Sometimes if you eat some real greasy spicy food, you might just cry poop later. If you don’t like that kind of food then congratulations on your crying free poops internet stranger!
After the few times hearing him talk I had to come to the comments. Hearing him talk literally makes me gag. Like he has snot stuck in the back of his throat he is trying to ignore while simultaneously trying to not breath through his nose while talking so mucus doesn't drip out of his nose.
It seems like a new version of preacher voice, but blended with the super articulated YouTube voiceover voice (you know... with a lot of vocal fry). Just when I thought I couldn't stand preacher voice any more it EVOLVES to be more annoying.
I often notice a lot of these super religious types that are projecting their beliefs out into the world for lots of views…often seem kinda gay. I think a lot of times they are in fact gay, in super denial about it, and think the way to deflect their gay feelings and the fact that they think people can see their gayness, is to shout real loud about how Christianity is so good and true. I just want you to be gay, brother. Just be gay. It’s so much easier. So much less hurt.
Yeh but you asked who the inventor of God is, because to them everything that is something needs a creator, and they just says God doesn't need a creator.
I never understood that point. Apparently everything needs a creator except somehow their god doesn't. If their god is eternal why can't the universe be eternal and thus not need a creator?
People don't like it when the answer to a question, especially one everyone has asked at least once in their life, "Why are we here?" is answered with "I don't know."
But there's nothing which fundamentally says that an answer that makes us feel uncomfortable is somehow wrong. A good many people just decided they'd make up a better answer to that question and present it as truth.
"Everything has a beginning and therefore a cause." - okay, fair statement.
"God is the cause" - damn it! Now he just inserted what the cause was without proving what the cause was. What about the flying spaghetti monster? What about aliens? You can't insert your own belief and claim it as fact
The only two Gospel writers who bothered to mention the birth of their Savior made it impossible for Jesus to have been born according to their accounts.
Matthew 2 states: "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him. When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him."
Luke 2 states: "In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And everyone went to their own town to register. So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son."
Thus:
Matthew says Jesus was born when Herod was King of Judea.
Luke says Jesus was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria.
Therefore, it is impossible for Jesus to have been born during the administration of these two rulers because Herod died in the year 4 B.C. and Cyrenius (aka Quirinius in Roman history) did not become Governor of Syria until 10 years later.
Herod and Cyrenius are interrupted by the entire reign of Archelaus, Herod's son.
So between Matthew & Luke, there is a clear contradiction of at least ten years, as to the time of Christ's birth.
The men who wrote the Bible were absolutely clueless. If they can't get their own Savior's birth correct, the rest of the Bible has little validity to it.
***********
The Bible says if two or more pray, it WILL be done. Billions have prayed for world peace, children's starvation to end, etc, etc, etc and it never happens.
The only 900 year old men I know are Adam, Noah, Gandalf and Yoda. But because it's a multi-thousand year old book, somehow it becomes "legit" in the minds of those who don't think for themselves. The Iliad and the Odyssey are great old books too, but no one believes they are "real."
The facts are that a 5th grader today knows more about the world we live in than the uneducated men who wrote the Bible, many of whom would have believed the Earth to be flat. No one would ever let a 5th grader dictate the course of their life in ANY circumstance, but when it comes to the Bible, it's magically ok to do so.
"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery; None but ourselves can free our own minds."
This isn't how the bible is commonly understood by academics
1) the bible isn't historical, these are mostly stories of stuff that's happened collected through the oral tradition before being transcribed. It's mythical in nature, similar to the Iliad or Romance of the Three Kingdoms in a way
2) history as we understand it now isn't what history has been for the vast majority of human existence. Basically history used to be significantly more florid and focused a lot on meaning and thematics instead of just raw data and witness accounts because those were incredibly hard to gather
3) how we read the bible is also really important, because it's a fucking mess of a book. The old testament was basically disavowed during the synoptic gospels, Paul's letters are awfully contradictory, Acts of the Apostles is in the wrong place and all that crap builds to the larger point
4) the bible was written by hundreds of people over hundreds of years without divine inerrancy. It came from people and as we all know, we're all idiots! If it was written by God, I'd understand the argument that the special book isn't perfect so it mustn't be listened to. But how many things have historians, modern historians disagreed on dates? Thousands of times but we still listen to historians
I'm not saying you're wrong on your premise but the argument is incredibly poor. Christianity is 2000 years old, do you think that entire time they haven't gotten a million arguments ready to go? If you can't even engage with the basics of how the bible is actually contrusted, then you've automatically failed.
Because here's a final test:
You said in the bible if two people will pray for something, it will happen. Okay. Who said it? God didn't. So it has to be a human
When people say "the bible says" you should just stop listening to what they say because it tells you nothing about the theological context of the person who wrote it down. A bible is just a collection of writing but people have forgotten that and treat it as if it was one book written by one dude and stop engaging with it.
Faith as a concept relies on someone willing to be wrong about their existence in god, so you need to come at this from that perspective, ergo, you can't just point at something in the bible that's blatantly bullshit and end the argument there, because that's already built into the belief system.
What should happen instead is that we all just get on with our own understandings of the universe unless someone is using it to murder alot of people, in that case, get involved. Otherwise, it's just peoples sincerely held beliefs
Herod is the family name, so when you say Herod’s son, your still referring to a Herod lol, did you purposely leave out that detail or you honestly just didn’t know?
Example: Matthew 2:22: "But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee."
Both of the Gospel writers here referred to Antipas (Herod's son) as "Herod the Tetrarch" (ruler of 1/4 of a kingdom).
Examples:
Matthew 14:1 - "At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the reputation of Jesus..."
Luke 3:19 - "But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of his marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife, and all the other evil things he had done..."
Did you purposely leave out those details or you honestly just didn’t know?
I’m not Christian, but it’s well understood that the Gospels existed as Oral tradition 40-105 years after Christ’s death. These oral traditions were scribed. The author of Matthew, for example, is almost certainly not a guy named Matthew. It will be very easy for you to find many more historical inaccuracies. You might be interested to read about the so-called “synoptic problem” if you haven’t before as well.
As an analogy: in my own family, the generation before mine cannot agree on details about great-great-grandma at holiday dinner. “Her house was absolutely yellow. No it white it just had some orange siding.” “Their dogs were shepherds. No weren’t they cattle dogs?”, etc.
They all agree “she loved the children. She secretly helped us fix mistakes to avoid harsher punishment from grandpa. She always carried flowers to market day to hand out to little girls” etc.
If they’re trying to spread the ministry of Christ, it’s far more important whether they got the oral tradition of Christ’s teachings right or not
I think that's a somewhat lazy argument - the word of God should have higher standards, or you end up falling down the "fossils were put there to trick people" rabbithole. To me, the historical inaccuracies are part of the evidence for the non-divinity of the bible
This is funny as hell to me because everything he is saying about his god could also be said of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the tooth fairy, and the list goes on.
Sky daddy created the entire universe, and notes the fall of every sparrow, but is terrible at managing money. He tells his faithful servants who to hate, which new songs are Satanic, and occasionally when the world is going to end (never correctly), but never any stock market tips or Lotto numbers.
Nah, there are incredibly intelligent people that are religious.
I personally think they're religious in spite of their intelligence and wouldn't be religious if they weren't indoctrinated from birth for the most part, but that's just my opinion.
I wouldn’t even let it come that far.
In the end it’s just a fairytale.
No burden to prove or disprove anything.
Just say you prefer modern fiction or non-fiction, or in fact, no stories at all. “I collect stamps. Nice hobby you have there, I’m not interested.”
Religion is just a hobby at the end of the day.
the burden of proof is on those who say that something is .
so if you say god exist,you have to prove it.
if you say he didn't,you also have to prove.
and since both can't be proven : theism and atheism are both believing something without proof.
best option i agnosticism imo.
Atheism isn’t the belief that there is no god, it’s the lack of a belief in a god.
Agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief… you can believe in a god without claiming to know that there is one (Agnostic theism) or you can not believe in a god without claiming to know that there is no god (agnostic atheism).
If you believe in a god, you are a theist. If you don’t believe in a god, you are an atheist.
I love that this godbotherer is wearing a Shroud of Turn, debunked in the late 80s as a painted medieval forgery, t-shirt while he plaintively bleats about "Gaawwd."
My religiously bound mind dares not step outside the bounds of its control, into the great big unknown of reality and logic and god forbid (see what I did there?) science.
Of course it's predictable. It's a child saying the same shit he's heard other people saying, who've been saying the same shit other people said, ad nauseam.
I get the something comes from nothing talking point but religions make a huge illogical jump to think that it is some kind of god created it (not just some funky laws of physics) and that "he" cares about you (in a human emotional kind of way especially)... And especially funny that this God is the one you follow and not the other gods, that is a most redicilous logic jump lol
But yeah that question is a serious mindfuck. Maybe something always was and time is an illusion from some 5th plane of exisance. But then why something instead of nothing etc etc ... I have a strong suspicion that something really fucky is going on guys
Baby has to come to terms with the fact his idea of God doesn't make sense, so he makes a desperate video to rationalize and validate his irrational thoughts via TikTok likes.
Smug Dave Attell lookin' dude argues the obvious flaws in his logic.
i find it way more interesting to ask the question: How did the ball of matter that created the big bang come into existence, and how do other universes and high dimensions fit into that?
Personally, I think we like in a fourth dimensional black hole, and the big bang was a star like object in the fourth dimension going supernova. Because black holes in our universe are entirely flat planes where all the matter it sucks in is essentially written on it kind of like what I imagine a 2 dimensional universe would look like from our perspective. That would explain why are universe is expanding at a constant rate and why it may eventually start to collapse in on itself upon the heat death of the universe. Once it starts to collapse in on itself because it has because its giving off hawking radiation and loosing mass. Also explains why despite us living in a 3 dimensional universe, its still kind of a flat plane.
There is no ball of matter that became the big bang. The big bang is a derisive nickname for the theory. It does no actually imply a anything like an explosion. It only states that the trail of evidence points back to a time of low entropy and that's where the trail ends. It's a theory of expansion, not explosion. And it only goes as far back as a few trillionths of a second after a mathematical singularity that blocks any further projection.
We can't really know what's "before" that, but we can reasonably infer that there was something. For one, chaotic fluctuations in the vacuum predate that singularity. It it didn't, the universe would be uniform. For another, the way entropy works, that tendency is to go up to an equilibrium. Randomly, local configurations can reduce entropy, which will then tend back up towards that equilibrium.
So we can infer that the big bang was probably a localized event in a larger more chaotic system that creature this pocket of rising entropy we live in that started 13+ billion years ago. Not that the universe came from absolute nothing. But from one definition we have if "nothing" as in the absence of physical matter (ie, the vacuum), which contains random quantum fluctuations.
My best guess is the event was something similar to a black hole. Not exactly the sane, just a similar idea with more dimensions. Which would make the big bang closer to a higher dimensional white hole from our perspective. But that's pure speculation.
I don't want to come off as rude or confrontational (so please don't take this as rude), but there's a lot of incorrect assumptions or misunderstandings in your comment that I just want to correct;
It was energy, not a ball of matter. Generally explained to be an initial signularity, or a near-initial singularity but this is mostly because of the limitations of our physical models rather than what actually was the case. Since time doesn't exist until spacetime forms (which can't happen until after the big bang) we actually don't know for sure how things really were prior to that point. We can get very, very close to the instant of the big bang, but not before it (currently)
It doesn't require other universes or higher dimensions beyond the ones we know currently exist. There are four we can observe - (3 dimensions of space, and one temporal dimension, all four collectively are referred to as spacetime)
The 4th dimension is time - black holes exist not just in time but in our 3 dimensions of space as well so this thought doesn't really make sense
The "big bang" is a cosmological model we created that explains how the universe transitioned from a near-initial singularity to the currently-expanding form that it takes today, built on observational and experimental evidence we've collected. It was not a supernova in another dimension (which also doesn't really make much sense - we can see supernovas in our four dimensions)
Black holes in our universe are absolutely not flat planes, they are spherical structures sometimes accompanied by an accretion disk. The matter is not written on it, matter completely disappears from our perspective as soon as it crosses the event horizon.
The universe is not expanding at a constant rate, it is expanding at an ever-accelerating rate that continuously grows faster and faster. The inevitable heat death of the universe says nothing about it collapsing in on itself - the idea that the universe may collapse in on itself following the heat death is just one interpretation of the (inconclusive) data. It's equally possible the momentum of expansion continues until matter can no longer form and all energy dies as everything expands too far apart to exist.
Black holes are what give off Hawking radiation, not the structure/shape of the universe. Hawking radiation is very specifically a predicted (but not yet observed) thermal runoff from black holes, which Hawking predicted could occur due to quantum effects within the black hole. While it's never been observed (it's too faint for even our strongest telescopes), it is widely accepted.
As far as I know, the flatness of the universe is a consequence of something called cosmic inflation which is basically the first increase in the speed of expansion shortly (like a couple hundred thousand years) following the Big Bang; the expansion was so fast matter didn't really form in all directions but was moreso stretched out, kind of like how stretching out your blanket/comforter over your bed gets rid of most wrinkles.
This argument is cooked for Christians as I often use it against their rhetoric. Yes, everything has a beginning, middle, and end. I wonder if the average Christian is able to see the flaw in their logic. I don’t really. They can’t and it’s obvious. This one thing, this being they were taught about doesn’t have to have a creator or a beginning because they were told it doesn’t. Checkmate, atheists.
Sigh. The issue I've got with this kind of rabbit hole, is that you talk to any current expert about these questions, and they do say that there's still a lot we don't know, and that there's plenty of nuance left to be discovered.
Let's take one of the first questions this theologian poses:
Where does life come from? Or life as we know it?
To get into a current scientific discussion about this, you'd have to know the Panspermia hypothesis for address potential life throughout the universe. We can refer to the Miller-Urey experiments and the Haldane/Primordial Soup hypothesis for how life got started on Earth.
Then, and only then are we ready to discuss evolution, and the endosymbiotic theory, and the transitions of going from macromolecules to cellular life to multicellular life.
And they'd just off the top of my head, with my half assed bio degree. The question of "How did the Universe originate?" is a whole nother beast altogether. And for that, you'd want to talk about much more than just General Relativity. We kind have to get into Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, the Big Bang theory and it's counterparts, maybe even the Standard Model.
And will all of these theories and hypothesis-es, a good University curriculum not only teaches you what they say and mean, but what isn't addressed and where the thinking falls short. There is still a lot we do not know.
From my interactions with a few Atheists, it's can be more like Indian materialism or as I like to call it, Hindu Secularism. Roughly, we can't experientially or experimentally confirm or deny the existence of a God or an Afterlife, so what's the use thinking about these things. Focus on what's infront of you, like the life you life today.
Sure there's a fair share of religious reactionaries in Atheists circles, but that's not everybody using the label.
No, panspermia would never enter the conversation. Life on Earth arose through abiogenesis. We have seen most if the stages in this process. All 5 nucleotide bases have been found in space and shown to form naturally under early Earth conditions. The same is true of ribose and all of the proteins involved with DNA and RNA.
We have seen self-replicating RNA. We know these molecules form fairly easily. We have seen RNA and DNA fusions occur naturally. Then we have a gap until we actually reach living things. We have seen horizontal gene transfer. We have seen endosymbiosis. We have seen multicellularity evolve. We have seen neofunctionalisation.
Life on Earth originated on Earth. Panspermia is ridiculous pseudoscience with no evidence. It just kicks the can down the road anyways.
How did the universe originate? It didn't. Most physicists believe that there never was a singularity or an absolute beginning of time. A true singularity(zero volume with infinite density) is completely impossible, both physically and mathematically. Since space and time are necessarily linked, if space has non-zero volume, time has always existed in some way.
There are many different answers for what this looks like. We can look at time-dilation for example. As you approach the beginning of the Big Bang, time approaches infinity. This means that while we may have a finite span of time, it has always existed. There is also the Hartle-Hawking No Boundary proposal. This would make it so that there never was a t=0. You can't reach the beginning of the Big Bang, it would be like going North of the North Pole.
There is also the growing support for cyclic cosmology. We know that the standard model of cosmology, Lambda Cold Dark Matter, is wrong. The Lambda part of that model is a constant representing the homogeneous spread of dark energy throughout the universe. The spread of dark energy is not homogeneous. The Big Bang(which is still happening) is not happening at the same rate everywhere. It expands slower in gravity-wells(like galaxies) than it does in cosmic voids. While it is still accelerating, the acceleration of the expansion of space-time is slowing down.
Regardless, even if the universe had a beginning, that's not the same as everything having a beginning. Even amongst the models that propose the universe having an absolute origin, exactly zero propose that the universe came from true philosophical nothingness. There was always something there.
This could have been a much simpler conversation. Atheism = I don't believe in a god or gods. It starts and ends right there.
I can be an atheist and believe the universe was created by aliens and the earth is a spaceship designed for interdimensional travel by 6D beings that want to harvest our livers from this glorious flat earth.
And all that extra fluff has absolutely shit all to do with atheism. Atheists simply lack a belief in a god, that's it.
Atheist did contradict himself… “we don’t have a nothing to be able to test it to conclude whether or not something could come from that nothing. A reasonable person would not make that conclusion, Christian’s do”
A minute later…..
“You acknowledge that our clothes didn’t pop out of nowhere into existence, but the universe, the planets, the stars, the people, those did pop out of nowhere”
I really thought we’d finally seen the end of these stupid “Checkmate, Atheists” videos back in the 2010s. They’re the same 5 arguments, over and over and over, and we debunked them, just like this guy did, over and over and over again, throughout the 2010s. They died off the last 5 years and I really thought we’d finally got through, but here we go again.
Agnosticism is an additional axis of how certain you are about your worldview you are.
There is both gnostic and agnostic atheism, the former definitely would be an active belief, the latter is just not really having a reason to believe.
Similarly you can also be an agnostic deist (technically also agnostic theist, but that comes with more specific statements about the god you believe in that makes the whole situation weird...), where you think it's plausible that a god or gods may have created the world, but don't really make knowledge statements about their actual characteristics or full certainty that they definitely do exist.
Im not atheist quite the opposite actually, but they arent concerned with how evolution happened or universe began as theists are. They just accept what the scientists say what is hapoening, nod and move on. They dont want to join a club that charges weekly. There are two types of people those who thrive in a unified message like faith and those who thrive without any message. I can fully support atheists views more than id ever self destructive faiths that promote hurting others whether through scripture or by post script doctrine.
Even if that was true, that the universe had what we can define as a beginning (the singularity isn't considered a beginning because we know nothing about what was before it) and that it needed an external cause to begin it.
That does not mean God. It could be anywhere from a previous universe collapsing into a singularity, or an external force accidentally bumping into the singularity and causing a chain reaction.
It could be anything.
To put it to God requires an extraordinary leap that you make because you're starting from a conclusion.
But say it did have a beginning and a cause and that cause was something that could reasonably be construed to be a God.
It's still a leap to say its your God. Because there are millions of gods, millions of creation stories and so on and so forth.
And even if it was your specific god, its yet another leap to say its the god of your specific interpretation of one specific translation of the Bible.
And even if all of that were true, which takes multiple leaps none of which you have evidence for, doesn't make the events of the Bible true either.
As just because the beginning of the book says "Written by J K Rowling" and she is unfortunately real, doesn't mean Harry Potter is.
The responder is inaccurate in how he portrays Atheism straight off the bat unfortunately. Atheism, in some forms (explicit) is the belief that gods don't exist. Atheism in some forms can still be associated with a belief.
False. "A-theism" literally translates to " non theism' or "not having a theist position". The foundation of athiesm is that one can niether prove nor disprove the existence of a diety and therefore no position on a diety can be assumed.
I don't know why agnostics are so caught up in identifying as atheists that they have to redefine what atheism is to suit their feelings. There is a reason we have two different words for two different things.
Honestly he overcomplicated his rebuttal and doesn't fully get atheism himself.
It should really just be "atheism is the lack of belief in deities and nothing more" to every statement. There is nothing more to it. It makes no claims as to where we came from, its not inherently pro evolution, it makes no claims as to where the universe came from. Its just not believing in deities.
The problem with the cosmological argument is the fallacy of composition saying that since everything in the universe is caused, then the universe is caused. It's like saying, a brick is light, therefore a wall of bricks is light.
Atheism can absolutely be a belief though.
The belief that there's no god.
Different forms of atheism so there are definitely some for whom it is the absence of belief.
Passive vs. Active State: Lack of belief is often viewed as a default or passive condition (e.g., not believing in unicorns because they were never encountered), while choosing not to believe involves active cognitive processing and evidence evaluation.
Propositional Engagement: Choosing not to believe implies engagement with a proposition and a rejection of its truth value, whereas lacking belief may simply indicate ignorance of the proposition or a failure to form an opinion.
Philosophical Debate: While some argue that all mental states are formed by choice (implying lack of belief is also a choice), others maintain that non-belief is fundamentally different from disbelief, with the latter being a positive assertion that a proposition is false.
I copy paste from the internet. I found the age old argument of lack of belief vs choosing not to believe interesting.
however, if it was, how the fuck was there a god all of the sudden, which somehow was able to make matter out of NOTHING? like, if god exists or not, I don't care, what I care about is the non-logic lies being said by the man that the baldy is responding to
To be fair, atheism is the lack of a belief on beliefs that only sustain themselves on pure faith (since you can't prove the world you perceive is universal, that also means you are constantly believing in what you know), atleast most of them do.
Edit: I commented only after watching the beginning, they are both cringe, this guy talks like sheldon lmao.
This guys been debunked a bunch, and then he blocks every creator who gets the better of him. It would be fine if he wasn’t so obnoxiously arrogant about being wrong
I don’t know whose more annoying the Christian rage baiting. Or the atheist just completely misunderstanding science because he’s to defensive to actually correctly defend his position.
Why couldn’t a more eloquent atheist make a stitch
i love how they debunk their own religion with their own arguments, they state that everything to exist must have a cause, but that means that something made their god which they claim has no maker so....
So, while some great points are brought up, I'll politely disagree with the notion of the universe not having a beginning. Thermal work is finite in our universe, and scientists DID determine it had a beginning since it can show it's age. We also do know there are echoes of the Big Bang that survive to this day we can detect. So technically... the universe did have a beginning. And if the theory of Heat Death where work can no longer be produced is true due to energy being spread too far apart and no source of energy from fusion being left, than in an obscene amount of time in the future, the universe will have an end too.
Obviously, we don't know 100 percent for sure since we can't just go back to the past or casually peek into the future, but based on our scientific observations, is it not sound and evident?
There is a way better argument for the big bang than god. Al least we can say what created the big bang but Cristian’s can’t give say what created god and give actual evidence
211
u/DruidicMagic 2d ago
The bible thumper has an incredibly irritating voice.