The Question that Stops Christians in Their Tracks (Greg Koukl Response)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason explains how to rephrase the question that stops Christians in their tracks... in order to trick his interlocutor into the Kingdom, presumably. And Paulogia explains how to avoid the traps the Koukl and his disciples are trying to lay in plain sight.
The Question that Stops Christians in Their Tracks
• The Question that Stop...
Thanks to Shannon Q... / @shannonq
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/p...
teespring.com/...
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzs...
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
"How to Use Tactical Dishonesty to Prove How Honest You Are." 🙂
Aka- tricking people into Christianity
Yes Phil and all whilst avoiding the answer you don't want to give as it will make you and your religion look abhorrent!
Especally dishonest to himself. Maybe he doesn't want to convince anyone else in the first place or distract them from an asshole truth, but rather himself?
😂😂😂 - 💯
@Shelby Larouche ?
Classic Christian.
"If I'd told the truth, people would have got the wrong impression".
So bearing false witness is the "tactic".
That's not what he said.
@@skwills1629 What did he say then?
@@skwills1629 He may as well have said that. It was certainly the meaning and intent behind the words.
@@therawkhawk64 - No, it wasn't. I actually Listend to what he said. Its the Meaning and Intent You and other Atheists Like You want him to have. It confirms your Bias we're supposed to Think You don't have. You want to see Christians as Dishonest so You twist it. But all He's saying is, sometimes People ask questions with the intent of making You look bad. He is not saying to Lie for Jesus, or that Honesty is the wrong approach, He's saying that You should be Careful because giving a Plain Answer to a Trap Question can Lead to People distorting what You said to make You sound like a Bad Person.
In a perverse wy, You've all Proven him Right as well since that's exactly what You're doing here. You are twisting what He said in order to make Him out to be a Bad Person.
Yuthen use this to bash all Christians.
@@skwills1629 Are you really sure? If he's worried about "giving the wrong impression" by giving the "correct answer" to the question, then what does that say to you? Especially when he then says "Here's how to avoid giving that answer by asking ambiguous questions with unclear terms that will trick you into saying what I want you to say." There's a problem here, and I don't think it's the viewpoint of the atheist that is the issue. I listen to his words and examine the meaning (as Paul demonstrates in the video), and something definitely doesn't add up. This isn't a "bias", nor is it to "make him look bad". It's just looking at the meaning of the words and the intent behind them. If an atheist did the same thing, I'd call them out too. It's not about making the other side look bad, it's about having an intellectually honest discussion. What meaning I "want" there to be doesn't matter. What matters is the meaning and intent behind the words, and I sense intellectually dishonest and disingenuous intent to dodge a question that should be a simple "yes" or "no" answer.
Both sides of this discussion through the ages are guilty of "twisting words". Some atheists I know twist the words of Christians, and Christians I know twist the words of atheists. It's up to everyone to keep everyone else honest, otherwise the discourse falls to petty bickering and name-calling instead of an honest discussion where both sides present arguments based on evidence, which both sides discuss said evidence.
The answer to the Colombo tactic is to tell them: "Stop dodging the question, I'm not going to let you change the subject, answer me." I run into this on a regular basis. They think I'm mean.
Yup I get this all the time...
I usually say "You are just changing the subject because you can't answer it to any satisfactory way...that's OK, if you need to do that we'll do that" it means you are highlighting that your arguments won the previous point unless they want to stop changing course and go back on track... In which case, they can't avoid the reasoning. Sucks that people are often automatically disengenous enough to favor ignorance, but C'est la vie. "Let's move on to a new strand because your argument lost in that previous strand" often comes of as less "mean" than nagging then into staying on a topic that is hurting their heads with cognitive dissonance. Remember to jot down the points moved away from because ignorance and forgetting are a coping mechanism to keep our previous biases.
We call it the Socratic method, but, well.
@@emmanuelpiscicelli6232 - Its not The Socratic Method though. It is simply being Belligerent. The Socratic Method has at its core the intent of finding a Truth. You and Your Fellows have as the objective to tear down and discredit Christianity regardless of Truth.
If You say "Stop dodging the Question, I;m not going o let You change the subject, Answer Me":, You will be confirming that You are only concerned Attacking Him, and His Beliefs, and that You simply wish to find an excuse to use to Claim He is Evil.
He did not Dodge the Question. Nor is He changing the Subject. Its not like Someone Asked Him Why We need Jesus to be Saved and if We go to Hell if not Christian only for Him to talk about the Moon Landing.
You did not, of course, listen to what Koulk actually said. You didn't even pay attention completely to Pastor Paulogia of The Atheist Religion You follow.
(And yes I Know, Atheism is not a Religion yadayadayada...I didn't say it was, but You have made a Religion out of being an Atheist.)
Koulk said You do not give a direct Answer, but instead ask them a series of Questions which is then used to gain their admission of how they agree on the acceptance of certain premises, then to have them Draw the Logical Inference from those Premises.
He is still discussing the Need of Jesus in Salvation from a Christian Perspective. He is simply allowing the Petitioner to arrive at the COnclusion and hopefully gain an appriciation of why it is so, instead of giving a direct Answer which will be Twisted to beat Him over the Head with.
Saying He is Changing the SUbject may fit the Image of how He is DIshonest and is advising other Christians to be Dishonest, but in turn, it is a DIshonest way to depict what He is saying.
If you ask someone a question, and they counter with "let me ask you a question" they're trying to manipulate you, every time. Don't fall for it! Stick with YOUR question, not their question.
When I was a Christian there were a lot of questions I never got satisfactory answers to. This was one of them. Eternal punishment was another. I went through a short period of atheism before finding a different set of ideas about God that answered most of my questions to a more satisfying degree. I’m still exploring those and other ideas about God.
Btw, I found your channel through interviews you did with Bart Ehrman. Even though I left Christianity I’ve had an interest in the history of the Bible and find his books fascinating and informative.
Thank you!
You never was a Christian but hypocrite.
I love how he repeatedly mentions Deepak belligerence as a central point throughout the video and it isn't even true
Yeah. It's really quite fascinating that he's so set on making Deepak look bad, all for the supposed sin of phrasing his question in a way designed to make Greg look bad.
This is the sort of hypocrisy that we are all susceptible to, I know I'm often less charitable than I should be, but it's striking hearing it from someone who is clearly so focused on argumentation and rhetoric.
Greg is a liar. That's what he does.
They tend to be quite sensitive about getting asked the difficult questions, of course they blame the questioner.
Oh yeah it's Paulogia time.
Cas Geven The best time of the day.
Your response was more thoughtful, nuanced, and logical than the question itself, and certainly more so than what it was intended to provoke.
Koukl's answer: evade, dodge, attack & hope they don't notice you evaded, dodged & attacked.
Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge.
Apologists always approach these discussions as if they were a verbal boxing match.
I am always amazed when apologists proudly explain the tactics they use to sell their lies. They are shameless!
this channel is a blessing hehe
So if he told the truth it would hurt his cause ... lol 😂
Alternative facts....😈
If failing to answer a question as it would give 'the wrong impression' appears to be close to lying. There I was thinking a Christian would be a truthful person and yet he is more a salesman than an apologist. He would do well selling second hand cars. Stuff like this ought not to be used.
As a point of completeness. I would love to know how he can show that his god, heaven, hell and so on exists since without those things there is no point to the question or any deceiving answers.
He did Answer the Question. Stop Pretending Paulogia was Honest about what he claimed Kaolk said.
I just found you channel and I think these segments are great.
Yeah I really enjoy Paulogia’s approach to counter-apologetics. He presents rational analysis and points out contradictions. He’s also consistent with digging up and checking sources. All the while he avoids assuming motivations and using ad-homins.
"The selfish desires to escape consequences". That's Christianity in a nutshell. With a philosophy like that, people don't really change, rather they excuse themselves from the harm they've caused others. I've seen it in some of my very violent family members who do great harm to others, then run down to an altar call, and get forgiven, yet the violence remains within them, waiting for an opportune time to hurt someone.
Interpretation: I sidestepped the question but you should answer it. (If he hears what he wants, so can I...) To me, the problem is when they can't accept others thinking different than them. If they keep being stubborn they also get more pushback. Why can't they see the connection?
"Christ and Christianity and other important stuff..."
Is christianity really "important" in this day and age? I mean, I find it interesting, I've got Eusebius and Origen queued up in my reading list, but it's a hobby of mine, I wouldn't call it important.
I guess the American conservative Christians have grown up in such a bubble where the faith is all-pervasive that they actually think it matters.
Just like the topics of this video, what is important differs depending on the individual. There are those who have built their identity on the cornerstones of religion, and to those people it is of the utmost importance. If I were certain about the nature of the universe and my ability to exist as an immortal spirit in the glory of heaven I probably wouldn't want to wasting my life, and that there is likely nothing after.
I feel so sorry for these people, they mentally trap themselves and to delay the anguish they try to ensnare others.
Many think its the only thing that matters or at the very least that its mattering is what makes anything else matter and without faith and belief all would be pointless. This leads to people giving up their kids for the sake of a deity that doesnt even exist. Its horribly sad.
@@lauda6945 Yes. That's exactly what I find so deplorable about the theist mindset. Not only do they sacrifice themselves into slavery under their god but, they are willing to sacrifice their children, as well. I couldn't agree more ... horribly sad, indeed.
I agree with you all. Seems to me that the theist, certainly the conservative Christian, has convinced themselves that their own sense of morality or purpose, for example, stem from their God. So the idea of not having that God is terrifying to them, and they can't comprehend how these things stem from purely neurological sources.
I think of this in the case of missionaries, for example. If people never heard about Jesus, they would probably go to heaven because each person is judged according to the light they received (according to most christian denominations). So why preach the gospel at all? The only good reason to do it would be if christianity had some measurable benefit to the population or the individual that justified the risk of actually lowering that population's chances of going to heaven (even then, trading earthly benefits for eternal gains wouldn't be so nice). But christians can't show this benefit. The benefits they attribute to the religion are actually the result of modernity and science. So when I asked "why preach the gospel?" to my brother (who's a missionary) he didn't have an answer. Only that "these people need to know Jesus". Why exactly? No one knows.
The thing that makes him most uncomfortable with the negative stereotype, is its veracity.
If you are uncomfortable with how the truth sounds - just rephrase it in a way it will sound less disturbing!
Great tactics!
I’m so glad to see christians actually acknowledge (at least to themselves) they are uncomfortable with their doctrines...
Excellent video showcasing why missionaries shouldn't resort to these kinds of word games. As a student in college I was often engaged in conversations as a part of outreach efforts, and I usually ended up having candid conversations about the kinds of things that you described, such as "what is good and what is evil?" And, "what exactly is sin and how could I be guilty if I don't even believe in God?" In my opinion, it is better to make sure that people know the truth, insofar as I know it to be true, so that they might have a fair chance of considering it themselves, rather than risking the very real possibility that they will walk away from the conversation with an entirely different idea of what exactly had been established.
Also, you gave a succinct and apt description of why substitutionary atonement is bunkum. It is, in fact, a fabrication made in an attempt to escape the penalty of sin due to selfish motivation on the part of the Protestant reformers.
Anyway, I hope that you haven't hardened your heart completely towards God, and that you apply the same sharp wit to your own beliefs as you do to others. Peace!
Chopra was just asking a basic question about something that a lot of Christian’s actually believe. If that sounds harsh, it’s because the belief itself is harsh and honestly evil. On some level I think some of these people know Christian exclusivity is unjustifiable.
He lost the minute he started talking and explaining why his question was correct and Choppra's question was wrong. It says in the Bible 'no one goes to the father except through me', sounds pretty straightforward to me! Believe, heaven, don't believe, hell/eternal damnation/torment.
@RDE Lutherie I have to look up that debate between Greg and Deepak. Tactical Woo vs. Quantum Woo. Now that's gotta be entertaining!
@RDE Lutherie Thanx much for the link. And, as an added bonus, Lee Strobel as moderator! This is gonna be good. One hypocrite debating another hypocrite moderated by yet another hypocrite. I've only seen a few minutes of it (to check the link) and already there are leading questions, word salad and twisted logic. Everything one could hope for from a spiritual threesome (Christian journalist; doctor of ayurvedic woo; and god's masterdebator). Again, thank you for going thru the trouble to dig this up.
@RDE Lutherie Yeah, I saw it. That was so funny. Two of the most dishonest people on the planet, tearing each other a new asshole. Deepak, as usual, tries to use his flowery language to confuse his opponent (unless his opponent actually knows what he's talking about). And then Greg climbing out his ass trying pre-emplively to defend against what he thinks is coming next. It's just so pathetic, it's funny. I have to say, as much as I dislike Deepak for his Ayurvedic alternative medical practice, he can twist an incompetent opponent into mental knots. Greggie-poo never had a chance. 😀
🤦 Given that "bad things should be punished" is a shared value, the answer to the judge's offer of a pardon is, "No, I must be punished."
And I can't be expected to accept the judge's substitution without first being asked, "Should someone else be punished for your bad things?" Now, why wasn't that part of his Columbo questioning??
It's always a good idea to instead of answering "leading questions" or "questions with assumptions in them", to discuss the assumptions and details first before moving on.
In the example of
_"have you ever looked at a woman with lust?"_
followed up by
_"Does it concern you that if you died today and gopd gave you justice that all those secrets sins came out in the s3xu4l imaginations, there's evidence of your guilt you'd end up in hell?"_
There's a lot to unpack there regarding details and assumptions. First the reporter has to prove every claim and assumption made before the question can be called valid. And that's where one can start breaking down the guildtrip he's trying to bring over the two individuals being interviewed. That shifts the focus entirely on the claims made by the reporter who now has to defend themself instead of the other way around which was his intent.
Prove "sin".
Prove that "lust" is a "sin" or abnormal or bad even.
Is it even logical to consider it bad, considering this and that about this "god". Would that not be cruel?
And the easiest response is ofc: Prove that the claims you make about this "god" are true IF you can prove this god is real in the first place.
The level of dishonesty of the statements of apologists in trying to control your life, is sometimes mindbogling. *And do not be mistaken, ultimately it is about control, to make their ego feel better and less fearful!*
Never fall for a trap that makes you assume things that have no proof.
_Perhaps part of the reason why some people do may also have been influence by the way some political reporters formulate their questions for the sake of drama (viewers), which I totally detest._
Love the movie “Meet Joe Black”, maybe he should watch it himself, or would that be asking to much?
Yeah, I'm sure that attorney did not recognize a leading question, and answered simplistically (he said, sarcastically).
This guy is a slightly more polished version of Ray Comfort...
But as the saying goes: you can’t polish a turd.
Scott Seufert Hmmm... . Revision: You shouldn't polish a turd?
Don't insult Ray
Do modern Christian believe there are 10 Commandments or just 2 and 8 suggestions?
I don't see how good and bad are on a scale like that.
Without God, something might be good for you, but bad for someone else. It's individual specific.
But with God, He does everything for multiple good reasons. And it all leads to good things eternally.
I don't think the first question (if you do something bad, should you be punished?) is a tautology. Instead, it's a way to ask "do you have a theory of justice?" For the purposes of the question, it's not important whether it be a deterrent, retribution, or restoration - just that some consequence be authoritative, legitimate, or otherwise binding. If someone has no theory of justice than the concept of atonement would be nonsensical and a conversation about Christianity would be pointless.
The person asking "what about people of other faiths?" doesseem to have a theory of Justice, since they apparently find the fate of non-christians unjust. These tactics are trying to honor that person's sense of justice with a thought experiment that does not require a particular theory of justice.
I think the question "what about non-christians..." also assumes the existence of God and reality of sin for the sake of argument; if the underlying assumptions did not include sin or a judge, the answer is obvious - the same fate awaits Christians and non-christians after death: nothing. The question only makes sense within Christianity, thus why it's being asked of a Christian.
My favorite question is "Who told you the Bible is inerrant?" If it was God in a dream, or an angel coming down to give you a vision, fine. But if it was a human, are you really believing in the inerrancy of God? Or are you taking it completely on the errant word of a human being?
Deepak's question is one third of the problem of suffering.... If god in all. Knowing, all powerful & all loving, then he knowingly created the imperfect world and humans who will condemn all but 144K humans of 100 billion to eternal damnation... QED god is either uknowing, impotent or brutal.
The first step out the the sophomoric debating trap that Koukl is proposing when asked the question in response to a question, is to say, "Nothing that I can say will tell me what you believe."
You can cut the rhetorical questions off at the knees with "I asked you first. Answer my question, and then I will answer yours." The reflected question doesn't have to be analyzed if it is rejected.
If you ask the follow-up questions at 16:33, the conversation will be effectively infinite and the original question to the apologist will have been effectively dodged.
THANK YOU. Ugh. As a Christian, I can't stand the whole "Penal Substitution" theory of Atonement. It really makes no sense to look at sin/Christ's death in legal terms, or terms of "justice" needing to be fulfilled, other than perhaps as a metaphor (as is done in some passages of the Bible). But the Bible also makes OTHER analogies: it compares the Atonement to a ransom that needs to be paid to free captives, or to the far older animal sacrifice of kodesh. The point is, it never ACTUALLY says that the Atonement was exactly like Christ "taking our punishment for us," and, upon closer inspection, we find that such a view taken *literally* makes a MOCKERY of justice rather than fulfills it. I've been saying this for years, but other Christians tend to be very married to the current popular Penal Substitution model. I guess they've forgotten that there have been MANY competing views of how the Atonement works over the past two millennia, and all of them tend to have problems---which means that, if the Atonement was really even a real thing, that we don't actually know *how* it was supposed to work, and should be cautious about jumping to conclusions about "sin" and its consequences. I have my own theory that I think is very robust, but which breaks from ALL past "traditional" theories of Atonement quite dramatically, and which would invalidate basically everything the Christian gentleman in this video claimed.
Interesting, I don’t for one second accept that your god exists, but I’d be interested to hear your take on it.
An interesting theist 😄 whatever next!
If you have to buy/write a book specifically designed to argue the validity of your religion, there’s a problem with your religion.
The commercial following the story about unbelievers at 9:10 was for a fishing game. It was so perfectly placed in the narration as a "fishing story" that I watched nearly the whole thing before realizing it wasn't a super clever edit lol
Far as I understand it leading questions are typically only disallowed for friendly witnesses because leading a friendly witness can be used to obfuscate information a witness may otherwise freely give that could be of import to a case. Hostile witnesses can absolutely be led as the point is to get them to clarify and expose what they might otherwise want to hide, pretty sure a friendly witness can be asked a leading question for further clarification of a statement already in record as well, or converted to a hostile witness if it becomes clear they are dodging the questions posed them and not being forthcoming. It's about the information pertinent to the case after all.
Switching the burden of proof to the claim: "Salvation is only available thru christ"
My issue is when George said "moral crimes". Who's morals are we using to judge said crimes? To him, being gay is a moral crime. To me, it most certainly isn't. So before answering his 1st question, we must first get his guidelines for what HE considers a "moral crime".
This may be the only time when I'm on Deepak Chopra's side.
The problem i have with the argument is the following:
Punishment is administered to the offender as a method for him to learn what he did is wrong and change his behaviour in the future.
Payment doesn't really work there for me.
If the judge get's punished instead of the offender, the offender will learn that he doesn't get punished for his wrong doings and can continue as before.
If the offender ends up in hell, that doesn't really work either because he will repeat the wrong behavior many times until he gets punished for it, way down the line. And even then he has no chance to better himself after the punishment, which makes it pointless.
In this context capital “punishment“ has only one purpose: to remove an individual from the community because he can not be taught. The better way to do this is obviously to improve systems of punishment and rehabilitation.
My great-grandmother left her husband because he used to beat her and then confess to the catholic priest, who gave him his penance, so as far as he was concerned, God forgave him, until the next time. She switched from catholic to protestant. My parents were one catholic, one protestant - I'm neither.
What ever happened to being lead by, and allowing the Holy Spirit to do HIS job?
(Of course, this ignores an ACTUAL person asking Greg "So this means you are an idolator and agree you should be punished")
1) Has Greg done wrong things? Yes.
2) Have criminals done wrong things? Yes.
3) Should criminals become policemen? No.
Therefore Greg agrees he should never be a policeman.
Speaking for myself, I think a part of me WOULD like to see those who hurt me punished. That same part of me would like to
see those who helped me rewarded.
Assuming this could be applied in a non-biased way, how could it work? Do I get a -8 for cheating on my taxes and a +9
for heroically performing CPR on a child? Is my punishment/reward to be the summations of my moral debits and deficits?
I submit that this approach makes about as much sense as a court ruling that the original sale of the island of Manhattan to the Dutch is void because the native American party to the transaction did not actual own the island. Therefore, says the court, all subsequent claim need to be re-adjudicated. And then when the dust settles on this legal Armageddon, it gets labeled as "justice."
just a nit pick. 'leading' questions are allowed to be used in court in certain cases, for example, cross examining a witness.
You can see how Christians delight in their own sophistry more than truth.
The question should give no problem to anyone who gives a complete study of the Bible and what it really teaches. The answer is simply - "NO" (if you are referring Hell to be a place of torment). For no one goes to an eternal place of fiery torment. The dead can not be tormented - they feel no pain. “The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun.”-Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6 “[Man] goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts do perish.”-Psalm 146:4. Ezekiel 18:4 says: “The soul that is sinning-it itself will die.” “There is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in [the grave], the place to which you are going.”-Ecclesiastes 9:10. So I believe the answer is quite clear - No, they will not be tortured forever in Hell. Now as to the true meaning of the two words that are translated as "hell" and also what hope for those laying dead in the graves - that also is clearly explained in the Bible. I am not willing to argue with anyone (that gets neither side anywhere) but will answer sincere questions.
He reminds me of the Air Marshal in Anger Management. Adam Sandler was calm and the Air Marshal said “Sir, calm down”. And he said “I am calm”. This guy uses belligerent to describe the debate question even though the opponent was calm and collected. “He disagreed with me! He must be belligerent!!”
16:18 or... god could just choose to grant pardons to the law breakers. I’ve never understood how an omnipotent god does not have the power to exonerate without a scapegoat. Why is he forced to adhere to (often arbitrary) rules he himself presumably made in the first place.
Watched all of it
If he was so confident in his beliefs, why would he feel the need to beat around the bush, instead of being direct?
Instead he's playing word game tactics to get around answering directly.
That is dishonesty.
It's a "truth" that I rejected a while ago...and decided to continue rejecting the stupid shit I used to believe.
First of all I just wouldn't let them dodge the question. Tell me if I'm going to hell.
But even if I did let them dodge, when asked if I think 'moral crimes should be punished', _I'd_ ask if it's moral for me to be born guilty of an ancient 'crime'. And worse, punished forever for it.
There isn't a single theist argument which rests on reason. They ALL require their faith paradigm.
I find it amusing that folks of this mindset thinks their bullshyt is important.
No, I don't think punishment of ill deeds is a good itself.
Not all Christians will answer this question the same way.
With regards to the doctrine of salvation, Christians like CS Lewis and Karl Barth believe that we implicitly can know Christ and be saved. Even within the camp of Christians who think explicit knowledge is necessary to be saved, some believe in things like a last chance theory such that Christ reveals himself at the instantaneous moment of your death and you can choose to follow him.
With regards to the doctrine of Hell, Universalism, Conditionalism, and Traditionalism is a long-standing debate. Universalists believe that everyone will go to Heaven eventually. The conditionalists argue that the soul is only eternal for the saved. They'd argue that Hell is the place where your soul is destroyed, and the eternal punishment for your sin is you cease to exist--you become nothing and feel nothing. The traditionalists believe Hell is eternal conscious suffering. I personally think a conditionalist view on hell (aka conditional immortality or annihilationism) has the most exegetical evidence.
For anyone further interested in conditional immortality, Chris Date does solid job of providing exegetical support for this idea: ruclips.net/video/ogEoPr4Hupc/видео.html
A Christian probably shouldn't suggest punishment for moral crimes. As judgemental as most are it would not go well for them. Their God has a Blood Lust for transgressions.
Like most fundamentalist and evangelical Christian believers, faith in Jesus and salvation are the same and a binary necessity. Their idea of a merciful and gracious God is absolutely, yes or no. Liberal Christians thankfully believe in a merciful God who who takes in the whole humanity of the individual and not just the lip service of faith.
I can't imagine an attorney would use this tactic in any situation an expect it to land on any rational conclusion except I wanted you to say that.
There is a legitimate academic discipline called Rhetoric. It's a study of how to make clear and convincing arguments, not a study of how to conduct deception and manipulation.
But it's interesting to observe someone who doesn't see the need for such nice distinctions. Would he feel the same if he found himself on the receiving end of the same treatment?
And people like this man say that religion is the source of their morality. Well, thanks for the tip! It makes a lot of sense now, really it does.
The Joke is, Non e of You Atheists are Honest about what Greg Kaukl Said. For example, he did not say "Religion is the Source of My Morals". Thats How You Atheists talk, and its Not Honest., Neither is Saying Kaukl admit5ed an Honest Answer to a Sincere Question makes Christianity Look bad. You are Literally Lying about what Kaukl said, and You are being Deceptive and Manipulative.
Not all Christians as not all Hebrews Tribes (Black, Mexican, Haitians, Dominicans, Native Americans, & White Jews) would be saved. Evidence of God? As a kid, I use to pretend to be king of over business & one day I asked God if I could do it for real. Then some spirits surrounded me & I said: "okay" to whatever they asked or said to me.
Then as a preteen, God showed me a vision & I responded to what I saw with a question & asked God to protect me.
Then when I became a young adult in 1994 God responded to that question through a preacher with witnesses to his prophecy & months later He did what that preacher had said God would do. But I was still shot even though many of the holes didn't match the 1 bullet that went into me.
Then around the year 2000, God reminded me that when a job had fired me that I was free of a contract that they forced me to sign & I shut off my creativity because of it. But after God said: "You're Free of that Contract" & I sat up because I was laying down with the flu & said: "that's right, I am free of that contract" & God healed me of that flu.
Then around 2014-15, God had a comedian call me to tell me the same thing God told him & those words led to The2DMoney Clubs & now renamed The2DCents Clubs by TheDdreamsInc but the instructions to get on stage made me fear of being shot while I was on stage & so I created a vlog instead.
Then 20 years after the 1994 shooting in my home state but this time in another state, God held me to let a shooter shoot me but their bullets didn't make 1 hole this time & I have seen how God made them vanished.
So whether God is real or not is not a question debatable to me anymore. The evidence?
There is a hole mark on my backbone from the 1994 shooting & I have never have had a broken bone in my life so how can there be a hole mark on the bone & an actual object stuck under my right shoulder blade?
The 2017 Shooting? The shirt I wore has no holes in it & FOI of the crime scene photos & witnesses of the aftermath of the shooting. As of which I was going to do a gun powder residue test live online but now I don't care what happens to the world anymore.
I am tired & I find myself not caring anymore. I can't even understand why I have to struggle so hard for people who don't want it & so, I am floating or existing & not living. God sent you help but you all wouldn't help me & I am done with trying to do so & I am getting pissed at this racism in this nation too. Which causes me doubt in white Christians because of what I see with support of racism & not respecting my black life & so who may be going to hell? Don't know & I can say from what I found in the Bible, not everyone would.
Even though God wants me to continue & I do not want to disappoint Him with all He has done for me so far. Then again, I am losing hope in humanity & doing this mission anymore.
Good luck world. I hope that answered your questions.
"Do you think that people who do bad things should be punished?"
"Sure"
"Have you done any bad things?"
"No"
"Oh I see, so --- wait, what?"
Never agree with apologists when they try to make these dumb leading arguments. Even the first question ought to be challenged by asking for definitions of "bad things" and "punishment." But it would be sort a fun to force the definitions by agreeing to the first thing and then refusing to agree to the second.
But yeah, this conversation never happened. The recollection of an artificial dialogue with a pliable opponent is preacher 101.
Greg Koukl deserves some sort of award for managing to make Deepak Chopra look reasonable and intellectually honest in comparison
You do Know Pastor Paulogia of Your Ii Have no Religion Religion Lied about what Kaukl said, Right? Of course You do. But you prefer the Lie to The Truth.
@@skwills1629 it's impressive that your comment is so impossible to read even after editing.
@@deuslapis5247 - Why do Atheists need to Call People as Stupid or other names or Insult them instead of Actually Addressing what They say?
@@skwills1629 It wasn't meant as an insult. I had no clue where you were going with that. Its hard to respond to your arguments if I cant understand them.
@@deuslapis5247 - No, its meant to be an Insult. And I am Sick of it. Especially since its not Just Me. Your most Respecter "Not-Pastors" like Owen Morgan AKA Telltale Mocks People for the same General Reason. If You have an Accent he finds Funny he Ridicules You as Stupid and says he can't Understand You. One Typo and a Christian is an idiot.
Not to Mention all the Times You Lot call something a Christian says Word Salad.
It gets Old.
So if telling people what you actually believe “makes you look bad”, maybe the problem has nothing to do with the questions being asked. Maybe?
That's why they're called "apologists". SOMEBODY has to apologize for this nonsense.
I remember in high school, a classmate of mine committed suicide. Another classmate made a statement along the lines of "I hope God grants him mercy but he'll probably go to hell." My response was along the lines of "if that's what you believe, that God would condemn a 16 year old to hell for one action, then you can take your self-righteousness and your version of a loving God and shove it." The teacher, who was a the psych teacher, told my classmate that maybe she should keep her opinion on something no one can know for sure to herself since it wasn't helpful to those grieving.
Oh, you're definitely going straight to hell, pal...not for what you said, but because of your screen name. Might as well write "anti-christ"
david schneide LOL! :D
@@commonsense5494 Why does "God"need apologists anyhow? Why does he need imperfect middle men/women at all?
Wow, he basically admitted that his tactics are disingenuous.
Sounds like Islamic Taqiya
@fedos
Yeah he's lying in the name of God, so it's all good. :p
In what way?
not just disingenuous, actively dishonest
The sad thing is, he doesn’t realize it, because he’s so busy praising himself for his awesome tactics that are going to pull the wool over every gullible listener’s eyes .
“I’ll pardon you if you agree to believe I killed my son” -an insane judge
Best analogy ever
"my son who is also myself"
I committed suicide, because I require murder, and got tired of having you murder animals for me.
"that I didn't even kill permanently"
@@pandora8610 therefore suicide must be acceptable in christianity...
“Do you think homicide should be punished”
“Yeah, sure.”
“And have YOU ever done anything bad?”
“I’ve lied to my mom.”
Ah I see, we both deserve a life sentence.
And this is how children who had a fight with their sibling confess this terrible sin to the holy Catholic priests who molest children.
I'm pretty sure the way these creeps justify it is by saying "all sin is equal before God" and hey when we get to heaven God will heal all suffering so I guess it's ok to be a monster because everything is about the next life anyway. 🤮
(That argument about this life being meaningless and only the next life counting is what I hear from Christians all the time).
Death will take you away. God made a way to escape but you're too full of condemnation like Satan hating truth to hear.
What nonsense paganism drug your taking😅
@@Aliali-vc3pk You been hurt in life, so we all have. Jesus risen again to lift you up but the choice is yours to stay in a mud pen like a pig slinging dirt. Your dirty preaching is worthless slop to me.
@gemmeerobinson1803
More like the fragile human ego made up God as a means to attempt to escape death. You have no proof of a God or an afterlife, so what are you on about?
Double wow: "I would have answered correctly, but would have given the wrong impression.". Better to deceive them gently into the knowledge they'll burn for eternity.
It's all about putting notches on his belt.Bang bang!Pow pow!
Nailed it!
placebo and money in his pocket
deceive them into deception
And he still managed to leave a bad impression in the process anyway.
When Deepak, of all people, can be used against apologists... Christianity is in trouble.
I thought the same thing.
@S Gloobal actually it's dying xD people are leaving in waves
@S Gloobal The reason why there are SOOOO many christian sub-religions is because the bible ISN'T clear at all. You just said "christianity is growing" then went back on it when you were challenged about that claim, and at the end tried to claim something else in order to justify your error, like come on dude, you're are CLEARLY not in any position to make any claims.
@S Gloobal You wrote: "Christianity continues to grow" ─ Which Christianity? There is only one kind of Christianity that is growing in a few parts of the world, and that's the mega churches. Are you a member of a mega church? Are you supporting a pastor who uses his tax-exempted status to build a business empire? Are you being defrauded of your money to finance your pastor's gated villa? If so, keep on giving to the smiling pastor. Soon he will be able to afford his private jet!
There's actually another sect of Christianity that is growing, and that's Catholicism, simply because of the increase of population in the underdeveloped world ─ Mexico, the Philippines, much of sub-Saharan Africa, etc. etc. Almost everyone is taught his parents' religion at an age when critical thinking is not yet developed. That's why Christianity is growing.
Barney the Dinosaur could be used against the apologists who need to go salesman/politician to answer the question in the video being reviewed.
Look how pleased Greg is with himself about his deception of the gullible. mmkay
“... I have no intention of answering the question you asked.” Pretty standard apologist tactic.
Nick Nack 😂
Republican playbook
I find Atheist do it all the time especially when i ask this one question , how many blind chance chemical evolutionary (abiogenesis) changes are required to go from mud to life , and how many genetic changes (evolution) are required to go from first life to man in the 4 billion years since the process(es) began.
i either get ignored or abused for challenging them , for this question challenges their religious faith in blind chance flying spaghetti monster god of the gaps blind faith that does not exist.
also a related question how does natural selection work when at the beginning there was nothing to select from?
just because you think that the question you asked is a yes or no question doesn’t mean it is necessarily.
@@nolanpowers191 huh?? My question is not a yes or no answer! 😒🙄🤔
- The Question that Stops Christians in Their Tracks
- The Comments Disabled that Stops Questions in Their Tracks
This comment needs more likes 😄👍
The number of times I've been incandescent with rage at some horrific apologetics video only to hit the 'comments disabled' wall!
To be honest it's probably saved me from myself on occasion.
@@ChrisFineganTunes I feel you. Once upon a time RUclips had a video response system built in. The system was axed via blog post "So long, video responses..." Aug 27th 2013. Now days, apologists curate a walled garden, with comments off or if they're active channels, multiple pages of pin'd comments before the first negative response can be seen... betraying the lack of confidence that their flock's ability to interact with dissenting opinions.
I've been surprised by TikTok's inclusion of a response format. The app also provides greater opportunities for dissenting opinions on all sides, based on the user's individual preference for novelty, gauged by TikTok's machine learning algorithm.
Although a content creator can control comments (or turn them off), anyone can create a response video. Responses feel far less like screaming into the wind. They feel more likely to be bubble up in front of the eyeballs of individuals who might be having doubts and are receptive to new perspectives.
@@ChrisFineganTunes - Bing enraged is why they are disabled. You don't want to have a Reasonable dicussion. You want to feel Anger and Hatred then use that to justify Hatred of Christains. It makes You feel good to Hate.
SK Wills
I love having reasonable discussions. I made it clear that the videos in question were, in my opinion, 'horrific'. i.e. Not reasonable.
I think I made it clear in my comment that I don't consider my anger to be necessarily useful or fruitful.
And I don't think you can, in good faith, read my comment as evidence of a hatred of Christians.
Many Christian doctrines, however, are deeply hateful and destructive and I'll rail against them until the cows (or the sheep and the goats) come home.
At least I appreciate his honesty. He is, essentially, saying "don't bother trying to explain things rationally and with actual arguments, because you will just lose; instead, resort to these underhanded conversational tactics like dodging the question, reversing the burden of proof, turning the question back at the other person (rather than, you know, answering the question), moving goalposts, and so on." You know, because the important thing is not to give valid arguments, the important thing is to feel that you have won the argument, and everything is allowed in order to achieve that goal.
The christian theists have had thousands of years of practice at this style of engagement. Now, the western world is full of hardcore leftists (or rightist) idealogues that use these types of tactics. We all do this on a daily basis (some less than others). We are all influenced by the people and circumstances around us. Some people just get sick of being part of the lies being perpetuated and get sick of lying to themselves, and begin to try to find something that is actually true. I think whether they find some form of truth or not, they tend to stand out to those around them.
That is how Atheists like Pastor Paulogia of the Atheist Religion Argue. Ironically,l You have to Lie about what Kaullk said.
@@stevedriscoll2539 - If Yiu were sick of Lies You;d not be a Part of the Modern Atheist Movement.
@@skwills1629 That's the most amazing projection I have seen in quite a while.
His videos are _full_ of logical arguments. Can you point out where he's dodging questions, reversing the burden of proof, etc?
@@skwills1629 I am not an atheist by an stretch of anybody's definition...I have the courage to be forthright and say I believe in the God of Spinoza..nor am I allied in any way with atheists or any sort of movement
Basically Greg is saying here that "My actual belief system is so monstrously damning if you actually examine it I've come up with a work around so we can trick people into agreeing with us."
Has he ever considered that the reason he would have looked bad if he answered correctly was because his belief IS bad? Of course not. Amazing unawareness.
They don't get paid to be aware.
They get paid to not be aware
does misleading sophistry qualify as "giving false witness"?
Or would it have, when "giving false witness" was allegedly written on tablets (Leviticus or Exodus?)
Lol
You mistake it if you think his beliefs are bad is, to him, a thing he wishes was not true. He WANTS them to be bad, just in the way he believes them.
Nothing stops apologists. Whenever their "arguments" get debunked, they just straw-man the debunking. (Note the apologist trolls in the comments below if you don't believe me.)
So you say "the science says that earth is old"? I'm gonna tell my friends you think that adam and eve lived for 60 million years and laugh at your foolishness
--edit just in case--
Not being serious
I’ll be interested to see if any apologetics channels or Greg himself respond.
Quite possibly the strongest evidence that they are just desperately trying to keep a falsehood alive.
@@catelynh1020 Does the bible say anything about how much time elapsed between Creation and The Fall? Maybe God created the world 4 billion years ago, but Adam didn't eat fruit until about 10 000 years ago.
Maybe I shouldn't put these ideas out there, some Christian might take them seriously.
@@bskec2177 that would be a new interpretation of the bible, which is supposed to be their truth and self-evident. If they accepted that, then they'd have to accept that they don't understand their book, which would be a huge problem for the faith.
On the other hand, since god said be fruitful and multiply before they ate the apple, you'd think there'd be a lot more humans around and they'd be pissed AF that adam and eve got everyone kicked out of the garden. Damn, i really need my bible on hand. I had one at some point but lost it and never cared to look for it. I only ever used it to look up the weirdest things anyways
This would have been an easy escape even without help.
"Should bad things be punished?"
"Yes"
"Have you done bad things?"
"Yes"
"What will happen when you're called to account for those things?"
"Something far less than perpetual torture, i presume."
Repeating The Atheist Exp3irnce Infinite Punishments For Finite Crimes Garbage only Proves You are not Serious.
@@skwills1629 how so?
@@skwills1629 Proves? Explain how that "proves" anything.
@@colinriches1519 - You don't Think for Yourselves and don't Understand Christianity. You also Out No Effort into understanding Christianity, as The Reasons saying Things like Infinite Punishment for Finite Crimes is Misrepresentative of Christian Beliefs is not difficult to Discover for Free online. As much as You lot Lie about having studied Christianity, it is Obvious You simply Repeat the Garbage Anti-Christian Atheists said about it and don't Try to Understand Christianity. You don't even do basic Fact Checking.
Instead of Demanding an Explanation You Will ignore from me or Dismiss with the other Christians Disagree You don't Speak for All Christians 45 Million Denominations Routine, Try doing some Actual Fact Checking.
Skimming a Webpage to Find a Sentence to back up what You want to beleive is not Fact Checking.
Tbh serving a trite, jealous, murderous, simpleton being for eternity sounds just as bad lol. Being a slave for the rest of eternity sounds awful
The fact that a person has to jump through so many hoops and utilize so many manipulative tactics just to defend their faith suggests that it's probably not a faith worth having.
"it's very belligerent of you to point out I believe the vast majority of humanity is going to be subject to, and presumably deserving of, eternal torment."
How dare you get what we believe correctly!!!
Thereby proving my theory that fundamental religious folks are all sadists at heart.
Yes, especially the people who have never even heard of Jesus and thus are doomed to hell by no fault of their own without even having the opportunity to be saved.
Now, behold my righteous indignation as I use dishonest conversation tactics to weasle my way out of this!
Why do you believe you deserve eternal paradise for merely existing ?
How could anyone watch that video and not come away with the impression that he's being incredibly dishonest?
Because he's an authority figure people will think: "it sounds dishonest but he has studied this more than we have so he must be right."
@Marilyn Newman I would argue that he was being intellectually dishonest, so the actual fools are the one still following his words.
Those who are desperately holding on to their faith will buy into Greg's rhetoric, and ignore the irrational. Confirmation bias is strong with them.
you'd think so but the comments always say otherwise :P
That's the crazy thing for me & yet they can come on TV and parrot out that religion preaches morals while lying and cheating and promoting Nazi ideas of hate and division
And not one educated person in the media or philosopher calls them out!
Paulogia, you certainly have found a unique approach at dealing with creationists claims.
Every episode is unmissable.
His done his research. Go Paul Go!
Fact check: True
this is not a Creationist Claim. I Do not Know if the Bloke in the Video he responded o is a Creationist, but the subject had nothing to do with Creationism.
@@kevinconrad6156 - Paul said the Argument froM Embarrassment is only in Biblical Studies. He has not done his Research as that is simply not True.
@@skwills1629 he addressed that in his bury: the evidence video, and has amended the statement.
Should I be punished for doing “bad things?” Okay. Have I committed any finite, worldly crimes deserving of eternal damnation? Yeah, I wanna say no.
THat's my standard reply, too. What could I have done that would cause a benevolent god to codemn me to reternal torture? Come on, get real.
That’s why he wants to save you from sin! Because that leads to hell because he loves you too much to leave you on the path that doesn’t lead to the best of what he has in store for you! God bless
@@matthewsubramanican’t he just turn the devil back to a good angel, or remove evil and sin from humans, since he’s an omnipotent god? not trying to attack you or anything but that never made sense to me.
@@Nyma6000 then we wouldn’t have a choice. God would be removing free will: one of his greatest gifts. It’s like if a person had a liking towards a person, if they truly love them, they would give them a choice to choose between them or what they think is going to satisfy them. God is the same way, he knows what’s best for you but he wants to let you choose. He wants to show you that he loves you and he wants to build a relationship with you. I appreciate the question though and if you have any more, feel free to ask. God bless brother
@@matthewsubramani thank u for the respectful reply, i really am just genuinely curious, im not trying to attack ur religion! So then my next question is: then couldn’t he make it like that AND give us free will? Since he’s omnipotent and can do anything, he could make it possible for us to live without evil and have free will?
Greg: "If you answer truthfully and honestly you're going to be in trouble, so here's how to avoid doing that".
So much for the ninth commandment there, Greggy-poo.
@Scartoons You are probably talking about the version of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 34, which does say not to boil a goat in its mother's milk. www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2034&version=NIV&interface=amp But the numbering of those commandments is unclear.
@demigodzilla Right. It is about perjury. Lying while proselytizing is apparently okay. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_bear_false_witness_against_thy_neighbour
@demigodzilla, writes _"The ninth commandment doesn't prohibit lying."_
Really? That's what you're going with to justify this asshat's lies?
@@fred_derf you might want to reread his second comment...
@Fred Derf
Hey Lucifer himself was once an angel, so I'm not surprised. :p
I'm glad this guy finally admits that apologist main job is to gloss over some of the more difficult points of Christianity
Me: do people who don't believe in your God deserve to go hell?
Apologist: let me ask you a question.
Me: please answer my question
A simple yes or no question
Dude made a whole video about it
FoolishlyFoolishFool
Yup. A persons ability or inability to answers a question, either correctly or incorrectly, has no bearing WHATSOEVER on what another person is claiming to be the case.
My thoughts exactly. "Sure you can ask me a question, just as soon as you've answered my question. That's how conversations work".
@Jim Merrilees great idea I'll use that
Actually its a False Premise. For one Thing, Classical Christianity doesn't Think only Christians, or perhaps other Abrahamic Religions, worship "The True God", but Think other Cultures have n Idea of God. This is why The Jesuits never told The Native Americans to abandon The Great Spirit, or that The Great SPirit was a false god, and worship The True God, they understood The Great Spirit as the same God, but that The Natives had Limited and Imperfect Understanding of Him.
Also, Christianity doesn't Tech that Belief in God is what Saves You. Even in Evangelical Protestantism. In Evangelical Protestantism, it is Trusting in The Sacrifice of Jesus, not simply believing it happened or is Real, but actually Turning Yourself over to Christ, and Repenting of Your Sins, that Saves You. So believing in God doesn't Save You unless You mean Specifically that. Believing God exist doesn't Save You, even believing Christianity is True doesn't Save You. Jesus saves You.
While there are some disagreement, al Christians do share the Jesus saves You perspective.
So, the uestion You asked is not Really Valid as it is baed on a False Premise.
Thank you for this. Asking my pastor, and later my parents, "Do all non-Christians go to hell?" is what eventually lead me away from the church. There's just no good answer, and previously it was a question I just ignored. As soon as they answered things got either confusing or dishonest, which got me thinking about the rest of it.
@Kevin Chevalier whoever told you that was making shit up on the fly. i know of no religion/sect who claims that
@@cdreid9999 "Making shit up ...", it's all about back-fitting the story to fit the dialogue.
Non Christians go to Hell because they reject Jesus who came to save them from Hell. He paid the fine to be set free from Satan that condemns. Don't make any sense to pass up this offer then curse the giver.
Yes non Christians will go to hell for rejecting God's Son who paid the Sin debt. God's love would not be complete without His wrath against Sin. Jesus trusted God through the storms of that all things work together for the good that love the Lord. Sounds like you were in a cult that didn't know the true Jesus.
Jesus who gives life yet rejected will indeed go into outer darkness with burning memories of loved ones you preached a lie. I pity you.
I love how he just baldly admits that sidestepping questions is the recommended tactic
Without Jesus will land you in forever torrent because you preached torrent is the way to go. You not bright.
@gemmeerobinson1803
Buddy, you have yet to make a single coherent comment on this video. You are the last person to accuse anyone of not being bright. All you have is a facile assertion and you can’t even convey that clearly.
"Do you think people who commit moral crimes aught to be punished?"
"Hmm... if someone said my name in vain and refused to believe I was real, I wouldn't want them to be punished for all eternity"
You like most christians dont k ow what that means. It means dont claim to speak for god. You can imagine why none of the false prophets teach that
@@cdreid9999 if someone falsely claimed to speak for you, would you want that person to suffer for all eternity? Most sane people wouldn't want that.
@@cdreid9999 How do you know that is the valid interpretation of the injunction?
God doesn't either but man teams up with Satan against life. Satan is firing you up to curse life with burning hatred. You not too bright.
It's so easy to win arguments when you're in charge of both sides of the dispute.
@Stefan Dingenouts He was born with that talent.
Ben Shapiro uses this tactic frequently. Whenever he says Let's say... you know he's setting up an easily winnable argument in his favor.
@4:23 Hi, Paul. I'm a lawyer. Leading questions are not considered dishonest. They are not allowed to be used during direct examination (questioning your own witnesses) but leading questions are not only permitted, but actually encouraged on cross examination (questioning opposing witnesses). There is a time and place for leading questions. But to say they are dishonest or not allowed in court is not accurate.
It's also widely misunderstood what a leading question is. Any question that can be answered equally yes or no is not leading. A leading questions suggests the answer, like..."Isn't it true that...." The example Paul gave was not a leading question.
An apologist admitting he is dishonest and dodged a question he didn't want to answer and then teach people how to answer that question dishonestly.
@T 2020 I know shocking that a religion with a God who approves of slavery and slaughters thounsands of people could be immoral.
@Joseph Polanco lol doctors are slaves.
Show me a slave who drives a Mercedes.
Your God is more dispecable and cruel than the worst human beings.
No human comes near his cruelty, thank God, (joke intented) he doesn't exits.
Thats ot ehat he said, but I'm use to Militant Atheits twisting Things.
@@naturadventur7425 - Actually Slaves in The Ancient World were often wealthy and quiet frequently had positions of Power. You won't beelive me, but You also won't look it up.
Also, the I Am more moral than God rouine is getting Old. Its not ;ike You have a Real Reason to say that. You won't talk about Yourself at all and will just call God a Murderer who prfered Genocide and whatnot without Understanding Motives.
@Joseph Polanco What has your post got to do with the original comment? You're like a Trump supporter screaming, "But Obama!" every time someone mentions something stupid/bad that Trump did.
I once had a Christian ask me that very same question, "Do you believe people should be punished for wrong actions?" I answered no and I gave this example. Once one of my 6th grade students took two cookies from me when he was only entitled to take one. I let the "theft" slide because I loved the student, I knew he had been working hard and I saw no real harm in him taking that second cookie. This threw the Christian off balance. It was a true story by the way.
Wait, the student that "stole" the extra cookie wasn't a prosecutor?? A very unbelievable story! 😁
Not only bunk, but not a good story. You are OK with less than Moral conduct.
I'll tell you what I'm not OK with, lying to children. In America most children are taught that our big buddy the Invisible Sky Daddy will whisk them away to cloud coo coo land. Is it any wonder so many of us can't understand simple scientific facts? Religion rots minds and destroys lives.
@@eliot451reade5 -You aren't Angry that Children are being Lied to. After all, You just Lied. Religion does not Rot the Mind, and belief in God does not make understanding Scientific Facts Harder. But calling God an Invisible Sky Daddy does. Its Misrepresentation. Its also something You didn't come up with, so the whole idea that religion tells You what to think and Atheists are Free thinkers who come to their own Conclusions isn;t True either.
Atheism is not Science. And God is not an invisible Sky Daddy.
And You do not think for Yourself s this Invisible SKy Daddy rubbish is something Your Pastors of Your Religion told You.
Just classifying Peoplkes beleifs as Lies then calling them Liars is itself a form of Lying.
And We all Know Atheists like You say You have no Burden of Proof as Atheism is not a belief bu a lack of belief, so its not like Your willing to Prove Your Claims are True. Instead You Lie again, and say You made no Claims, even tough calling God an invisible Sky Daddy is done specifically to say God does not exist and You are an idiot for believing in God.
You also call Atheism the "Default Position" so it can't actually be a lack of belief in a god. After all, a lack of belief van[t be a position, either. Or a Null Hypothesis.
You have a Religion You want to shove down everyone elses throats.
No I did not call Atheism a Religion. And saying an Atheist like You follows a Religion is not the same as :Atheism is a Religion" either.
@@skwills1629 a thiest a saying athiests are unwilling to provide evidence is the funniest thing I've ever heard have you ever talked to one and athiesm isn't religion buddy do your reserch though that might be asking to much from a person that thinks an invisible man will take you into the clouds when you die because you read it in a book somewhere and athiests may not know every thing but they are sure willing to tell give more evidence than any thiest ,"You have a Religion You want to shove down everyone elses throats" that's funny because that's exactly what thiests do and guess what most athiest dont even care if your into religion its just you guys are always slandering us and pushing your religion in our faces and all we do is point out its errors , and if you still think athiesm is religion we don gather on a specific day to sing songs about math equations and pray to our imaginary friend , in fact as athesits our lives the only thing our lives are led by are our morals rules not ones tht we given to us by some book written over a couple thousand years ago that not ever the creator them self doesn't follow and most of us don't belittle any one who believes in religion we only take offence when you try tell people and children that they well suffer for eternity just because they don't believe what you do and just so you know athiesms means lack of belive in or disbelief in the existence of god does that mean we have 100% evidence hes not real no but at the same time you can't exactly disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster can you we might not have every piece of evidence but were sure willing to give up 100 times more than any evidence thiests have .good by sir this i me being genuine i have no care for religious bs so i you want an actual conversation im all ears
The first thing that came to mind when he asked his question was 'What is a moral crime?' Who defines it? I can guarantee that he would list stuff I don't consider a crime.
But maybe he would list some believes that would be a moral crime to follow.
So he lied and uses misdirection to not answer the question so he doesn't have to affirm whatever one knows.
No. he did not Lie. He also did not Misdiret. Instead of Blindly accepting that Paulogia told You was the truth, Try getting the other side of the Story here.
@@skwills1629 yes he did.
@@Tentaisei - No. He did not. Paulogia Lied about what He said.
@@Tentaisei -Sayin Sure Sure and putting Laughing Emotacons behind it is not a Logical, Evidence Based Argument. Its a Dismissal done in a Childish way.
If you end up speaking with a Christian apologist, and you ask them: "Is Christ the only way to salvation?", and they say "Let me ask you...?" I would simply tell them, "I will answer your questions, after you answer mine." Hold your ground. It's a simpler approach, and the "salvation" question just requires a yes or no answer. Don't play their game. As a Christian, It's interesting that Koukl has no trouble with deception, given that it's a synonym for lying.
I'm a Chrisian and so many thing that I see from my Christian brother and sisters disguss me
@@ericmacrae6871 So, is Christ the only way to salvation, and I will be condemned to eternal torture because no god has seen fit to reveal itself to me? I am certainly no evil person, and no other conceivable act of mine would justify eternal torture in exchange for this blink of an eye existence.
@inyobill well let's clarify something when I say that I am Christian I am not saying that I am a Protestant, Roman catholic or EO. I'm actually a LDS Christian and the way I define Christian is anyone who tries to follow Jesus teaching and have faith in him. That being said as LDS we don't believe that you will suffer eternal agony because of your sin of unbelief. Rather you will inherit the terrestrial Kingdom where you will have a life that is beyond measure.
When you start seeing religion from the outside, you start seeing how horrible existing anywhere forever would be... it's a hard concept at first, but even forever in a heaven is horrifying. Luckily, we won't have to experience it.
When dealing with Christian arguments the most valuable lesson you will learn besides skepticism and fact checking is to hold your group and broken record.
Repetition. Keep asking the question they keep dodging.
I've noticed atheist call in show hosts often do that, though they should do it more.
It's funny thinking back to when I was still deconstructing and occasionally watching your videos... Now, I owe a lot of my deconversion to you, among a few others.
Congratulations, and welcome to the sane side of the Force :-)
That is not an easy feat! Well done!
Not easy or comfortable. Kudos!!!
If you're saying you once believed and you don't anymore, then you're belief/understanding was very shallow, you really didn't have the real deal in the first place. You never,never came to a place of 'knowing', or starting to 'know'.
@@Complimnt4u Oh, and you know it... how? I was a devout Christisn for 30 years, studying, praying, attending masses, going to spiritual retreats and defending my tradition in countless conversation. Who are you to tell anyone what was in their hearts and minds? I swear, the arrogance of theists should have stopped shocking me long ago, but somehow it still does.
Is it a part of Greg's Columbo tactic to talk about characters nobody has ever seen?
Is God just another Mrs. Columbo?
@Brandon Neifert Excuse me?
@Brandon Neifert Birth and death certificate? Where? Do you mean the accounts written by a handful of mostly anonymous authors dozens of years after the supposed events?
And even then, if Jesus said he is god, doesn't mean he was.
On the other hand, there are contemporary written records of Washington and other Founding Fathers, even from Brits, and Washington's own writings. His birthplace and tomb exist to this day. There are also records of his family even before they traveled to America - not written _after_ the fact.
@Brandon Neifert Sorry, per the Bible, Jesus is not God. Also per the Bible, Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he failed to meet a long list of requirements.
The Messiah, per the Hebrew Bible, will not be a human sacrifice and he won't be God incarnate. By Hebrew Bible, I mean the Old Testament in Hebrew, prior to mistranslations.
Scripture regarding Jesus is not God:
Isaiah 43 : 10-11
"10 “You are My witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may consider and believe Me and understand that I am He. *Before Me no god was formed, and after Me none will come.* 11 I, yes I, am the LORD, and there is *no Savior but Me."*
@Brandon Neifert I'm not trying to sound condescending. I've seen first hand how religion harms, so if I can help open a few people's eyes to the falsehoods of religion, I see it as a positive.
@Brandon Neifert What exactly did Jesus sacrifice? Not like he stayed dead. Jews didn't consider him the messiah. You're just post hoc rationalizing your religion on the back of someone else's religion. The whole OT & you have to twist an ambiguous passage in Isaiah to make it fit Jesus.🙄
apikoris.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-7-things-christians-ignore-about.html?
This was an excellent video. I hope you do more like this, focusing on how these people attempt to manipulate and how we can resist it, keeping the discussion on a more honest, rational track.
It's also common that they try to turn things towards emotionally stressful thoughts. People are easier to manipulate when they are stressed. Talk of sin and punishment raise people's stress this way. Then they step in with the "solution to our problems", the problems they created for us.