right?* We don't. But we can look at various moral systems used, see their direct effects on society. From this, we can get a much better idea of what moral values tend to promote well being more than others. And we can use this to better understand morality as a whole. Because just like with "objective evil" its not really a thing until clearly defined. Its kind of like a game. Once you have a goal in the game, you can directly measure what moves are objectively good or bad compared to said goal.
8 *Does the Bible speak for every person who calls themselves a Christian?* Pedantically, no. Because I know Christians who have never cracked open a Bible nor do they know really anything about what is in it. Most Christians, even Christians with vastly different views on everything, do tend to use the Bible to support their beliefs. Part of this is that the Bible is a really poorly written series of books which can pretty easily be interpreted to mean different things. This is why in the US, you had people using the Bible to show why slave ownership should remain a thing, and you had people using the Bible on why you shouldn't own slaves. Same even with interracial marriage not all that long ago. And even same sex marriage pretty recently.
9 *Is murder against the innocent wrong, and why?* I don't want to be murdered, therefore the best chance of me not being murdered is promoting a society in which murder is viewed as immoral. And this goes back to the moral values thing on #7. We've learned that societies which just don't have rules against murder don't tend to thrive. And its in our best interests to want to thrive. This doesn't mean you won't have some people thinking it isn't wrong. But those people don't tend to stay around in society as often (there are exceptions to this because some powerful people do do this, but they also tend to really hurt society as a whole).
10 *Foundation of truth* Reality. That which comports to reality, as far as we can tell, is true. Is this a perfect definition? Probably not. But it works good enough to have enough confidence to be able to survive, and even thrive.
Some of our answers were somewhat similar, some not. But I like your answers.
You did a really good job. I'd see you've did answer more thoroughly than SkepTick, even though I get his points and would mostly agree.
@@c.augustin Thanks. A lot of my answers are due to me over analyzing pretty much everything because I'm a bit overly pedantic a lot of the time.
I just adore his question #4. They're always missing mechanisms for their claims, then get mad when we call it "magic". We live in a cause and effect world, Science is what has allowed us to understand the why and the how of most things in this world, and even the universe. To act as though asserting god blinked everything into existence cuz........reasons, then act like thats the most logical answer, as opposed to the big bang which is a rigorously fleshed out and logical answer to the "start" of the universe baffles me. But of course this nebulous concept known as god is exempt from such rational thinking. "He" was always in existence and works in mysterious ways and has 72 virgins waiting for ya provided you spent your life on your knees and said "sorry" for anything deemed a transgression. i digress. Sorry for the rant.
How could I legitimately "try Jesus out" if I'm an atheist?
Wow that dude was cringy... I dunno why, but I was actually expecting thought provoking, interesting questions that I'd have to maybe think about my answers... When he said "have you... Tried Jesus? And I don't mean the bible Jesus" I wanted to vom... So gross.
He does realize that just believing for your own well-being won't get you into heaven if you don't honestly believe him, right?
Gotta remember sky daddy can read minds here.
@@WillPhil290 Seriously, what does that even mean? "Try Jesus"? What, smoke him like weed or something?
@@flowingafterglow629 well, I guess if religion truly is the opiate of the masses... Lol
I'm sure you can try a guy called Jesus for a fair hourly rate on certain parts of the internet.
Very glad SMD showed me your content. Glad I subbed bro.
Ooh, first appearance of the floating circle line? Interesting~ I'm going to be honest, Skep, I'm binging your channel mostly because I'm curious as to when Lisa the Rainbow Giraffe came to be, but I _had_ noticed the different intro and was wondering about that too. I'm theorising that, since you minimised the flat earth and conspiracy theory stuff in your intro earlier on and started say "mostly the claim that a God is real", eventually you just phase it out altogether by switching to the "british floating circle" intro. Looking forward to finding these... landmarks? I'm not sure that's the right word but its late rn lol
1. _"Does objective evil exist?"_ -- No. This is an oxymoron.
2. _"Can you define objective evil?"_ -- The word "objective" means that something is true regardless of having a subject involved. "Evil" is what we call something that we don't like. It is, by it's nature, a subjective term.
3a. _"Have you ever 'tried Jesus'?"_ -- I have no idea what this actually means. Is it like, "Have you ever tried cocaine?" or "Have you ever tried haroine?"? I've tried to _believe_ in the idea that jesus existed, but I have found a total lack of evidence for the idea. I also try to not make emotional decisions (although we all do, to an extent) because the more a decision is emotionally driven, the more often it tends to be the wrong decision.
3b. _"Have you ever tried 'gawd'?"_ -- See the answer to #3a (except even more so).
4. _"What is a better explanation for how the world came about?"_ -- Better explanation than.... magic?
5. _"Is believing in gawd an 'insonsistent view' or do you just not like it?"_ -- It's an inconsistent view, that's why I don't like it. The belief in a gawd is irrational, illogical, and self-contradictory. Worshiping a gawd is even worse because any gawd that exists is evidently at least chaotic, if not downright evil.
6. _"Do all humans understand morality?"_ -- No. There is a fairly substantial number of people that DO NOT understand morality, the guy in the video being one of them. Morality is how we each individually feel about a given act. If we don't like it, we view it as "immoral". If we like it, we view it as "moral". If enough of us don't like the idea of an act, say for example the idea that someone can murder someone else, we may get together and make a law banning that act. If a group of people in a community really likes the idea of a given act, we may get together and describe that act as "moral" an honor the person performing that act. Morality is based on empathy, sympathy, and compassion. That's why we can look at a person's and see some acts that are very moral and some acts that are immoral. Michael Vick didn't see anything immoral about his participation in dog fighting because he has no sympathy, empathy, or compassion for animals other than people and probably very little for most people. But I bet you could find instances where he did something that you would consider very moral.
7. _"How can we know who is right or has the right answer?"_ -- When it comes to morality, we can't make an objective observation from amoral perspective because morality is subjective, by definition. We can, however, scientifically determine whether an action is _preferable_ in relation to any given goal, so if the health and well being of society and hunality is general is a goal, it's not that hard to come up with reasons why a given act may or may not be preferable.
8. _"Does the bible speak for every person that calls themselves a xian?"_ -- Probably not, but why does that matter? What does this have to do with atheists? By the way, his explanation only demonstrates a "No True Scotsman" fallacy and shows how little ability he has to think logically.
9. _"Is murder against the innocent wrong?"_ -- I would say yes, but that is a subjective opinion, so I don't see what this question is supposed to demonstrate. This is less about "morality" than it is about "social security", which is why we view things like murder and theft as "wrong" on a societal level.
10. _"What is your confirmation and foundation for truth?"_ -- Science.
By the way, I would never "throw these questions back" at him. I would "throw" completely different questions at him like "How do you know that your beliefs are true (without just responding that you believe them)?" He thinks he came up with "gotcha" questions, but that only shows that he has the mind of a toddler.
Holy shit your channel has grown sense the last time I checked let’s go
That's because he guested for SciManDan and a lot of us liked his content so stuck around.
Here are my 5 questions Strangest Questions For Believers:
1. Do you God?
2. Why not?
3. Is sin?
4. Do you eat grass?
5. Then why is Blue?
1) only on sundays
2) Because the snake
3) on Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday and Saturday
4) only on the aformentioned days
5) because the arch angel Gabriel
... Oh Wait I don't believe in a sky daddy!
Sorry for wasting your time !
I like that he's kinda goofy, I guess? But yeah, I did sincerely "try god" for like a year, & I just could not make myself believe.
I tried Jesus for a while, but he was always kind of dry. I am glad I had something to wash him down with!
@@david2869 Tried jesus once. Ngl, it was some trash as fuck food. I didn't even understand what they seasoned it with, the food had the properties of like, way to many things.
@@whar2134 I ate the god delusion for almost 30 years, until I realized that there was no value or nutrition in what I had been eating. Now, reality satisfies my hunger.
You have my genuine admiration for managing to answer all of these questions without making fun of his odd and cringy behaviour.
It was tough! Honestly!
@@TheSkepTick I've seen about half a dozen other youtubers react to this guy and none of them could resist tge temptation.
Late to this one, but on the subject of relying on a book for answers I love "The Moonstone" by Wilkie Collins. One of the main characters regularly consults "Robinson Crusoe" to guide his actions. And is convinced that it's always reliable.
Great video!
When he says No.8 in that tone. How do you not want to just slap him?
I really enjoyed the video. One minor quibble: At 4:12 you make a point of differentiating the Earth from the Universe. The Universe is 13.8 billion years old and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Therefore the dust and stellar debris collapsing to form the Earth happened about 9 billion years after the start of the Universe.
I realise that. Got over excited by the numbers! Thanks for pointing it out though.
I like when they ask 'how did the universe begin?'. They think it's a gotcha. They think you'll, probably, say 'the big bang'. Then they will ask you to defend that. The answer you should give instead is 'I don't know but you claim to know so you need to provide evidence'.
It doesn't matter, regardless of all the arguments for a creator, none of them point specifically to the Christian God. Special pleading is still needed.
All hail the floating circle!
Lol! 😂 😂 😂
Dragons are better tho.
Hail. ✋
Hail Circle. HOPE your well and you had a nice day :)
Hail the mighty circle. May it's roundness give me the knowledge I seek.
At least he engages with the responses in the comment section. That alone makes him better than most UA-cam apologists.
Christian: What do you think about murdering innocent people?
Christ: "No man is without sin"
Jesus Christ terminator.
It's impossible to try God AND be a Christian. Luke 4:12 "Jesus answered, “It is said: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'”
Question #7 Ooh, Ooh, I know that one, Sir Sic, because he says he is all the time, consistent on that one, he is!! 😂
You may like tomorrows video! a tweet from SirSic appears in it!
I grew up in a religious community and I thought for the longest time that I was just a hobby people do like comicbooks but then at 12 or 13 I realized they actually believed what they were talking about
Same here. I always thought it was Santa Claus for adults until I found myself the only person standing upright in a sea of bowed heads. Only then was I forced to the horrifying realization that they actually believe it.
gosh! i've NEVER encountered ANY of those questions before! i'm gonna be here all day, trying to cook up answers....
KEvron
Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I don't think it says anywhere in the bible that the bible itself is god inspired... I think that's just something that caught on... But again, I'm no scholar. Anyway great episode! I love how you break things down so simply.
Well, there’s Timothy 3:16-17.
Big bang explains expansion of the universe. It doesn't really explain the "beginning" of the universe. But it does represent the limit of our knowledge.
The universe didn't necessary "begin."
😂😂😂 I'm so happy I found this channel.
Dude said "have you tried jezuz?" Like it's marijuana
😂😂😂
8 is not only a "not true scotsman fallacy" but also contradicts the christian view that everyone is a sinner
I don't know about anyone else, but the repeated, oddly drawn out "...but have you _triiied_ Jesus?" comes across as some sort of creepy, sexual test drive questionnaire.
I wasn't really paying attention to the questions, but I looked at someone else's list to try to remember them:
1. I'm undecided. You can make a strong logical argument that something is good or bad, but does that make it objective? You would have to accept an axiom, but that's not inherently a problem, given that "the natural world exists" is an axiom for something we can't prove, yet few would say the natural world's existence is subjective. That being said, just because that's true of an argument about nature doesn't necessarily mean it's true of an argument about morality. Morality is different in that it's a standard, an expression of what we think we ought to value.
2. Objective evil is simply something that we can show is evil regardless of opinion. The closest thing I can think of would be some kind of logical proof.
3. I think the fact that he can say what trying Jesus ISN'T, but not what it IS, shows that it's a deliberately meaningless term. But, no, I don't try to wish for things to be true & hope I start believing in them, that's a recipe for confirmation bias, & I think it feels really demeaning.
4. The Big Bang is objectively how the universe, at least as we know it, started. It's hypothetically possible that some kind of god CAUSED the Big Bang, though I doubt it. Either way, since the Big Bang is a given & god is not, obviously it's more probable. But going beyond that, the logic that "the universe required a mind to design" never made sense to me. Setting aside the fact that there's no sign a mind can even exist without some physical container, how does the idea that complexity requires something even more complex to explain its existence make sense? How does that not lead to an infinite regress aside from arbitrarily defining God as an exception with some BS like "he's eternal"? When I look at the universe, it seems like it's the opposite: Complex phenomena are caused by many simpler phenomena. A person is an arrangement of cells, which is made of proteins, which is made of molecules, which is made of atoms, which is made of quarks, which are perturbations in the energy of spacetime. I don't see increasingly complex minds deciding to arrange into different patterns, & I know theists don't believe that, but that would be much more compelling evidence of a god. That would give me reason to assume there might be more complex minds out there, & clearly they could be housed in very simple structures, if they required structures at all. Surely an omnipotent god could design a universe that implies its existence, no?
5. He could mean a lot of things by "consistent." There's internal consistency, which theism honestly doesn't seem to meet with weird contradictions like "God is objectively good, but there's no higher standard." He could mean consistent with other forms of theism, which also clearly isn't the case. He could mean consistent with external reality, & guess what my answer is there. So, I guess my answer to the first question is "it is not consistent." For the second, again, there's some ambiguity: I don't like belief in god because I consider it irrational, but not just because of my feefees, which is what it seems like he's trying to imply there.
6. I'm just going to steal this person's answer: "Humans understand morality, except some sociopaths, but there isn't ONE view on morality because it is a dynamic concept. (Miniskirts got women shunned 100 years ago because they were immoral, now they're mostly okay, for example)." Couldn't have said it better myself.
7. We can't ever definitively know we're right about anything because human reasoning is always fallible. This is an inescapable philosophical problem unless we find some kind of miracle formula that probably doesn't exist. Even if god was real, we could still never completely be sure.
8. "Does the Bible speak for Christians" seems to be putting it backwards. Why would the Bible speak for Christians when it's supposed to prescribe Christian beliefs? As for the opposite, do Christians speak for the Bible, it doesn't really seem so? They have particular, self-serving interpretations. To be fair, the Bible contradicts itself so much that this can't be really helped, but the problem is that they seem to like keeping a lot of the bad stuff, as long as it's not THEIR problem.
9. Yeah, sure, murder of the innocent is wrong. Whatever.
10. Gonna steal this person's answer again: "Truth is that which comports with reality." I'll add that we can only ever model the truth, hopefully accurately, but we can't have some kind of magically complete understanding of it, since it will always be filtered through our knowledge & reasoning.
Great video, so glad I found your channel through a collab and decided to sub.
Thanks Guy. Glad to have you here!
"No true scotsman" argument at the end there😅😅😅
Oh, how I love he called "consistently" in xD
Here is what I answered. I feel he was more honest then many that do these questions for atheists
"Does objective evil exist?" No, Evil is a concept.
"Can you define 'objective evil' for me?" You want me to define something that doesn't exist?
""Have you ever, honestly, tried Jesus?"" Yup, it never did anything.
"What would be a better explanation for how the world came to be about?" Natural processes will ALWAYS explain any aspect of reality better the magic because magic doesn't actually explain anything.
"The Big Bang or God? Which makes the most sense." The big bang as there is actually evidence for the big bang and there is no evidence for any god or gods.
"Is believing in God an inconsistent view or do you just not like it?" It's an inconsistent view. believing in a god is no different then believing in magic. Many things were once believed to be the work of gods and magic, but as we learned more about reality we always find natural explanations that don't require a god and we often find that the claims what what gods did are completely false. Example, there was never a world wide flood, never-mind one that took place during the time of humans. So when people try to claim that a god flooded the whole world just 4,000ish years ago, we know its false.
"Do all humans understand morality the same way?" No, not even christians all understand understand morality the same way. Just go around asking people on how they view the morality of gays.
"How can we know who is right?" Who is right on what?
"Does the Bible speak for every person who calls themselves a Christian?" No. One, the bible holds contradictory views so EVERY christian has to ignore some part of the bible. Two, a number of the things that christians believe about god and jesus aren't even in the bible. Find me anywhere in the bible that clearly states that god is outside of time, space and matter, hint, you can't. Christians also believe that god is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving, yet in the bible there are many times where god doesn't know something, can't do something, and even by his own standards acts in very immoral ways.
"Those are not Christians. ... What would you say?" That yes, they are/were christians and like how you don't view them as christians many would not view you as a real christian. I have literally heard christians claiming that all catholics aren't real christians while saying that christianity is the largest religion. But if catholics aren't christians than christianity would be like the 4th largest religion right behind catholics. None of you all know what you are talking about when you try to claim that some aren't real christians. The only time you are justified in claiming someone isn't a real chirstian is when you can show that they are lying about being a christian, EdwardCurrent for example is not a real christian, he's an atheist that makes parodies while pretending to be a christian. And a funny thing with EdwardCurrent, he actually had to make a video to clarify that his videos were indeed parodies and that he wasn't actually a christian because some christians are so out of tough with reality that they really believed that he was a christian and that he spreading the truth.
"Is murder against the innocent wrong?" Do you 'wrong' against their well-being? If that is the case than demonstrably its harmful and we see that as wrong. But if you mean is it wrong to the universe? If that is the case than no as the universe lacks that ability.
"What is your confirmation and foundation for truth?" Reality, truth is what matches reality.
Well said. Right on.
Very well said.
And bonus points for citing Edward Current.
3:34 Props for that guy, I had a laugh with that analogy, wrong but funny. For the question: if the universe expands by a decreasing rate and have a constant increase, then Big Bang is very much viable, in other words, if It expands at a constant n Km, then the rate will be decreasing. If the God story was real, then we would have a rather deceptive god since he would have made deliberately looks like a Big Bang happened, making everything he says or claimed to be said by him unreliable, as result, we still need to confirm the premisse of god to start to consider the possibility of deity creating everything. It's actually quite objective since we can relie only and exclusively on maths and data.
Same deal for morality things, I sure I could put a whole logical/mathematical system for explanation but that would take far too long, I will use a more deductive approach for now.
All of these are trick questions designed to be a gotya moment as soon as you answer them.
The theist believes these are "gotya" questions, but TheSkepTick answered them well, and I can think of many more answers to the questions to justify non belief.
recently discovered your channel. I like what you are doing here. I have one criticism: the volume of what you say and the clips you play is different. Could you please level them out?
I noticed that when I uploaded today. Definitely on it!
Strange questions for theists:
number 1: why your god and not a different god?
Number 2: If god works in mysterious ways and is omnipotent, how do you know what you're doing? Like ever?
Number 3: Why does a god beyond time and space and of pure cause care about us wee humans?
Number 4: Why is everything a fucking test? I had enough of that shit in school.
Number 5: How can a god that knows everything before we do it plan out our lives and send us to hell? Also how can this model allow free will?
Number 6: Why are you wasting your life appealing to a deity that obviously doesn't care enough (or doesn't actually exist) to make their presence and message obvious to everyone?
Number 7: Why is your religion diametrically opposed to fundamental science?
Number 8: Why are there so many different sects of one religion? If it's a perfect religion, wouldn't it naturally have a clear enough message to prevent opposing views within itself?
Number 9: Why are your ideas so bland, boring, and repetitive? You would think that after two thousand years you all would come up with new ones.
Number 10: Why can't you admit you're wrong?
I might actually disagree with you on the answer to the question "do all people have the same understanding of morality but some act against it?"
I'm taking notes for when we have our chat
Morality is a social contract. And as varied as society.
@@trustjah Best answer.
@@trustjah great so if the social construct will tell raping women is okay you should follow like an animal??
1. no, without the observation of a sentient being, actions have no moral balance
2. evil is behaviors that are the direct antithesis to things that create a peaceful, healthy community/society.
3. i was raised Christian, so I suppose so. but its hard to "try" something that doesn't react to your attempts to interact with it.
4. The Big Bang, out of the two options offered, is the only one that functions within the laws of physics as we know them.
5. this question makes no sense, but as best as I can, yes it is inconsistent all of the alleged direct interactions god and angels have had with humanity have not been consistent as time has progressed.
6. no, there are mental illnesses and neuro-atypical minds that cause people to see the world and other people differently like sociopaths.
7. the entire concept of science is founded on the idea that you cannot prove anything, all you can do is not find evidence that disproves it.
8. no, the bible speaks for the individuals who wrote and translated it, who claimed to be speaking on behalf of god.
9. I believe all murder is wrong, existence and sentience is the rarest thing that we know of, and taking that away goes against my personal morals.
10. verifiable evidence, or rather statements that stand up to scrutiny.
Just to reopen a wound:
9. If a person tried to grab your AK-47 (an offensive weapon [pun included]) and you used the weapon to shoot that person, would that be at least justified murder, or as others put it, self-defense, or something else?
Very well answered, even with the ones that were barely questions.
Love your style by the way. I don't recall you ever making a personal dig at the creators of your subject videos, even light heartedly. While I don't mind poking fun at stupid, your vids (and Emma Thorne's too for that matter) make a refreshing change.
It’s okay to attack ideas. Not people!
@@TheSkepTick I watch you because you present the issues, discuss them sensibly and have a good presentation style . well done and keep it up without exhausting yourself. i wish to watch you for years..
the only thing i disliked about the video was the stupidity of the questions and the poor presentation (not within your control).
@@TheSkepTick Eh. It's fine to poke fun and depending on what you mean by attack, believers. I'm pretty sure you know @SirSic. I enjoy those types and your type of response videos.
With the morality of murder I see it as erasing the infinite number of futures and possibilities that are connected to that person, by murdering someone you're objectively hindering the potential of the universe and ruining someone's life who could possibly do great things, evil things, nothing, it should be up to then to decide and not someone else, no need for God or a god to tell me what is wrong
Him "Have you ever tried Jesus?"
Toby nwigwe "But don't try meeee."
Him: Have you tried Jesus?
Me: his flesh and blood were decent snacks, though the wait time was too long.
I hate question n.9, because it implies that murdering the "guilty" is okay. I hate that "innocent vs guilty" christian mentality. Murder is always wrong, except probably for self defense. Plus, in saying "the innocent", they always seem to know without the shadow of a doubt who's innocent and who's guilty. God,i hate that "avenger" mentality.
But that's just it: he had to stipulate innocence of the victim as part of the question because of the fact that morality is subjective. Asking the question without that specific point would muddy the answers with scenarios in which we would agree that killing is not wrong, defeating the purpose of the question.
I'm sure he and all other theists who try to use this question to prove objective morality don't realize the fact that the question only needs that stipulation in the first place because they're wrong.
As well, if you're going to understand that morality is subjective, then you're going to understand that some people are going to find evil to be good, and good to be evil. That's what it means for morality to be subjective; there's no getting away from that. And such people will regard the moral character of others with just as much certainty as we do. It's only so distasteful to us because they're calling innocent people guilty and guilty people innocent.
That is, however--through whatever combination of nature and nurture that made them that way--as legitimate as our morals, in a sense. They get all the same warm-and-fuzzy feelings we get from donating to charity when they, for example, attack trans people.
But that legitimacy doesn't matter, of course: if we want this to be a safe and sane world where we can all live happy lives, things must be forcefully done to those who oppose that goal, for they are a threat to themselves and others. It's not a new idea--that's what prisons are for, after all. We can't afford to tolerate intolerance or sociopathy any further, or else Don't Look Up will be even more of a documentary than it already is.
If you've got doubts as to who is good and who is evil, I hope you erase them soon, and fight the good fight. Because that fight has become crucial to our salvation, if we are to be saved at all.
he had to include that, because his god murders millions in his "holy" book. If those millions are not innocent, that's a legal loophole found
I disagree on justification of murder for self defense. In many places it's illegal to attack someone that is attempting to flee, even if they attacked you, and murdering someone in this case would mean you wrongly killed someone for attacking you and running away. And even if the aggressor doesn't flee, you're arguing wrongfully killing the aggressor would somehow be righteous. P^-P=F.
The fact that "murder" is wrong is encapsulated in the definition of the term murder. If it is not wrong the word "murder" isn't used.
#3 Tried Jesus? Depends on what you mean. I never put him on trial, tasted him, smoked him, etc. Actually, after reading someone else answer to this, for that bread and wine ritual, the first time for at a religious gathering, he tasted like wheat bread, and for the actual cracker they gave out at the one Catholic service I attended of the two services I attended while in BCT, he tasted like MeowMix. (Wasn't aware the atheist that was my battle buddy and I weren't supposed to have them since the lady didn't want to answer my question of Catholic ritual. Pissed off one of my roommates.) And I've had a lot of wine outside of these services, so he's got quite a lot of flavors. I prefer a sweet red. But if asking about following his teachings, yes, Christianity was the first religion I was introduced to when I was introduced to religion and the concept of gods at age 8. I like some of his teachings, but left Christianity at age 14 after having gone through non-denominational youth groups and the various denominations we have local places of worship for. Their teachings vary, but generally they have the same practices, and most of those practices are not what they preach.
#4 BBT was established by Belgian Catholic Priest Georges Lemaître. Several Christians, and apparently most consider Catholics to not be Christian, so Christians and Catholics, as well as several others accept our understanding of BBT which is more accurately great expansion theory now. And a number of us theists don't consider that a god or other higher power is mutually exclusive from our scientific understanding. Further, a number of us recognize that many gods are personified explanations of phenomena, like Rahu and Ketu being solar and lunar eclipses, or aspects of nature and other things, like Hugin and Munin being thought and memory.
I'm not familiar with it as you called it, 'the big bounce,' Skep.
Weird questions indeed .
The only ones I know the answers to are #6 (no not everyone understands morality the same way, that's why there are so many ways to define and explain it), and #7 (we don't know anything for sure all the time. Existence is a state of uncertainty, the only certain thing being that everyone and everything will eventually die. Death is unpredictable but inevitable.)
2:25 Have _you_ ever, honestly, tried high school rather than home school?
ROFLOL
"Objective evil" - This actually is a difficult one. Philosophically, and based on survival, evil doesn't exist. Animals are seen stealing from each other, courting the mates of other "animal couples", and outright killing anything that gets too close to their territory or even just too close to them. None of this is seen as evil. Animals are allowed to do whatever it takes if it means survival, or even "just because". So, philosophically, objective evil doesn't exist. However, with that being said, I still believe right and wrong exists but that may be because of my own desire for safety and security- I don't want people to just kill me or steal my belongings. I want a safe society, therefor I have a specific set of moral standards.
This guy's mannerisms remind me of "DRUM GOD", Wailin' Smash, whose videos are also pretty funny.
1. Yes, and it lives at Mar-a-Lago.
2. See above.
3. No.
4. The Big Bang.
5. Consistency doesn't necessarily imply accuracy. And it's you who I don't like.
6. No.
7. Put up or shut up.
8. No.
9. Yes. I don't want to be murdered and I assume most people don't either.
10. Put up or shut up.
I'm not sure why he wanted answers to these questions. They all seemed pretty simplistic and not very useful to me.
What's the soundtrack at the end? Shazam doesn't pick it up
It’s a UA-cam track. On their audio library.
Thanks 😁
We have anther dunning Kruger contestant don't we the gift that keeps on giving .
1) Does Objective evil exist?
No, I believe that morality is subjective and based on the values of an individual and group of individuals. I have ideas of what I believe are good, and evil. Various societies have their ideas of what is good and bad and while there is some agreement on certain ideas, like that theft and murder are bad but even then there are some differences on when these things are acceptable. If there is no objective morality, there can be no objective evil.
2) Can I define objective evil?
No, I can not.
3) Have I ever tried Jesus?
I'm 100% sure, but I believe he's asking if I have tried what he considers to be true christianity, whatever that is. I grew up as a Roman Catholic. I have attended a few protestant services but none of them ever did anything for me. So I left Christianity.
4) Which makes more sense, the Big Bang or God?
The Big Bang makes the most sense to me, even though there is a lot about the origin of the universe that we don't know or understand. If I were to consider the probability of a god of some sort creating everything, I would assume it to be on deistic lines. Something that set the forces of creation into play but with little interest in the us, our world or the inhabitants of any other world it created.
I think that the idea of a God who takes a specific interest in us, wants to have a relationship with us, but doesn't do so much as say hello is EXTREMELY nonsensical.
5) Is believing in God an inconsistant view, or do you just not like it?
The Abrahamic God, seems rather silly. If there was some form of god, a non-omni god who has little knowledge or interest in us is more reasonable.
6) Do all humans understand morality the same way and some choose to act immorally?
I believe that morality is the product of empathy and the need to work together.. We generally agree on certain things, like that killing other humans is wrong, and that theft is wrong but disagree on other things including the consumption of alcoholic beverages, sexual behavior and even the excptions to the idea that killing one's fellow humans are wrong. There are also certain individuals who believe that anything they want to do to other people is right. We call them Sociopaths or Narcissists.
7) How can we know who is right?
I believe that the scientific method of examining the evidence, making predictions, and testing those predictions (often using experiments) is probably the best way to determing the truth.
8) Does the Bible speak for every person who calls themselves a Christian?
Probably not, though the Christian Bible says so many things that is easy for different people with a wide veriety of opinions to cherry pick something in the Bible that conforms to their views.
9) Is murder against the innocent wrong?
That is a curious way of putting it, particularly since Christians believe that all people are sinners, and therefore cannot be innocent. I would say that murder is wrong, and that I do not consider abortion in the first trimester to be murder.
10) What is my confirmation for truth?
The scientific method. See my answer to 7.
This guy needs a good dose of Matt Dillahunty.
Have you ever looked into the Bible code? Am thinking that it's a load of rubbish. But your view on it would be interesting to hear. Cheers
This guy qualified the murder question with “innocent people” instead of just “people” because the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is packed to the gills with murder sanctioned by God.
Every Commandment has an asterisk next to it. “Thou shall not kill” is really “Thou shall not kill people within your tribe, unless God or the authorities specifically command it.” Which is how we get such lovely morals as Psalm 137:9.
And I just love it when Christians protest that people who profess to be Christian do things or believe things that weren’t commanded by God in the Bible are not real Christians. Depending on how strictly they hold that viewpoint, then there are no Christians at all. They themselves don’t live according to Biblical law, and they themselves differ widely in how that law is even meant to be interpreted to begin with.
This guy is a hypocrite, arguing in bad faith. He doesn’t want a discussion. He’s asking leading questions with an accusatory tone in a lame attempt to score points and give himself a smug pat on the back.
No true Scotsman fallacy
He turned his smug dial up to 11.
God killed innocents. See: the Passover.
@@DavidMiller-dt8mx Abrahamic God can be shown doing that throughout all four "Testaments" (Tanakh, "New Testament," Quran, The Book of Mormon).
@@audiotyresup Yeah, just giving a major example.
Real questions?! WHAT?! IMPOSSIBLE!
Morality is a social contract. And is as varied as society.
That question about the murder of the innocent wrong is definitely a "gotcha" type of question. I suspect he phrased that question in a way to give him the chance to talk about abortions.
How does this guy know his god(s) is the correct one?
My definition of morality is to respect the property rights of others. Murder is taking someone’s life. Lying is taking someone’s trust. Etc.
Since its unlikely that we'll get clarification, I'm going to take these at face value.
For question one, no, I dont think objective evil exists. Basically every single act we consider to be evil today was considered to be perfectly fine, if not outright moral, in the past.
...what does that have to do with Atheism? Actually, the same could be said for the first one now that I think about it. More on point, I dont think I could. I cant think of anything that could possibly be considered to be objectively evil because of the simple fact that morality is subjective. Anything I could call evil likely was considered to be either OK or a fairly basic misdemeanor in the past.
That...that...I just...where to even start with this? God isnt like drugs, you cant 'try' him. More to the point, its easy to turn this back on him and ask him if he's ever tried the Bahama or Buddha?
The Big Bang. Gods have far to many assumptions built into them, so the simplest answer is actually the BB. That said, we dont know enough for me to make a definitive statement, so I am open to the idea of a Deistic god being responsible. But not any established deities because they come with their own mountains of issues and evidence against their existence.
Yeah, I have no idea what hes asking here either. As for whether or not I like belief in gods, well, I really dont care. What I dont like is when people use those beliefs to justify shitty behaver.
No. Demonstrably no. Case in point, in America alone, there are people who think that racism and homophobia are perfectly fine, or even desirable, while others think that they are horrible blights on Humanity and our advancement as a society.
Correct answer to...what? If God exists? If thats the case, based on the Bible, we are. The God of the Bible is an utter mess of contradictions, to the point where he either cannot exist, is actually multiple beings or is utterly insane. There is no evidence to be found ANYWHERE and mountains of evidence against his existence. Now, a god or gods might exist, but its not the God described in the Bible.
No. Because, while they might claim that it dose, every single Christian interprets the Bible differently and some seem to pull garbage about it right out of their ass.
Oh, no true Scotsman, nice. Also, Catholics have more claim to the Christian name than you do mate. Catholicism came first after all.
Yes. Now go tell your God that. Or have you forgotten about the Flood and all the genocides he ordered?
Science and evidence. I dont accept things as true without a good reason for doing so. Admitidly, depending on the importance of the 'truth' I'm looking at will depend on the scrutiny I put it under, I'm not going to waste time if its a random fact about an animal that only lives on the other side of the planet from me for example, but for big things that will effect my life? I'll put the effort in for sure.
You are the best floating circle that exists…
1.) No, and if your worldview is that God determined what is good and evil then morality is subjective by definition, god being the subject. If there existed an objective morality then it would be something separate from God that informed God about how to go about creating, which means now you can't attribute omnipotence nor omniscience to your sky daddy.
2.) This is an example of padding your list. If someone answers question #1 before hearing #2 then they have inevitably answered #2 already. The fact that you don't understand this is telling.
3.) Yes, very much so. I had what for years I called a false conversation at age 14, and only at age 18 did I really “get saved” by Jesus. For over a decade I wholesale believed I had a reciprocated relationship with God, believed the KJB contained no errors and was word for word inspired by God as if he'd used men like pens, I've still got my testimony on this very channel along with preaching and bible studies. I state multiple times on camera that nothing could ever convince me God wasn’t real because I knew him personally. Yet here we are. After trying my best to fulfill 1 Peter 3:15 I lost my faith once I subjected it to the same scrutiny that I did to, say, Islam and evolution. After losing my faith I still for a long time desperately prayed to God asking him to restore my faith. It's almost as if 2 Peter 3:9 isn't true.
4.) Big Bang. However, what you've done here is set up a false dichotomy, the Christian apologist’s go to ploy. Big Bang is far more probable than an invisible wizard creating everything with words. But, you see, once you allow magic (that by Hebrews 11:1 definition of faith requires there to be no evidence, only hope in your God given faith as the evidence; see also Ephesians 2:8-9; 1 Corin. 2:7, 3:19; God has to grant you faith as a gift because God made sure it was hidden and not evidenced by the world around you; Romans 16:25-27 makes it clear that the only place the evidence is found is in the scriptures themselves, “but wuut about Romans 1:20”? As yes spoiler alert the bible contains contradictions) once that’s in the equation, now you have to admit that all the other faith based answers to this question are equally valid. If you want to remain consistent that is.
5.) Belief in God inconsistent? No way! It’s not like there’s 10’s of thousands of denominations under the umbrella of Christianity alone, not to mention all the other god beliefs or anything, right?
6.) No. The existence of sociopaths, psychopaths, and various ppl on the autism spectrum directly answers your question. Also, there are various cultures, ENTIRE POPULATIONS of ppl, that go about societal morality differently. How do we know this? Open your bloody eyes. Read a book other than the bible sometime. It’s not a mystery.
7.) Follow where the abundance of evidence lies. That’ll get you much closer than simply believing a book is true because the book says that it’s true atleast.
8.) What’s that? Certain Christians aren’t perfect in following the rules of the bible therefore they aren’t “reeeal Christians”? ……..well, this explains your condescension. You think you’re perfect. Maybe read Romans 3:24 sometime or Romans chapter 7. What’s that? What about 1 John 5:18 where it says Christians can’t sin (see also John 1:17-18 alongside 1 John 5) but the previous two verses directly contradict this by talking about Christians that sin? Consistent that. Funny how I know more about this book than you do.
9.) Psalm 137:9 says “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones” per command of the Lord (v. 7).
Proverbs 6:17 says god hates “hands that shed innocent blood.” Which is it? Should you be happy smashing baby skulls on rocks or no? Are children innocent or no? According to Jesus, if you harm a “little one” you should be drowned (Matt. 18:6). (Funny that coming through the dude that literally drowned all the little ones on the planet in a flood that one time.) According to Psalms if you harm a little one you ought to happy. Which is it?
10.) Demonstrable evidence that explains reality far better than a collection of fairy tales that include talking snakes, donkeys, a flat earth cosmology, and pro slavery sentiments.
What is it with Christians and asking questions that either don’t make sense or need more context or defining of terms to answer properly. Ok, here we go.
1 - Do you believe in objective evil? No, evil is based on morality, which is always subject to something. Even if that something is your god.
2 - Define objective evil. Something that is evil regardless of what anyone thinks about it. Why didn’t this question come before the previous one?
3 - Have you ever tried Jesus? I’m trying to ignore how sexual he made that sound. Yes, I did. I grew up in a christian family. I was a christian for over 20 years.
4 - Does God or the Big Bang better explain the world? The Big Bang, I guess. But there a a few problems with this question. First, the Big Bang is about the universe. Earth being formed is just a very distant side-effect of that. Second, those two options are not mutually exclusive. Until we know exactly how the Big Bang happened, “God caused it” is still an option. That said, the existence of a deity has never been conclusively proven, and just about everything else that used be be an “act of God” has been found to have a natural explanation (lightning, volcanoes, etc), so that seems like the least likely cause.
5 - Is believing in God an inconsistent view or do you just not like it? This question is too vague. I’m going to assume that we are referring to the biblical God only here. Inconsistent with reality? Yes. Inconsistent with the bible? Sort of, because the bible itself is inconsistent about how it describes him. Inconsistent with Christianity? Again, sort of because the insane number of denominations makes consistency impossible. Inconsistent with what you believe? I have no clue. I’m not you. Inconsistent with what I know? Yes. As for not liking it, that’s again not mutually exclusive. I can like or dislike things regardless of if I think they are real or not. In this case, I do not like it. Partly because it is inconsistent with reality, and partly because God sound like a terrible person that I’d want nothing to do with if he was real.
6 - Do all humans understand morality the same way and some choose to act against that morality? No. Cultures differ dramatically about morality. For example, in Japanese culture historically, suicide was the most honourable thing you could to to make up for some failings, while according to some Christian denominations it’s an unforgivable sin. To the second part, yes, sometimes people choose to act against their own morality.
7 - How can we know who is right? This is pretty much summed up by my answer to #10.
8 - Does the bible speak for every person who calls them self a Christian? Does every Christian represent the bible? I don’t even know what that first part is asking. As for the second part, no. I doubt any Christian alive today has even attempted to follow most of the rules in the bible. Fortunately that makes the Christians better than the bible they are failing to represent.
9 - Is murder against the innocent wrong, and why? Now THAT is a loaded question. Legally, yes, murder is, by definition, wrong. And in most situations I would agree. It sound like you are mixing a legal term into a moral statement. For example, during the holocaust, a Jew who killed a nazi that was going to kill his family would have “murdered an innocent”, yet most people now would agree that it was not immoral. And most who would say that it was immoral would say that it was because killing anyone is wrong. The fact that it was murder is irrelevant.
10 - What is your confirmation and foundation for truth? That which consistently conforms to reality, especially when tested and proven numerous times.
Wow. Even for me, that got long!
He's not as clever as he imagines he is. Awful set of questions. I've seen better from regular UA-cam comment trolls.
My takes
1. Independent of any clear definition for "objective morality", we're left with the concept as vaguely understood in moral philosophy/ethics. To this, I would posit 'No'.
2. Said concept I'm answering "no" to, is simply, a standard of morality or set of ethical precepts that is immutably true independent of context and experience.(For example, killing other humans may generally be wrong...but is often justified in cases of self-defense, is an integral part of war, and sees support in relation to the death penalty.)
3. Even now, I value some of Jesus' teachings. I mean, there's some good shit...a personal favorite is that bit where the guy complains about "scantily clad women" causing him to be lustful, and Jesus responds "Then gouge your eyes out. Problem solved." But the theology of the New Testament is bullshit.
3.b. Also, as an early part of my "emo phase" and "spiritual quest" (as I was coming to specifically understand the problem of suffering and realizing several problems with the stories in the Bible which made God a giant fucking dick), I prayed to multiple gods regularly. Thor's responses were oddly insightful, treating life itself as a battle and thus practically guaranteeing Valhalla for "the broken, the beaten, and the damned", those struggling with abuse and trauma and mental health issues.
4. Even restricted to logic alone, the Big Bang posits little more than that "before the earth and the sea and the all-encompassing heaven came into being, the whole of nature displayed but a single face, which men have called Chaos: a crude, unstructured mass, nothing but weight without motion, a general conglomeration of matter composed of disparate, incompatible elements" (Ovid's "Metamorphoses", Book 1, lines 5-9), and this was the case until "the god who is nature...brought this dispute to a settlement." (Bk.1 ln.21)
This admits matter and energy and even a form of what might be recognized loosely as 'sentience' existing before our known observed reality existed, and thus doesn't require special-pleading for an uncaused cause violating the explicit premise that everything had a cause. Thus the point goes to the Big Bang.
5. Any specific belief in a god can be inconsistent with itself and/or with reality. And these inconsistencies can exist on historical, moral, spiritual, and theological matters...among others. It generally depends on the specific religious system being put forth, but in nearly all cases I'll state that it's inconsistent to have a "God" which "unconditionally loves" mankind requires even one human sacrifice before he forgives humanity (which he made imperfect and flawed) for not living up to impossible standards of perfection that God Himself fails to achieve.
5.b. The second half of the loaded question, "Or do you just hate God?", can then be ignored.
6. No. And I can go one further by bringing up the aforementioned person who complained to Jesus about women being inherently sex-objects. This is a person whose moral system declared that his lustfulness was moral and that it was the women he was lusting after who were not merely immoral but intrinsically immoral. Assuming such an exchange actually occurred, the person wouldn't have asked the moral/religious teacher Jesus to condemn the women if the person genuinely felt he was the immoral one in the situation.
7. To understand the 'correct answer' we need to know what the question is. But, independent of the question, we can apply the criteria of Reality, Logic, and Utility. If a proposed answer disagrees with reality, then it's not applicable to reality. If a proposed answer lacks logical coherence, then it lacks an intellectual basis. And if it doesn't provide some practical avenue, then it's pointless and purposeless. Let's take the idea of leprechauns. Legend tells that a leprechaun's pot of gold can be found at the end of a rainbow. Climatology understands rainbows to be the reflection of sunlight off of raindrops, denying a physical place where the rainbow explicitly ends by meeting the ground. By this alone, "Leprechauns did it" will fail as a genuinely-insightful answer no matter what the question is.
8. They followed the Word of the Bible. They followed the Teachings of the Prophets of the Bible. They even followed the Teachings of the Scholars of the Bible, the people who were translating the Bible from Hebrew to Greek and from Greek to Latin and from Latin to German and French and Gaelic and English and etc.... They worshiped Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of YHWH, and held to Jesus' teachings as declared by who they presume were Jesus' disciples. This makes them Christians, no matter how one demarcates what constitutes a "True Christian".
9. I, from a moral standpoint, find the killing/"murder" of one who has committed no wrongs upon others to be unethical or immoral. However, sociopaths exist (who by your own theology were "Created by God" to be that way) and do not intrinsically have this same position...and who, when they do reach this as a moral position, do so under the nuance of societal expectations rather than genuine ethical consideration.
(In reply to Skep-Tick, you fell to the questioner's loaded question. Their immediate reply would almost certainly be to bring up that you thus explicitly believe in objective morality...and then use that to posit God as the Moral Lawgiver that defines what is Objectively Moral.)
10. See Question 7. To reiterate: It agrees with *Reality* at least insofar as we understand reality, it conforms to our understanding of *Logical* 'laws'/norms, and it offers predictive *Utility* that gives it a pragmatic weight against an infinite number of plausible alternatives that are neither explicitly contradictory to reality nor explicitly illogical.
Poor guy, his quiz was destroyed and his arguments dismantled. He's been bit by the SkepTick and now he's got Limey disease. Lol
That's actually pretty clever. Nicely done 😎
"Objective evil" or even "evil" of course don't exist. Many words that we use colloquially are in fact borrowed from religious contexts and don't stand on their own if we analyze them closely. Even the word atheist. Their existence makes sense only between religious minds. "Tried Jesus" reminds me of Kant's distinction between they autonomy x heteronomy of an agent. An heteronomous agent will always need to try a kind of Jesus (Buddha, etc.).
I think might have asked myself similar questions when I was in high school or early college, which is conicidentally just about the time I started deconverting. All I can say is, keep asking those questions.
I will say that other than one of the questions they're just too vague to really answer or the fact that he basically asked the same question 3 times it's actually a decent list of questions
Q8 is a regular eye roller. It is meant to allow any theist to say “but they aren’t a real believer”. At it’s most basic, if the Bible is so great it wouldn’t have so many interpretations then. Don’t tell me to read the Bible, and then read vast (conflicting) literature on how to interpret it. If you have your interpretation that you are god with, good for you. So did the people who you say aren’t a real Christian.
Although at least he didn’t use the same breath to assume every atheist is like Dawkins or someone else. But he was probably thinking it.
“Come on man, try this Jesus. Don’t you want to be cool?”
“I find myself 3000 feet under the sea, the pressure here is immense.”
Like wow, a rehash of all the other apologists questions and what is going on with his facial expressions.....he has that energy that makes you wonder of he has bodies buried under his patio tbh
Ok ok i’ll Go myself for fun !
Ask if you want details on any answer
1 - no, objective evil does not exist
2 - an evil that, whatever the circumstances, our world view, or anything, cannot be thought as acceptable nor a “lesser evil”
3 - yes, born christian and followed religion head on until around being 18
4 - Big bang theory
5 - inconsistent
6 - no, people don’t understand morality the same way, but yes, some people do things they’d themselves would consider immoral
7 - in the context of “is there a god ?”, we can’t, that’s why i don’t believe
8 - all the christian that could “represent” the bible as it is written are dead by now (i insist on COULD)
9 - it depends on why you kill “the innocent”, my food seamed innocent to me when i ate it
10 - science seams to me a good methodology for finding truth, in fact it’s still the only consistent one we have
As my actual response is rather lengthy, here's a TL;DR:
Answers have been written before SkepTick's replied in his video.
1) Unsure what you mean with evil and how it differs from bad, but I have no reason to accept the proposition that objective evil exists.
2) As I'm unsure what you mean with evil, I cannot give you a definition of that word. I do not normally use it myself to describe bad things.
3) Unsure if I understand your question. But I have approached the Belief in God/Jesus without prior negative bias and an open mind, if that is what you're asking.
4) Any explanation using natural processes instead immediately makes more logical sense than the explanation using supernatural processes.
5) Yes (the question is, similar to others prior, weirdly phrased and requires elaboration).
6) Unsure what you mean by morality. I do not believe all people share the same moral values, nor do I believe there are objective moral values.
7) Seems to imply objective morality, which I do not believe in - similar issue as with 2).
8) The Bible says whatever a given Christian wants it to say in order to justify something he wants to justify with the Bible. It doesn't say anything by itself. Cause it's a book. Which is unbelievably open to interpretation. And there's no mechanism to distinguish a "correct" interpretation from a "wrong" one.
9) Something that's defined as being wrong (murder is usually defined as the unjustified (wrong) killing of a person) is wrong - by definition.
10) I rarely use the noun "truth." Something is true if it demonstrably conforms to reality.
I will be cross-posting these to Ashlee Keaton's comment section as well.
*1) Objective evil probably does not exist.*
But that depends on what "evil" means. If it's equivalent to "bad" (which is a subjective evaluation) then no - as a subjective evaluation can't be an objective evaluation. If "evil" isn't equivalent to "bad," then I'd need an elaboration of what he means with "evil."
(I'm answering this before SkepTick, so it's fun to hear him also be like "whaddayamean with evil?" XD)
*2) No, I can't define objective evil as the term makes no sense to me.*
There might be a definition that makes sense to me, but I don't know one. Which is why I'm asking him to elaborate in 1).
The only understanding of the term I have is similar to "absolute velocity" (nothing has an objective velocity, it's always in relation to something else, be it the train one is on, the earth, the solar system, even using the origin of the CBR means velocity is relative)
*3) I don't understand how one can "try" Jesus.*
I can try things out, like... riding a bike and see if it fits. Or eat a donut and see if I like it. So the phrasing makes it difficult for me to know what he meant.
I can't (actively) believe in things I have no rational reason to believe in. For example, I automatically re-assess any concept that I find to have been holding without proper examination. And if I can't find good reasons, I drop that believe or position.
Therefore, I cannot have "believed in Jesus and see if he answers me in prayer/makes me feel better/have my life turn around."
However, I definitely have approached the Christianity-topic from an open-minded perspective of "Dunno if it's true, let's see!" without a bias towards "probably not true."
That came later.
*4) Logically, the Big Bang makes more sense than God as an explanation for how the world came to be."*
First of all, there was no "bang", no "chaotic explosion that lead to order" or whatever misconceptions (or straw men) theists often refer to. Not saying he does, but just as a disclaimer. We only know that "stuff expanded rapidly", the _cause" for that is unknown.
Secondarily and more importantly: Given we have no conclusive evidence that supernatural processes even exist BUT know of natural processes, any attempted explanation involving natural processes is automatically logically more consistent with what we know about reality than an alternative that's based on supernatural processes.
If I surprise you buy arriving at the airport faster than you expected (given I have no car and rely on public transport), you'll probably, hopefully, have a bias towards the explanation of "took a cab" (natural process) over "cast a spell and teleported here" (supernatural process).
Given your worldview _does_ include supernatural processes, you couldn't _exclude_ me having teleported here (please do suffer the witch to live as long as you can't be sure I'm not actually not a witch, thanks), but I hope you'd still tend to believe the first explanation does make more sense logically.
The word's you throw out _do_ matter, however.
"Consistently" for example... We have a _boatload_ (aka, a consistent collection) of events that have - demonstrably - taken place by the means of natural processes.
We have _claims_ of events that have taken place by supernatural processes, but either none we can examine and/or none that have been demonstrated to have a supernatural causation.
Interlude: I'll move from "he" to "you" know, as I decided somewhere within 4) to post this answer on your (Ashlee Keaton) channel as well.
*5) From **_my_** understanding of your question (again, vague phrasing and all that Jazz I've mentioned a few times now), I both think a belief in God as described in the Bible is inconsistent as well as me not liking it.*
The easier half: I don't like things that make no sense.
God being all-benevolent, all-powerful and all-knowing, yet screwing up massively over and over as well as using solutions for problems that cause harm, where even a normal human could find a solution for without harm, makes no sense to me.
The second half: It's inconsistent with itself and needs immense amounts of mental gymnastic to even _ignore_ things. First of all, no one can provide any good reasoning to think that the Bible isn't the inspired word of Satan, who's also known as "the Great Deceiver." And considering that God lies (or at least misleads) and deceives, and kills on a genocidal scale, whereas Satan does neither of those things as far as the Bible is concerned (maaaaaybe misleading. If you're really generous), I think that is an idea that's not too idiotic.
Furthermore, there are hundreds if not thousands of contradictions in the Bible (how many people at Jesus' grave? OT still in effect or only "new covenant"? Especially since a lot of shit (Sin, for example, or the commandments) is OT. Where did photons come from before suns where a thing? First humans or first plants? et cetera), and while these can easily be handwaved by "translation of translation of translation of oral retelling of oral retelling of oral retelling", that then means... We have no reason to believe _anything_ as factual.
With this kind of argument, how can one say Jesus _did_ raise from the dead? Maybe his corpse got stolen, but that detail just got muddled over time until he "was just gone, no one knew how", which in turned got embellished until he "rose from the dead!"
These things (changes in retelling of story) can even happen over a couple of days (or even minutes), depending on the story being told and the amount of mouths and ears. Years? Centuries? No problem.
*6) If all humans understand morality the same way is already dependent on what you mean by morality.*
To me, morality just means "evaluating the effect an action has on others." By itself, it doesn't reach a conclusion of good and bad. For that one needs a framework (or "list" of moral values) of what outcomes are better than others (human well-being being better pain, for example).
I do think that we all have morality (as do a few other, usually social, species).
I do _not_ think we all have the same moral values - and I think that's demonstrably true as well.
*7) Unless there's an established and demonstrably true reference value, we can not know if someone is objectively 'right' or 'wrong'*
I'm not sure if you know that you're attempting to smuggle in objectivity where none is established. Because the question is: in accordance to whom or what is [someone] wrong or right? This - again, unless... - is a subjective evaluation.
If we create a very rigid testing environment (eating banana = everyone get banana; eating no banana = planet earth gets nuked) with a set goal (people alive = good, people not alive = bad), THEN we can say who's good or bad. Who's correct about their choice and who isn't.
However, that's like assuming there's no friction and inertia as a physicist. It's an ideal environment that only exists conceptually. Reality is, sadly, more complicated.
If you're asking "who's correct/right/good by objective standards", you'd first have to demonstrate those objective values even exist in the first place.
See previous answer.
*8) No, the Bible does not speak for everyone who calls themselves a Christian, because the Bible does not speak at all.*
And no, this isn't semantics. Nearly _EVERY_ goddamn position (pro life, pro choice, pro slavery, contra slavery, pro tyranny, contra tyranny, pro capitalism, pro anarchism, et cetera) has been substantiated with the Bible.
The Bible is (see 5) is so inconsistent that one can _make_ the Bible say _nearly everything._
We know that, because _it has been done._ And is still being done.
However, if you're going towards "Not a True Scotsman" with the phrasing of "everyone who calls themselves a Christian," then... stop. Just stop.
There are over 3000 Christian denominations. Nearly all of them, if not all, call themselves Christian in one way or another.
There's no objective (ha, there we are again) evaluation possible who's a "true Christian" and who isn't of those who claim they follow the Bible, Christ, God, Jesus or whatever.
Because for everyone who says "Well, these aren't true Christians!" one can easily find another Christian who'll go "Neither are you, so siddown you heathen/heretic/whatever!"
I wrote this before your "let me explain, ..." piece. But it highlights what I meant... people who act ungodly *in your view.*
You have no way to demonstrate that your take of what "ungodly" is, is actually what _is_ ungodly. And you have no way of discrediting what other Christians will say is "ungodly." Which is especially curious when you're both ungodly in each others eyes.
This "No, You!" is one of many reasons why I can't take the Bible serious.
Every Christian claims _they_ understand what the Bible means. And most of these understandings, especially across denominations - but even within - do contradict each other.
If I ask two astrophysicists or literal rocket scientists what a Hohmann transfer is and if it is (within a given frame of requirements) the best path to take between two orbits, I'll get the same answer.
Every time. No matter if I ask two, 20 or 200 astrophysicists and literal rocket scientists.
There's no interpretation. There's no opinion. It's just math. If one of those 2000 disagrees, the rest can _demonstrate_ he's wrong by calculating the deltaV-requirements between the orbital transfer paths and _show_ that his alternative path needs more fuel than the Hohmann transfer.
There's no such possibility for Christians and what the Bible means, as long as we're not entertaining ludicrous hypotheticals like "It's a good Christian habit to great each other with 'Hail Satan' and sacrifice a goat in order to repent for one's sins."
Enough now of this question ;) I'm rambling.
*9) Murder is defined as the unjustified killing of someone and is therefore by definition wrong.*
That's like asking "Is a wet stone wet?" Yes. By definition it is.
Assuming you mean "is the killing of someone who's innocent justifiable?" then I can honestly say: Dunno, it's all up for definition - again. The world isn't black and white, and neither is "innocence."
Is a 11yo who steals bread on the market so his sick mother doesn't starve to death innocent? Yes? No?
If no, why not? He's not only breaking the rules of society, but also the rules of your proposed God. Is killing him therefore justifiable? Yes? No? Why not?
The question is, once more, a hyper-simplified "in an environment with no atmospheric friction, what is the achievable top speed of a TGV?" question that's not applicable to actual reality.
*10) I do not use the term "Truth" normally, for it carries too much superdupervague baggage.*
I consider something to _be true_ if it conforms demonstrably with reality. It _is true_ that, so far, every day, the sun has set and has risen again. It _is true_ that, so far, nearly every time I've pressed the button of my smartphone, it has turned on immediately.
That which cannot be demonstrated to conform to reality _might_ be true, but can't and shouldn't be considered true until such a time as where it is demonstrated.
Have you ever tried Odin? Or Zeus? Or the FSM? And what is your definition of "Christian"? I can guarantee you that a lot of people who call themselves Christian would disagree with your definition.
With #8 he engages in a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Basically I've had to institute the policy that Christians believe what the last self identified Christian I spoke to believes.
Because it's not my job to determine what they think they're supposed to believe.
Very disappointed that for question 4, the bloke did not put a clip to illustrate the creation of the universe by god to balance the big band illustration.
Animations from the Monty Python's Flying Circus surely has some appropriate bits just for this.
Weirdly nothing explains the concept of good and evil better than yin and yang . Good doesn't really exist without bad and in every bit of good exists a little bad and every bit of bad has some good . Pretty much making everything one big Grey area.
I tried Jesus. He tasted like dry bread and cheap wine.
Those were some ridiculous questions.
I don't think that the Bible speaks for every single Christian, but every single Christian believes the Bible speaks for them.
Which makes the Bible's morality subjective, since it relies on individual interpretation.
And why believe in a book that can be interpreted in any way you want it to? What's the point when people are just going to read their own personal moralities into it anyway? Might as well cut out the middleman in the case.
I've met Christians who don't think the Bible speaks for them. I've even heard Christians say the Bible is not the word of god.
How stoned was that guy!?!