@@williamspringer9447 So the Soviet union just remained silence by a supposed global fraud with their telescope technology and didn't use a possible fake as propaganda instrument against the evil capitalistic US imperialists? Are you that deluded? They even installed a mirror on the moon able to be targetted by lasers. LOL
@@williamspringer9447 Communications from the austronauts were being tracked from Earth even by amateurs, by pointing antennas at the Moon. And you can bet your ass that the russians were listening too, and if they had evidence that the signals were not coming from the Moon, but from somewhere else, they would've absolutely announced it to the world, then proceeded to land themselves and proclaim victory. Instead, they just decide to shut up about it and let their most hated enemy humiliate them, AND also stop all attempts at crewed lunar landings, or even at producing their own fake landings? If the videos and pictures were all fake and you can tell that they're fake, why couldn't they?
When I was a christian, I never understood the whole holy spirit thing. I was supposed to feel it but I didn't. I was supposed to feel God's love, or God's presence, but I didn't. It made me feel like something was wrong with me. After all, the christian answer is basically "try harder, stop sinning, search with all your heart and soul, etc". So I did look with all my heart and soul. I prayed 3 times a day, I abstained from sex, I read the bible every night. I went to church every sunday. Every. Single. Day. For. Years. I asked for God to allow me to feel his love and etc. But I just didn't. And the reason why is obvious. Because I'm too smart for that. I'm too honest for that. I would never pretend that I felt the holy spirit. I couldn't pretend that I felt God's love. I either did or I didn't, and I didn't. The truth is that if you honestly look, you won't find god... because he's not there. Now that I'm free of religious dogma, I can see clearly that it's all kind of silly. As a christian, atheists who pointed out that my views were silly would make me angry. Maybe because deep down I knew they were right. It's all very silly.
I felt the same way. I searched for the truth and became an atheist, and I was fortunate enough to convince my wife as well. As for getting rid of religion all together I stand neutral. On one hand it would change a lot of things for the better, but on the other hand some people need the fear of a god to keep them in line. I also feel that people can believe in a god if it helps them cope with the inevitable. In that sense religion is okay and it's not hurting anyone.
@@andrewc1205 *but on the other hand some people need the fear of a god to keep them in line.* According to who? Secular cultures are the most peaceful and prosperous in history.
@@AntiCitizenX I realize that much but I was talking about the rest of the world. I heard a "so-called" Christian admit that if there was no God there wouldn't be any reason not to do whatever you want. He was referring to rape and murder, etc. I understand there are still laws and consequences against such things but plenty of people get away with these crimes. Crime rates could shoot through the roof if everyone came to the realization that God doesn't exist and they could possibly get away with it. There are F'ed up people of all races and religions amongst us. I like what you do, don't get me wrong, but I still believe certain people need the fear of a God.
Every time I ask a Christian why do they know they're right they always talk about the Holy Ghost. But when I ask why I did not feel anything before they say I need faith, and need to ask God. Then I ask "what if I told you that I was praying yesterday, asking knowledge to God and he in person talked to me and said that the Bible is wrong, and all Cristians are damned?" The answer is always the same. They say that, either I'm lying or it was a demon, not God who talked to me. This is the worst problem with apologetics logics, how to validate the divine revelation? I saw in rationalwiki a theorem that states that is utterly impossible to validate the truth of a divine revelation. But I did not understand the proof, so this is a suggestion for a video. How could I tell that the revaluation is a lie, or if it wasn't from God? What about the other people who truly believe in their God's revelations? How could YOU be sure that the thing YOU feel is coming directly from God and not from a demon, in the same way you claim it for the others?
If god is perfect and omnipotent, therefore no communication he makes can ever be confused with the communication of a demon. If demons, on the other hand, are able to mimic god in such a way that they are able to confuse people, than god isn't perfect and omnipotent. When faced with this argument, believers will have to say they are certain that what they feel comes from god and not a demon, and therefore everything that contradicts it comes from demons. They will never be able to provide coherent evidence for that because there's none. They'll ask you to believe them. Then you can propose the following thought experience: you have two different persons, both of which you love and respect, that have contradictory experiences both claim came from god and are their respective proofs of its existence. Neither of their experiences is inherently bad or good, they are just contradictory with each other in a way that if you take one as true, the other must necessarily be false. You cannot personally repeat neither of the experiences, you have to just take their word for it. How can you tell who's the one that have truly been in contact with god? The answer is: it's impossible. An omnipotent god must be able to send messages that are unequivocally and undeniably his, that are unfalsifiable and that can reach anyone anywhere. If the experience someone has as proof of god needs you to just personally believe that person but can't be on its own unequivocally attributed to god must, by definition, not have come from god.
@@MephLeo "If god is perfect and omnipotent, therefore no communication he makes can ever be confused with the communication of a demon." It's not clear that even a perfect message could not be confused. What imaginable quality could a message from God have that would indisputably clarify that it is not a communication from a demon? Anything that one person could say, so also could any other person say the same thing. Even if God is perfect, what's to stop a demon from delivering the exact same message? "An omnipotent god must be able to send messages that are unequivocally and undeniably his, that are unfalsifiable and that can reach anyone anywhere." An omnipotent god ought to be able to do far better than a mere unfalsifiable message. Unfalsifiability might sound good, but it actually means that the message contains no content which might be tested. For example, an unfalsifiable message could not tell Alice where to find her keys, because then she could go to the specified place and check if her keys are truly there, and thereby Alice would be testing the message, and if the message were false, then Alice would have falsified it, thereby making it a falsifiable message. Unfalsifiable messages are always useless due to their lack of testable content.
Yesterday some Christians made pretty good arguments for the truth of their religion, but I already experienced the self-authenticating witness of Charles Darwin so I ignored all their arguments and kept believing in science.
sure, but which sect of science? Do you believe in thermodynamics? Or in chemistry? Or in evolution? Or in cosmology? You can't believe in all of them, they're mutually-contradic.... wait. No. They're NOT mutually contradictory. It's as if a divine force (usually graduate students who barely eat and sleep, and who often pay for the privilege of working) was going through and looking for contradictions between these various disciplines, trying to eliminate them, based on the assumption that there's only one reality, and that all of our efforts at determining reality should point to different aspects of the same story. All praise the overworked, underpaid, and probably not-showered graduate student.
Jesus is just social distancing. He's very good at it. Most people complain after two months but he's been doing it for 2,000 years. More Christians should follow his example.
When I was a young Christian, several of my atheist friends used to posit gotcha one liners they thought would shake me out of my faith. Later, after I became an atheist I remember one of them said something I still think about to this day. He said: “you believe because you’re afraid not to.” There’s a fair amount of truth behind it.
Me and Matt Dillahunty actully just did a debate with two apologists who use this argument, the personal experince argument, as their primary evidence.
@DankBurrito How do you know the experience you had was because of the Holy Spirit?? Seriously, did you watch the video or you just came here to the comment section, without watching it, just to preach? A fussy feeling is not evidence of a God, people with very different religions can feel the same thing.
The holy spirit has swayed many to believe in Christ. The congregations of thousands of churches swoon and sway with existential rapture when the holy spirit comes to them. The holy spirit has one rule, "I will instill wisdom and knowledge to all believers, but I will never expose Pastors who rape children."
It seems rather unwise for an all-knowing, all-powerful being to utilize such an unreliable method of communication to convey a message that critically impacts the eternal welfare of the recipients. Furthermore, this method of communication discourages the critical thinking skills needed to stave off those that would intentionally take advantage of other's emotional state of being. This concept was the final straw that broke my faith in the Mormon church. Thank you AntiCitizenX for articulating so well the absurdity of the concept of receiving a witness of the Holy Spirit.
Pretty ironic really, Religion: "I'm right, you're wrong, you're stupid, you're evil." AntiCitizenX: "I'm right (that religion has a mistaken method of observation of the supernatural,) religion is wrong, religion is stupid, religion is evil" You: -will (probably) create an argument in defense of AntiCitizenX "I'm (Izzet) Right, you're (The Great G-man the guy) wrong, you're stupid."
I remembered a out dated argument given when someone asks about how we know God exists. Some people say "do you see the wind?" And think that the fact the atmospheric air is invisible is a proof that God can exists because "they can feel him"
@@thegreatgmantheguy One is an unfalsifiable claim that will be believed no matter what, the other isn't. And, you know, you will not be able to convince us that your comparison is correct, because most of us have experienced being wrong and correcting our beliefs, so we know that we aren't just pretending to be willing to follow the evidence. You can only convince yourself that we are like you.
@@thegreatgmantheguy I think AnticitizenX defended himself admirably. Why can't God do the same, instead of relying on fallible human beings whose best arguments are defeated regularly and who can't come up with anything better, so just pretend that their arguments hadn't just been eviscerated and point to the shredded mess as if it were absolute proof of God?
Was doing some homework for college and needed a debate topic for this semester. Wanted to refresh myself and clicked on a vid. I think I’ll do my debate on....debates. Conviction. Honest inquiry and the pursuit of truth vs the need to be right/inability to admit wrong. Thanks for the idea.
Impeccable execution and straight to the point; which is perfectly reminiscent of your earlier work. Yet again, brings out something completely new- could be because of the new characters and animation. All in all, great work.
When apologists set up a Skype with my dead parents and grandparents, then we'll talk. They keep telling me that they are not really dead, but in some heavenly resort village, so a Skype call seems like child's play for a universe sorcerer. Just sayin'
I think this shaming of dibelief that christians practice are not directed more at atheists than they are directed at christians themselves. They are fearful of becoming disbelievers, and this fear blinds them to everything people has to say about their religion. To me, that's the main reason why they are so resistent to atheism. They act out of pure bigotry against them.
I once literally saw the face of Jesus while praying at a church retreat camp, even got light-headed and almost passed out immediately afterwords, had to sit down Seems about as legit an experience one can get, yet I'm still an atheist
I used to be an evangelical christian. When I look back on it, the holy spirit was basically my conscience. So christians walk around listening to their conscience believing it's a direct message from god. That's why there's no point arguing with them because they think every "good" thought they have is literally divine inspiration.
Some recently-graduated philosopher sent me a meme the other day: "Who would win? - Philosophers making sophisticated arguments in favor of the existence of God. - A neckbeard typing 'sky fairy' in the comments." I missed the opportunity of rewriting it as "sophistry-cated". Told her that arguments aren't evidence and she got super angry, blabbering something against my "holy science". Who gives philosophy degrees to people like that?
@@S.D.323 > A religious person projecting, and trying to drag me down to their level. "Yes my religion is holy but your science is too". Something like that.
When I was a Muslim, I would pray or read qur’an and feel a calm, euphoric feeling in my heart. I was certain that this was Allah affirming to me that Islam is the one and only truth. However it really is just that, a feeling, and one that led me down into a very dark rabbit hole that made me into a downright evil person, all for the desire of eternal paradise
I’m an ex mormon. I had incredibly powerful manifestations of the spirit, but it’s nothing that cannot be explained naturalistically. For example, I had extremely similar experiences (but MORE powerful) using psychedelics. Nothing mystical, just the human brain.
Holy spirit literally translates to "sanctified breath of air." When I was going to church as a kid, a pastor explained it as the air within us contains your mindset. Like the old saying he had an air about him, or putting on airs. He translated it as sanctified mindset. As silly as that was, it made more sense than this apologist garbage. This was the last thing I learned in church. I left by the end of year. Never went back. This was a great series I love a well thought out argument. Good job.
"God is real because I experience the holy spirit and it tells me I'm right!" Translatify: "I feel convinced god is real because I felt conviction god is real!" Gee thanks, _Craig._
I’ve always found it funny how the holy trinity is the most blatant logical contradiction ever, and Christians just don’t care or even try to hide it lmao.
oh I was randomly thinking about your channel (in particular I found myself randomly thinking "prepare to initiate theme music!" after watching someone play AI dungeons and make a story about star trek xD). Well that's all. Imagine if I tried to deduce anything from this coincidence! that'd be ridiculous.
There was a fad in sermons when I was a Christian talking about how "Yahweh" or "YHWH" (one of the names the Jews used for God) was basically the noise people make when breathing. This would then twist the meaning of "do not use the Lord's name in vain" into something like "don't miss use the life God gave you" Kinda creepy looking back on it
23:39 The current Danish word for spirit is "Ånd" (Pronounced: [ˈʌnˀ]), so the word hasn't changed much in 1000 years or so. As always, an amazing video, AntiCitizenX. Insta-liked :)
And of course we see this in Swedish to where Ande is the word. And Andedräkt means breath. Dräkt means clothing (or more often costume in most modern day contexts)
It’s crazy ubiquities, which just makes the argument even more potent. In Russian it’s true as well btw To breath = дышать Soul = душа, or a spirit/ghost = дух
Thanks for your video's. I only came across them yesterday. Especially your work on scientifically proving that it is possible for a group of individuals with human brains to evolve between them a set of fully functional religions. No godly intervention required. Thanks for the effort to put this so well together. I find Atheism a very peaceful point of view. Patience in the progress of science. Honesty in admitting you don't know.
4:44 "I don't know of an argument for Christian belief that seems very likely to convince one who doesn't already accept its conclusion." So your arguments are only likely to convince those who don't even need the arguments to begin with. Awesome!
Not at all , his arguments bring many out of the delusion of religion (myself included) . Disregarding reason or lack there of keeps one in religion , reasoning and acknowledging reality (awful as it may seem to be) can "free" to better face life (as best as one can individually)
I was just watching the other parts of the series and you come out with this one just 12 hours ago! God must be leading me towards watching this video.
Saw your upload just now, didn't even watch the video yet but seeing another upload of yours made me feel much better. You're one of my favourite channels, I admire and respect your work a lot. Thank you for uploading content.
My theory is that God/ the supernatural exist, but the reason why it's inconsistent and unprovable, is that they are just fucking with us, cause it's funny for em. Would still be nicer than actual gods/ religions
>By their own admission, most apologists aren't convinced by their arguments I think there's a charitable reading of the situation: there are situations where you think you are right (when you in fact are) but can't accurately articulate the reasons as to why or disprove the evidence contrary to your claim. Consider the heliocentric model: For the longest time (until Kepler) the best geocentric models provided a better fit to the observations. Some proponents of heliocentrism didn't act on purely philosophical grounds and had arguments to back them up, such as Aristarchus of Samos using geometry to calculate the Sun is larger than Earth and reasoning larger objects ought to have more attractive force (which was a sound idea, but not empirically demonstrated), or they didn't feel right about epicycles upon epicycles. Nowadays we know heliocentrists were right and the kind of reservations they would have had regarding geocentric models have been formalized to rules of inference such as Occam's razor/Solomonoff's induction , but back then they had neither the evidence nor formalized epistemology backing them up, just a persistent idea they are right and the opposition's arguments must be flawed in some way they can't quite put their finger on. Of course, that obviously doesn't mean every idea someone believes with subjective (near-)certainty is in fact true. However, I believe this phenomenon provides the framework from which you should look at people's religious experience and provides a counterexample to the idea you must always reject your beliefs when they seem to be in contradiction with the evidence and rational arguments. Let's think about what's happening here. Modern epistemology/probability theory didn't exist in the antiquity, but while flawed in well-documented ways, humans can use probabilistic reasoning intuitively and usually it works really well. Ancients arguing against geocentrism assigned to it a low prior probability (due to intuitive understanding of Occam's razor), low enough that the available evidence wasn't enough to update their model away from heliocentrism despite observations supporting geocentrism. Despite informality, this exactly how probabilistic reasoning is supposed to go. Now, what is the prior religious people have? I can't speak from religious experience but it seems to me it's cogito ergo sum: Intuitively, the existence of your own self and thoughts is as close to certainty as can be, so it's natural to assign a probability of near-1 (or even 1, due to "otherwise you might as well not bother" line of logic). However, it has been suggested by Julian Jaynes a sense of self and "your" thoughts is cultural, going as far as arguing people prior to bronze age collapse didn't have consciousness (by which he probably means theory of mind, a term that was coined later). What we now view us "our" thoughts and "our" mind, according to him, wasn't always perceived as such, referring to lines of evidence such as pre-classical literature that at no point refer to any conception of state of mind, but regularly refer to things like gods literally talking to people, supposedly analogous to other phenomenon like children's imaginary friends before they learn the culture-dependent interpretation that thoughts in your head are your own and not other people. Now, I don't buy this theory hook line and sinker, but I think it might have gotten some things right. For example, when religious people claim to feel the presence of the Holy Spirit, I find it plausible they are referring to a part of their mind, which they experience as unshakably real as Descartes experienced his, even while doubting all sensory perception. If this, or something similar to this, is what's actually happening, "squishy subjective sensation" AntiCitizenX is referring to is selling the verisimilitude of the experience a bit short. Of course, if you are reasoning correctly, for every statement P there should be a finite amount of evidence sufficient for you to change your belief to ¬P. Like the video points out, science shows us that our minds are not just fallible but systematically deceive us in regards to a lot of other questions, so this burden of proof shouldn't even be particularly difficult to meet. Hell, many ideas that would have been considered a priori certain by many (such as existence of "space" which contains all other existence and "time" that moves from past to future, while quantum gravity would have it that both are contained within single concept of quantum fields, along with everything else that is) might be wrong - a lesson against considering any matter definitely settled. If you are reasoning correctly, you should accept the evidence and conclude even your most fundamental beliefs might have been mistaken. But while (at least some of) the apologetics might be deliberately lying or making really simple mistakes such as interpreting regular auditory hallucinations as the voice of god or something, there's a category of alternatives where their mistakes are a bit more understandable: there's an understandably (if incorrectly) really strong prior which screws up the results of otherwise entirely justified probability calculations in regards to when you should ignore the seemingly contradictory evidence.
"This phenomenon provides the framework from which you should look at people's religious experience and provides a counterexample to the idea you must always reject your beliefs when they seem to be in contradiction with the evidence and rational arguments." Holding a belief without strong support from evidence is still wrong even if the belief happens to be true. What's the point in believing that the earth moves around the sun if we must take it on faith? All that we prove by believing such is our own gullibility. "When religious people claim to feel the presence of the Holy Spirit, I find it plausible they are referring to a part of their mind, which they experience as unshakably real as Descartes experienced his, even while doubting all sensory perception." Those who talk about the Holy Spirit with sincerity are surely referring to some sort of experience, but this experience must either be a part of their own minds or else it must come from outside their minds. If it's a part of their own minds, then it's not a real Holy Spirit. If it comes from outside of their minds, then it's a part of their sensory perception and is therefore among the things to be doubted. "Many ideas that would have been considered a priori certain by many...might be wrong - a lesson against considering any matter definitely settled." An idea should not be considered _a priori_ certain unless it is proven that it cannot be wrong. Some people may have made mistakes about what is a priori certain in the past, but that doesn't justify us in ignoring the proof that we have for the things that we believe. For example, consider the Pythagorean theorem that tells us the relationship between the lengths of sides of a right triangle. This can be proven a priori, and that proof gives us cause to accept this matter as definitely settled. No matter what we may ever discover about the world, a right triangle will always obey the theorem.
Me: "Christianity, are you a free gift" Christianity: "Yes, I am free" Me: What will it cost? Christianity: Blind Belief, and you're eternal sacrifice of everything and eternal worship of God.
@@Sebastian-hg3xc At least that's mostly harmless now compare that to far right groups that use this logic to justify demonizing and dehumanizing entire groups of people and races so they can commit atrocities against them without harm to thier conscious. Or far left groups who think state sponsored communism will work despite always leading to bread lines and needing death squads to maintain. Unfortunately people aren't logical creatures and as a result beliefs, feelings and ideologies control people's psychology and cause endless grief for the human race.
Hindu apologists are taught to defend Hinduism by saying, "I know Hinduism is right." and nothing more. How can both Christian and Hindu apologists be right about the testimony of their respective, mutually exclusive religions?
AntiCitizenX I binge watched all 11 of these, I have always been atheist and often debate/argue with believers, congrats on a well explained, thoughtful and entertaining addition to my library and I added at least one thing per video to my argument arsenal, thank you. I will work my way through the rest Mac
Despite how bad the rest of it is, the bit about how anyone who failed to reach your conclusion can be dismissed as evil or stupid is the worst. A lot of the bite is taken out with the whole "everyone is evil and stupid because of the fall" bit, but that's only about the influence they can exert on others in the sense of religious authority. The effect it has on those that believe it can ruin relationships effortlessly, nobody wants to help someone only to be looked at with contempt or pity.
I'm struggling to understand the first pa... oh, I think I got it. "You study your bible" made no sense to me because as we all well know the only kind of christian who studies their bible is the _former_ kind. You mean "You """""study""""" your bible" the way most believers do; turning the pages slowly while staring lovingly at the ceiling and quietly chanting "Aaaah luuuuv Djeeeeezaaaas! Aaaaah luuuuuv GAAAAWWAWWDUHDUHDUH!!!!" while never glancing at the actual bible itself. Like they do in Bible Study(tm). Carefully pre-selected feel-good passages pruned of any context that might be "challenging to someone's faith" or spark some believer's crippled brain into having its first thought in decades. You really made me work to understand that one, pal.
Fun fact: The reason why we hold our hand before the mouth comes from the middle age, because it was believed that if you yawn to hard your soul might leave your body through your wide open mouth. Fits to the translatin comparision at the end of the video. Side note: My father often talked with their priest in school, back in the days, who was holding the religion class. My father told me that the priests last argument mostly was: "You have to believe me this now.", leaving my fathers questions unanswered. Very convincing...
That's awesome! Because I never had "the inner witness of the Holy Spirit", I begged, pleaded, but God never "spoke" to me. therefore I gave up Christianity. Lovely.
Holy sh*t, I've been rewatching your videos this week and now you come back!? I have some special power because the same thing happened with another channel the previous week, call it omniscience
At 9:00, you do a great job of enumerating the many ways in which the Holy Spirit allegedly interacts with and communicates. I'd like to add that he seemingly does this in ALL Christian denominations. Don't let that escape your attention. All the denoms think THEY are the only correct ones. Yet the Holy Spirit seems to endorse each and every one. This only sews confusion, despite scripture saying God does not do. ;-) Edit: Ah, you touch on this later on.
Wonderful video. And the point about the original meaning of Spirit is certainly very revealing. Although of course Hegel's 'Phenomenology of Spirit' is not all hot air!!
I like how this has become even more relevant But it’s always been relevant, as the WLC clip from before shows. If evidence doesn’t matter then this is meaningless
Excellent video! The Holy Spirit truly is what convinced most lay Christians and ultimately drives their faith rather than rhetorical arguments, at least to my experience. I was raised a Pentacostal, a denomination where spiritual devotion is heavily entangled with emotions and identity, and just the thought that it might not be true can make people feel distressed and even personally attacked. And perhaps understandably so, it really takes time and consideration to leave, it's hard when you’ve been ensured it from early childhood, by people you, at the time, thought knew everything about the world, I can say that for myself. I never experienced anything that I identified as the Holy Spirit though, and it was quite scary to see people react so violently allegedly moved by it. I'm still quite curious as to what underlying psychological phenomena conspires to elicit this effect, perhaps a topic for a later video ;)
For some reason I was expecting some jokey legalese about believing in god in the contract at 7:33. I wasn't actually expecting it to be the original Nicene Creed from 325 but that it is. Or rather, it's almost the creed. I assume it was copied from Wikipedia where some lines have brackets around them and you (or whatever source you used) removed those parts while editing the text. However the bracketed parts are actually part of the original creed and Wikipedia is just using brackets to mark sections that were removed or moved around in later versions while other stuff was added. The full creed in English (translation by Philip Schaff 1877): "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. [But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'- they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]"
Audience member: "What, if anything, would change your mind?"
Bill Nye: "Evidence."
Ken Ham: "Nothing."
That answer caused at least one deconversion. I love knowing that.
I love how Ham thinks that’s a virtue, when in reality that’s one of the greatest vices a hypothesis can have.
@@williamspringer9447 So the Soviet union just remained silence by a supposed global fraud with their telescope technology and didn't use a possible fake as propaganda instrument against the evil capitalistic US imperialists? Are you that deluded? They even installed a mirror on the moon able to be targetted by lasers. LOL
@@williamspringer9447 Communications from the austronauts were being tracked from Earth even by amateurs, by pointing antennas at the Moon. And you can bet your ass that the russians were listening too, and if they had evidence that the signals were not coming from the Moon, but from somewhere else, they would've absolutely announced it to the world, then proceeded to land themselves and proclaim victory.
Instead, they just decide to shut up about it and let their most hated enemy humiliate them, AND also stop all attempts at crewed lunar landings, or even at producing their own fake landings? If the videos and pictures were all fake and you can tell that they're fake, why couldn't they?
@@MBarberfan4life b. B
When I was a christian, I never understood the whole holy spirit thing. I was supposed to feel it but I didn't. I was supposed to feel God's love, or God's presence, but I didn't. It made me feel like something was wrong with me. After all, the christian answer is basically "try harder, stop sinning, search with all your heart and soul, etc". So I did look with all my heart and soul. I prayed 3 times a day, I abstained from sex, I read the bible every night. I went to church every sunday. Every. Single. Day. For. Years. I asked for God to allow me to feel his love and etc. But I just didn't. And the reason why is obvious. Because I'm too smart for that. I'm too honest for that. I would never pretend that I felt the holy spirit. I couldn't pretend that I felt God's love. I either did or I didn't, and I didn't. The truth is that if you honestly look, you won't find god... because he's not there. Now that I'm free of religious dogma, I can see clearly that it's all kind of silly. As a christian, atheists who pointed out that my views were silly would make me angry. Maybe because deep down I knew they were right. It's all very silly.
My general view is I won't lie to myself to feel better.
I felt the same way. I searched for the truth and became an atheist, and I was fortunate enough to convince my wife as well.
As for getting rid of religion all together I stand neutral. On one hand it would change a lot of things for the better, but on the other hand some people need the fear of a god to keep them in line. I also feel that people can believe in a god if it helps them cope with the inevitable. In that sense religion is okay and it's not hurting anyone.
@@andrewc1205 *but on the other hand some people need the fear of a god to keep them in line.*
According to who? Secular cultures are the most peaceful and prosperous in history.
@@AntiCitizenX I realize that much but I was talking about the rest of the world. I heard a "so-called" Christian admit that if there was no God there wouldn't be any reason not to do whatever you want. He was referring to rape and murder, etc. I understand there are still laws and consequences against such things but plenty of people get away with these crimes.
Crime rates could shoot through the roof if everyone came to the realization that God doesn't exist and they could possibly get away with it. There are F'ed up people of all races and religions amongst us.
I like what you do, don't get me wrong, but I still believe certain people need the fear of a God.
I was similar, except I did pretend I felt the holy spirit for a few years. I was in Mormon brainwash camp at the time though...
Every time I ask a Christian why do they know they're right they always talk about the Holy Ghost.
But when I ask why I did not feel anything before they say I need faith, and need to ask God.
Then I ask "what if I told you that I was praying yesterday, asking knowledge to God and he in person talked to me and said that the Bible is wrong, and all Cristians are damned?"
The answer is always the same. They say that, either I'm lying or it was a demon, not God who talked to me.
This is the worst problem with apologetics logics, how to validate the divine revelation? I saw in rationalwiki a theorem that states that is utterly impossible to validate the truth of a divine revelation. But I did not understand the proof, so this is a suggestion for a video.
How could I tell that the revaluation is a lie, or if it wasn't from God? What about the other people who truly believe in their God's revelations? How could YOU be sure that the thing YOU feel is coming directly from God and not from a demon, in the same way you claim it for the others?
That's easy: If you like what is revealed, it is from god, and if you don't like it, it's from a demon.
It's the power of the *Holy Dopamine Ghost* in those that believe.
If god is perfect and omnipotent, therefore no communication he makes can ever be confused with the communication of a demon. If demons, on the other hand, are able to mimic god in such a way that they are able to confuse people, than god isn't perfect and omnipotent.
When faced with this argument, believers will have to say they are certain that what they feel comes from god and not a demon, and therefore everything that contradicts it comes from demons. They will never be able to provide coherent evidence for that because there's none. They'll ask you to believe them.
Then you can propose the following thought experience: you have two different persons, both of which you love and respect, that have contradictory experiences both claim came from god and are their respective proofs of its existence. Neither of their experiences is inherently bad or good, they are just contradictory with each other in a way that if you take one as true, the other must necessarily be false. You cannot personally repeat neither of the experiences, you have to just take their word for it. How can you tell who's the one that have truly been in contact with god? The answer is: it's impossible.
An omnipotent god must be able to send messages that are unequivocally and undeniably his, that are unfalsifiable and that can reach anyone anywhere. If the experience someone has as proof of god needs you to just personally believe that person but can't be on its own unequivocally attributed to god must, by definition, not have come from god.
@@MephLeo "If god is perfect and omnipotent, therefore no communication he makes can ever be confused with the communication of a demon."
It's not clear that even a perfect message could not be confused. What imaginable quality could a message from God have that would indisputably clarify that it is not a communication from a demon? Anything that one person could say, so also could any other person say the same thing. Even if God is perfect, what's to stop a demon from delivering the exact same message?
"An omnipotent god must be able to send messages that are unequivocally and undeniably his, that are unfalsifiable and that can reach anyone anywhere."
An omnipotent god ought to be able to do far better than a mere unfalsifiable message. Unfalsifiability might sound good, but it actually means that the message contains no content which might be tested. For example, an unfalsifiable message could not tell Alice where to find her keys, because then she could go to the specified place and check if her keys are truly there, and thereby Alice would be testing the message, and if the message were false, then Alice would have falsified it, thereby making it a falsifiable message. Unfalsifiable messages are always useless due to their lack of testable content.
This post made me think of the (likely) millions of people who got massacred as heretics because they got the communication from god wrong.
Yesterday some Christians made pretty good arguments for the truth of their religion, but I already experienced the self-authenticating witness of Charles Darwin so I ignored all their arguments and kept believing in science.
Charley brown got nothing on Alan watts.
Oh, ha ha.
sure, but which sect of science? Do you believe in thermodynamics? Or in chemistry? Or in evolution? Or in cosmology? You can't believe in all of them, they're mutually-contradic.... wait. No. They're NOT mutually contradictory. It's as if a divine force (usually graduate students who barely eat and sleep, and who often pay for the privilege of working) was going through and looking for contradictions between these various disciplines, trying to eliminate them, based on the assumption that there's only one reality, and that all of our efforts at determining reality should point to different aspects of the same story.
All praise the overworked, underpaid, and probably not-showered graduate student.
praised be Charlie’s Ghost🙌
Charles Darwin has yet to be proven correct there is no evidence to prove all animals stemmed from a common ancestor or that any are related
Religious apologist: People who claim they have no experiences of gods are liars
Atheist: I'm afraid that would make you the liar
Mark Schultz You just won the internet with that comment
Religious apologist: Hold my mirror
bahaha, i love it!
Unlike Jesus, ACX has returned!
Time flies. Part 1 of this series was from 7 years ago
Jesus is just social distancing. He's very good at it. Most people complain after two months but he's been doing it for 2,000 years. More Christians should follow his example.
Anticitizenx has decided to bless us with another video.
Hooray there must be a god then
@@pauljimerson8218 I was being ironic. And I suspect you are too, but Poe's law demands that I check.
Hallelujah 🙏🏾😂
praised be Thor 🙌🌩
When I was a young Christian, several of my atheist friends used to posit gotcha one liners they thought would shake me out of my faith. Later, after I became an atheist I remember one of them said something I still think about to this day.
He said: “you believe because you’re afraid not to.”
There’s a fair amount of truth behind it.
Me and Matt Dillahunty actully just did a debate with two apologists who use this argument, the personal experince argument, as their primary evidence.
if it's on RUclips, would you mind providing a link to the debate?
@@charkopolis It's on his channel
@DankBurrito You are my savior.
@DankBurrito How do you know the experience you had was because of the Holy Spirit??
Seriously, did you watch the video or you just came here to the comment section, without watching it, just to preach?
A fussy feeling is not evidence of a God, people with very different religions can feel the same thing.
DankBurrito
Seek help.
The holy spirit has swayed many to believe in Christ. The congregations of thousands of churches swoon and sway with existential rapture when the holy spirit comes to them. The holy spirit has one rule, "I will instill wisdom and knowledge to all believers, but I will never expose Pastors who rape children."
I recall how Martin Luther's categorization of all those who disagreed with him: There were the ignorant, the stupid, and the evil.
Martin Luther was literally one of the worst human beings ever to live. Few people have ever had the negative impact on rationality that he did.
It seems rather unwise for an all-knowing, all-powerful being to utilize such an unreliable method of communication to convey a message that critically impacts the eternal welfare of the recipients. Furthermore, this method of communication discourages the critical thinking skills needed to stave off those that would intentionally take advantage of other's emotional state of being.
This concept was the final straw that broke my faith in the Mormon church.
Thank you AntiCitizenX for articulating so well the absurdity of the concept of receiving a witness of the Holy Spirit.
When I look out into the world with all the horrendous suffering, I have a “properly basic belief” that God does not exist.
That could be a mistake on your part. All that horrendous suffering could mean a malevolent or indifferent god exists.
Or he couldn't care less about our existence.
@@suezuccati304 That's why I said indifferent.
That ending just murdered religion. I'm impressed.
Pretty ironic really,
Religion: "I'm right, you're wrong, you're stupid, you're evil."
AntiCitizenX: "I'm right (that religion has a mistaken method of observation of the supernatural,) religion is wrong, religion is stupid, religion is evil"
You: -will (probably) create an argument in defense of AntiCitizenX "I'm (Izzet) Right, you're (The Great G-man the guy) wrong, you're stupid."
I remembered a out dated argument given when someone asks about how we know God exists. Some people say "do you see the wind?" And think that the fact the atmospheric air is invisible is a proof that God can exists because "they can feel him"
@@thegreatgmantheguy You are wrong, and you are stupid, because you totally didn't even watch the video.
@@thegreatgmantheguy
One is an unfalsifiable claim that will be believed no matter what, the other isn't.
And, you know, you will not be able to convince us that your comparison is correct, because most of us have experienced being wrong and correcting our beliefs, so we know that we aren't just pretending to be willing to follow the evidence.
You can only convince yourself that we are like you.
@@thegreatgmantheguy I think AnticitizenX defended himself admirably. Why can't God do the same, instead of relying on fallible human beings whose best arguments are defeated regularly and who can't come up with anything better, so just pretend that their arguments hadn't just been eviscerated and point to the shredded mess as if it were absolute proof of God?
'I'm right, you're wrong, I can't possibly be wrong and you all hold my position anyway' sounds Syes debate some years back :D
Was doing some homework for college and needed a debate topic for this semester. Wanted to refresh myself and clicked on a vid. I think I’ll do my debate on....debates. Conviction. Honest inquiry and the pursuit of truth vs the need to be right/inability to admit wrong. Thanks for the idea.
Impeccable execution and straight to the point; which is perfectly reminiscent of your earlier work. Yet again, brings out something completely new- could be because of the new characters and animation. All in all, great work.
...
Did he ever changed style ?
The only change I know is when he went from silent to speaking, but that’s about all :|
When apologists set up a Skype with my dead parents and grandparents, then we'll talk. They keep telling me that they are not really dead, but in some heavenly resort village, so a Skype call seems like child's play for a universe sorcerer. Just sayin'
I don’t think that’s possible since your grandparents are technologically inept and don’t know how to use Skype
Also they’re dead
I think this shaming of dibelief that christians practice are not directed more at atheists than they are directed at christians themselves. They are fearful of becoming disbelievers, and this fear blinds them to everything people has to say about their religion. To me, that's the main reason why they are so resistent to atheism. They act out of pure bigotry against them.
I once literally saw the face of Jesus while praying at a church retreat camp, even got light-headed and almost passed out immediately afterwords, had to sit down
Seems about as legit an experience one can get, yet I'm still an atheist
I used to be an evangelical christian. When I look back on it, the holy spirit was basically my conscience. So christians walk around listening to their conscience believing it's a direct message from god. That's why there's no point arguing with them because they think every "good" thought they have is literally divine inspiration.
Your videos were hugle influential in my deconversion. Im so happy to see you making new videos!
Some recently-graduated philosopher sent me a meme the other day:
"Who would win?
- Philosophers making sophisticated arguments in favor of the existence of God.
- A neckbeard typing 'sky fairy' in the comments."
I missed the opportunity of rewriting it as "sophistry-cated". Told her that arguments aren't evidence and she got super angry, blabbering something against my "holy science". Who gives philosophy degrees to people like that?
lol what on earth is a holy science
@@S.D.323 > A religious person projecting, and trying to drag me down to their level. "Yes my religion is holy but your science is too". Something like that.
This channel is amazing and has helped me become a confident atheist :D Thank you!
When I was a Muslim, I would pray or read qur’an and feel a calm, euphoric feeling in my heart. I was certain that this was Allah affirming to me that Islam is the one and only truth. However it really is just that, a feeling, and one that led me down into a very dark rabbit hole that made me into a downright evil person, all for the desire of eternal paradise
Sounds like you made it out eventually. Thank you for sharing.
Basically a mic drop at the end there. Incredible.
THE LONG-AWAITED RETURN
I’m an ex mormon. I had incredibly powerful manifestations of the spirit, but it’s nothing that cannot be explained naturalistically. For example, I had extremely similar experiences (but MORE powerful) using psychedelics. Nothing mystical, just the human brain.
Holy spirit literally translates to "sanctified breath of air." When I was going to church as a kid, a pastor explained it as the air within us contains your mindset. Like the old saying he had an air about him, or putting on airs. He translated it as sanctified mindset. As silly as that was, it made more sense than this apologist garbage. This was the last thing I learned in church.
I left by the end of year. Never went back. This was a great series I love a well thought out argument. Good job.
LOVE YOUR VIDEOS, Thanks, Always a pleasure and a great intellectual exercise.
"God is real because I experience the holy spirit and it tells me I'm right!"
Translatify: "I feel convinced god is real because I felt conviction god is real!"
Gee thanks, _Craig._
Thanks god and the Holy Spirit AntiCitizenX manage to re-remember the password of his channel
Good video
XD ;)
I am ecstatic to see another video from this channel. It is truly phenomenal content that you put out.
I’ve always found it funny how the holy trinity is the most blatant logical contradiction ever, and Christians just don’t care or even try to hide it lmao.
Or they come up with an array of different mental gymnastics that would make Olympic gold medalists jealous of their skills.
I'm happy you are back after several months without a single video. This one was mind blowing!
Greetings from Brazil!
oh I was randomly thinking about your channel (in particular I found myself randomly thinking "prepare to initiate theme music!" after watching someone play AI dungeons and make a story about star trek xD).
Well that's all. Imagine if I tried to deduce anything from this coincidence! that'd be ridiculous.
Oh my gooood i thought i would never witness a fresh video of yours! I'm so hyped
Really never thought about that bit about the wind. Makes a lot of sense.
There was a fad in sermons when I was a Christian talking about how "Yahweh" or "YHWH" (one of the names the Jews used for God) was basically the noise people make when breathing. This would then twist the meaning of "do not use the Lord's name in vain" into something like "don't miss use the life God gave you"
Kinda creepy looking back on it
I forgot this channel existed! Totally gonna be rewatching some videos here soon
23:39 The current Danish word for spirit is "Ånd" (Pronounced: [ˈʌnˀ]), so the word hasn't changed much in 1000 years or so. As always, an amazing video, AntiCitizenX. Insta-liked :)
And of course we see this in Swedish to where Ande is the word. And Andedräkt means breath. Dräkt means clothing (or more often costume in most modern day contexts)
@@Cythil Aye, and "Ånde" or "Åndedræt" meaning breath in Danish.
It’s crazy ubiquities, which just makes the argument even more potent. In Russian it’s true as well btw
To breath = дышать
Soul = душа, or a spirit/ghost = дух
Fascinating!
in French *ame*
Was just binging the series; didn't know that it was still in the works ❤️
Thanks for your video's.
I only came across them yesterday.
Especially your work on scientifically proving that it is possible for a group of individuals with human brains to evolve between them a set of fully functional religions. No godly intervention required. Thanks for the effort to put this so well together.
I find Atheism a very peaceful point of view.
Patience in the progress of science.
Honesty in admitting you don't know.
Yipeeeee.
A new video from AntiCitizenX. 😉👌🏼
4:44 "I don't know of an argument for Christian belief that seems very likely to convince one who doesn't already accept its conclusion."
So your arguments are only likely to convince those who don't even need the arguments to begin with. Awesome!
Not at all , his arguments bring many out of the delusion of religion (myself included) . Disregarding reason or lack there of keeps one in religion , reasoning and acknowledging reality (awful as it may seem to be) can "free" to better face life (as best as one can individually)
I was just watching the other parts of the series and you come out with this one just 12 hours ago! God must be leading me towards watching this video.
It's the *Holy Dopamine Ghost* working in you.
I once heard a different RUclipsr refer to AntiCitizen X as “deicide”, and he was SO right.
???
Leo F
Deus = god or gods.
Cide = death or kill.
Deicide = the god killer.
Saw your upload just now, didn't even watch the video yet but seeing another upload of yours made me feel much better. You're one of my favourite channels, I admire and respect your work a lot. Thank you for uploading content.
please dont let us wait another two years for the next part
Get back to me when God shows up on 700 Club, for now I'll continue to praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster for she is really quite Noodly.
I really missed your work. Thank you for coming back.
My theory is that God/ the supernatural exist, but the reason why it's inconsistent and unprovable, is that they are just fucking with us, cause it's funny for em. Would still be nicer than actual gods/ religions
>By their own admission, most apologists aren't convinced by their arguments
I think there's a charitable reading of the situation: there are situations where you think you are right (when you in fact are) but can't accurately articulate the reasons as to why or disprove the evidence contrary to your claim. Consider the heliocentric model: For the longest time (until Kepler) the best geocentric models provided a better fit to the observations. Some proponents of heliocentrism didn't act on purely philosophical grounds and had arguments to back them up, such as Aristarchus of Samos using geometry to calculate the Sun is larger than Earth and reasoning larger objects ought to have more attractive force (which was a sound idea, but not empirically demonstrated), or they didn't feel right about epicycles upon epicycles. Nowadays we know heliocentrists were right and the kind of reservations they would have had regarding geocentric models have been formalized to rules of inference such as Occam's razor/Solomonoff's induction , but back then they had neither the evidence nor formalized epistemology backing them up, just a persistent idea they are right and the opposition's arguments must be flawed in some way they can't quite put their finger on.
Of course, that obviously doesn't mean every idea someone believes with subjective (near-)certainty is in fact true. However, I believe this phenomenon provides the framework from which you should look at people's religious experience and provides a counterexample to the idea you must always reject your beliefs when they seem to be in contradiction with the evidence and rational arguments. Let's think about what's happening here.
Modern epistemology/probability theory didn't exist in the antiquity, but while flawed in well-documented ways, humans can use probabilistic reasoning intuitively and usually it works really well. Ancients arguing against geocentrism assigned to it a low prior probability (due to intuitive understanding of Occam's razor), low enough that the available evidence wasn't enough to update their model away from heliocentrism despite observations supporting geocentrism. Despite informality, this exactly how probabilistic reasoning is supposed to go. Now, what is the prior religious people have? I can't speak from religious experience but it seems to me it's cogito ergo sum: Intuitively, the existence of your own self and thoughts is as close to certainty as can be, so it's natural to assign a probability of near-1 (or even 1, due to "otherwise you might as well not bother" line of logic). However, it has been suggested by Julian Jaynes a sense of self and "your" thoughts is cultural, going as far as arguing people prior to bronze age collapse didn't have consciousness (by which he probably means theory of mind, a term that was coined later). What we now view us "our" thoughts and "our" mind, according to him, wasn't always perceived as such, referring to lines of evidence such as pre-classical literature that at no point refer to any conception of state of mind, but regularly refer to things like gods literally talking to people, supposedly analogous to other phenomenon like children's imaginary friends before they learn the culture-dependent interpretation that thoughts in your head are your own and not other people. Now, I don't buy this theory hook line and sinker, but I think it might have gotten some things right. For example, when religious people claim to feel the presence of the Holy Spirit, I find it plausible they are referring to a part of their mind, which they experience as unshakably real as Descartes experienced his, even while doubting all sensory perception. If this, or something similar to this, is what's actually happening, "squishy subjective sensation" AntiCitizenX is referring to is selling the verisimilitude of the experience a bit short.
Of course, if you are reasoning correctly, for every statement P there should be a finite amount of evidence sufficient for you to change your belief to ¬P. Like the video points out, science shows us that our minds are not just fallible but systematically deceive us in regards to a lot of other questions, so this burden of proof shouldn't even be particularly difficult to meet. Hell, many ideas that would have been considered a priori certain by many (such as existence of "space" which contains all other existence and "time" that moves from past to future, while quantum gravity would have it that both are contained within single concept of quantum fields, along with everything else that is) might be wrong - a lesson against considering any matter definitely settled. If you are reasoning correctly, you should accept the evidence and conclude even your most fundamental beliefs might have been mistaken. But while (at least some of) the apologetics might be deliberately lying or making really simple mistakes such as interpreting regular auditory hallucinations as the voice of god or something, there's a category of alternatives where their mistakes are a bit more understandable: there's an understandably (if incorrectly) really strong prior which screws up the results of otherwise entirely justified probability calculations in regards to when you should ignore the seemingly contradictory evidence.
"This phenomenon provides the framework from which you should look at people's religious experience and provides a counterexample to the idea you must always reject your beliefs when they seem to be in contradiction with the evidence and rational arguments."
Holding a belief without strong support from evidence is still wrong even if the belief happens to be true. What's the point in believing that the earth moves around the sun if we must take it on faith? All that we prove by believing such is our own gullibility.
"When religious people claim to feel the presence of the Holy Spirit, I find it plausible they are referring to a part of their mind, which they experience as unshakably real as Descartes experienced his, even while doubting all sensory perception."
Those who talk about the Holy Spirit with sincerity are surely referring to some sort of experience, but this experience must either be a part of their own minds or else it must come from outside their minds. If it's a part of their own minds, then it's not a real Holy Spirit. If it comes from outside of their minds, then it's a part of their sensory perception and is therefore among the things to be doubted.
"Many ideas that would have been considered a priori certain by many...might be wrong - a lesson against considering any matter definitely settled."
An idea should not be considered _a priori_ certain unless it is proven that it cannot be wrong. Some people may have made mistakes about what is a priori certain in the past, but that doesn't justify us in ignoring the proof that we have for the things that we believe. For example, consider the Pythagorean theorem that tells us the relationship between the lengths of sides of a right triangle. This can be proven a priori, and that proof gives us cause to accept this matter as definitely settled. No matter what we may ever discover about the world, a right triangle will always obey the theorem.
It ain't just Christians that do this either every religion and even many political ideologies use this logic in defense of thier beliefs.
Me: "Christianity, are you a free gift"
Christianity: "Yes, I am free"
Me: What will it cost?
Christianity: Blind Belief, and you're eternal sacrifice of everything and eternal worship of God.
But politics doesn't have the same powers as religion once you can't use metaphysical explanations
@@diegorodrigues9528 Tell that to people who claim there is no biological sex and men can decide to be women on a per-day basis.
@@Sebastian-hg3xc nobody says there is no biological sex, stop using that strawman.
@@Sebastian-hg3xc At least that's mostly harmless now compare that to far right groups that use this logic to justify demonizing and dehumanizing entire groups of people and races so they can commit atrocities against them without harm to thier conscious.
Or far left groups who think state sponsored communism will work despite always leading to bread lines and needing death squads to maintain. Unfortunately people aren't logical creatures and as a result beliefs, feelings and ideologies control people's psychology and cause endless grief for the human race.
I'm glad you are still adding content to this series. Good work so far.
Hindu apologists are taught to defend Hinduism by saying, "I know Hinduism is right." and nothing more. How can both Christian and Hindu apologists be right about the testimony of their respective, mutually exclusive religions?
I've been looking for Hindu apologists out of curiosity and haven't had much luck.
AntiCitizenX I binge watched all 11 of these, I have always been atheist and often debate/argue with believers, congrats on a well explained, thoughtful and entertaining addition to my library and I added at least one thing per video to my argument arsenal, thank you. I will work my way through the rest Mac
Thank you!
This is a brilliant, well-organized overview of most apologetics I've encountered.
Oh, great, now you have to do episode 12 as well. Otherwise episode 11 will be considered filler or OVA.
That sir, was amazing! The first video I've seen of yours, and you've got a new subscriber! Now I'm gonna check out your other videos!
Despite how bad the rest of it is, the bit about how anyone who failed to reach your conclusion can be dismissed as evil or stupid is the worst. A lot of the bite is taken out with the whole "everyone is evil and stupid because of the fall" bit, but that's only about the influence they can exert on others in the sense of religious authority. The effect it has on those that believe it can ruin relationships effortlessly, nobody wants to help someone only to be looked at with contempt or pity.
But warm fuzzy experiences are so sweet and tasty - Homer Simpson
Please update the playlists . I like to listen to them while I sleep.
In Russian, the words for "spirit" and "soul" (дух and душа, respectively) are also derived from the word for "breath" (дышать/дыхание).
I didn't know that. Thanks!
I'm struggling to understand the first pa... oh, I think I got it. "You study your bible" made no sense to me because as we all well know the only kind of christian who studies their bible is the _former_ kind. You mean "You """""study""""" your bible" the way most believers do; turning the pages slowly while staring lovingly at the ceiling and quietly chanting "Aaaah luuuuv Djeeeeezaaaas! Aaaaah luuuuuv GAAAAWWAWWDUHDUHDUH!!!!" while never glancing at the actual bible itself. Like they do in Bible Study(tm). Carefully pre-selected feel-good passages pruned of any context that might be "challenging to someone's faith" or spark some believer's crippled brain into having its first thought in decades. You really made me work to understand that one, pal.
Fun fact: The reason why we hold our hand before the mouth comes from the middle age,
because it was believed that if you yawn to hard your soul might leave your body through your wide open mouth.
Fits to the translatin comparision at the end of the video.
Side note: My father often talked with their priest in school, back in the days, who was holding the religion class.
My father told me that the priests last argument mostly was: "You have to believe me this now.", leaving my fathers questions unanswered.
Very convincing...
Very much underrated content, you deserve way more views.
Even though I am not an English speaker, I strive to understand all your videos.
I had true Christian faith. But then I learned about evolution.
Fucking finally. Kept us waiting, huh?
Hm, just discovered your channel and it reminded me so much of theramintree. Kudos btw, great material. Consider yourself subbed
Missed you man
Very long time
❤️❤️
That's awesome! Because I never had "the inner witness of the Holy Spirit", I begged, pleaded, but God never "spoke" to me. therefore I gave up Christianity. Lovely.
Craig: Casper told me so
WWF fans: CAUSE STONE COLD SAID SO!!!!
Holy sh*t, I've been rewatching your videos this week and now you come back!? I have some special power because the same thing happened with another channel the previous week, call it omniscience
I read it as "The holy SHIT" at first.
At 9:00, you do a great job of enumerating the many ways in which the Holy Spirit allegedly interacts with and communicates.
I'd like to add that he seemingly does this in ALL Christian denominations. Don't let that escape your attention. All the denoms think THEY are the only correct ones. Yet the Holy Spirit seems to endorse each and every one. This only sews confusion, despite scripture saying God does not do. ;-)
Edit: Ah, you touch on this later on.
He lives
He is risen.
It was the yeast that did it.
Came back to this after some time
Hope you enjoyed it!
Yay I thought you were done after part 10. I’m glad to see more
The self-authenticating witness of the Great Pumpkin tells me that the Holy Ghost is a poser. Or maybe it was hoser; sometimes the GP mumbles.
Wonderful video. And the point about the original meaning of Spirit is certainly very revealing. Although of course Hegel's 'Phenomenology of Spirit' is not all hot air!!
Love the reasoning❤
Yes Yes Yes. Another video!
Whoa, that hot air ending was a big brain move!
I'm happy you're back :)
Yay! You're still alive!
I like how this has become even more relevant
But it’s always been relevant, as the WLC clip from before shows. If evidence doesn’t matter then this is meaningless
Excellent video! The Holy Spirit truly is what convinced most lay Christians and ultimately drives their faith rather than rhetorical arguments, at least to my experience. I was raised a Pentacostal, a denomination where spiritual devotion is heavily entangled with emotions and identity, and just the thought that it might not be true can make people feel distressed and even personally attacked. And perhaps understandably so, it really takes time and consideration to leave, it's hard when you’ve been ensured it from early childhood, by people you, at the time, thought knew everything about the world, I can say that for myself. I never experienced anything that I identified as the Holy Spirit though, and it was quite scary to see people react so violently allegedly moved by it. I'm still quite curious as to what underlying psychological phenomena conspires to elicit this effect, perhaps a topic for a later video ;)
Oh shit, he's still alive
Excited you're creating content again!!
Yesssss!!! A new AntiCitizenX video!
Now that's how you finish a video! Bravo!
For some reason I was expecting some jokey legalese about believing in god in the contract at 7:33.
I wasn't actually expecting it to be the original Nicene Creed from 325 but that it is. Or rather, it's almost the creed.
I assume it was copied from Wikipedia where some lines have brackets around them and you (or whatever source you used) removed those parts while editing the text. However the bracketed parts are actually part of the original creed and Wikipedia is just using brackets to mark sections that were removed or moved around in later versions while other stuff was added.
The full creed in English (translation by Philip Schaff 1877):
"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. [But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'- they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]"
i was wondering if this series would make a return
Holy shit. Gotta drop everything. It’s a new AntiCitizenX
i bet if Ham could no longer rake in that christian money he would change his mind.
Welcome back. It had been a while since you posted a video on this topic.
I'm I the only who really wants to see Anticitizenx do serie on formal logic and epistemology 😅
As an exjw I’m so glad you included Jehovahs witnesses! Thank you so much and if you wanna know anything just ask!
Has anyone every asked William Lane Craig how he feels about God withering his hands?