Apologetics like this are why religion is dying. You can't make such obvious mistakes about simple definitions, like agnosticism and atheism, without people doing 5 minutes of research and disproving you. This will help you: Gnostic theist: I believe God exists, and I also know God exists. Agnostic theist: I believe God exists, but don't claim to know God exists. Agnostic atheist: I don't believe God exists, but don't claim to know God doesn't exist. (most atheists, like me, are here for many definitions of God) Gnostic atheist: I don't believe God exists, and also claim to know God doesn't exist. Just for your reference, theists. You won't look so silly right off the bat if you at least understand the terms you're trying to use. Also that's not an ad hominem fallacy, he straight up lies about definitions and literally makes himself look like he has no idea what he's talking about.
Most of you don't even know who are either. I understand where you are coming from but that's a lot of bureaucracy to direct yourself at the same basis at the end of the day: doubt!
@Danny Pipes What's so pompous about two very different definitions of atheism, when there are countless different sects of Christianity? Are they all just looking to "rebrand?" Despite my beliefs, I still respect all denominations' beliefs, and don't arrogantly dismiss them for not wanting to be misrepresented. Many atheists felt like their ideology was misreprented by this video, meaning the entire video was straw-manning. But by all means, keep smoking your tobacco so you can rush to meet your maker.
Lorel Latorilla God is proven the same way as anything else is, through empirical evidence, not through anecdotal data. The way you suggests produces no evidence of anything except a human's ability to deceive themselves about reality.
spacecadet35 Pray tell how I would prove God empirically? Secondly, naturalism suggests that our thought processes are the result of chemical reactions that follow the laws of nature. How am I sure that what I think/believe points to the truth? Also, if we came about by evolution, what does it matter if we don't perceive reality properly? Jeff Durbin was a drug addict before he became a Christian. So even if Christianity were false, would you not agree that it is a good belief system that ensures his evolutionary fitness? Evolution doesn't care about true beliefs or not.
*How am I sure that what I think/believe points to the truth?* If it has predictive power, and those predictions hold up to scrutiny, then it is likely true. There are no absolute certainties in life, but if your model of reality is consistently producing accurate results, then you have a pretty good model going for you. This is why science is so powerful. You can use it to create or observe something and predict how it will behave in the future with remarkable accuracy. So, now the question is, what predictive power does religion have? What evidence is there of a religion being able to predict an occurrence in the real world? Side note: Evolution is not meant to weed out religion, though I'm sure it will eventually. There is definitely a net-negative benefit to society as a result of religion.
@zzpfft hm... not sure how to make it clearer... I think the man in the video (con man, charlatan, swindler, bullshit artist) understands his audience (the people listening intently to him) well enough to be confident they will find what he is saying (selling) is actually logical and valid (instead of complete and utter crap) and not wonder what the hell he has been smoking (pot, grass, ganja, weed) Hopefully this cleared up any confusion.
@zzpfft No offense taken. If you're not interested in my opinion I suggest not reading them... and certainly not writing to me asking for more of them. And the 5 black belts mean what...?
@zzpfft Then I would suggest you don't know much about martial arts. He is not "teaching Love ,Joy,and Peace to total strangers," he is making money by selling a product. And his income is based on his customers not looking too hard.
You're only revealing you didn't bother paying attention to context if you think he strawmanned agnosticism or atheists. Watch it again, while noticing he was speaking about Epistemology when he said agnostics claim to not be able to know anything with certainty.
I'm a christian pilot and I thank God for giving us the ability to produce engineer aerodynamic aircrafts while also thanking him for our dense air that allows for aircrafts to fly. :)
This is not a refutation of atheism, it is a sermon, and a perfect example of why apologetics are only convincing to those who already believe. Christians, please, in the same way that you wouldn't go to a Buddhist to learn what Muslims believe, don't go to your pastor or favorite apologist to learn what atheists believe.
Please, there’s no honesty or integrity in Christian apologetics! Its truth seeking with an agenda Other than seeking truth, which means it isn’t truly truth seeking.
I used to be an Atheist. Then I became an Agnostic. Then God pulled me out of my life and revealed himself to me. The saddest part is that when I share my testimony, people don’t believe it’s possible for them. God promises us that he will reveal himself to those who seek him with all their heart mind and soul. “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you, declares the Lord, and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and all the places where I have driven you, declares the Lord, and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile.” Jeremiah 29:11-14 ESV bible.com/bible/59/jer.29.12-14.ESV Then I started reading and was not longer blinded. The Bible spoke the truth. The living word of God. I used to criticize but hardly read, or I read with judgement and out of context. Seek him and you’ll find the truth but we don’t because we love our sin. I know what atheists believe because I was one and I can testify to many refutable things Pastor Jeff says because that was me. I said all those things. I believe all those things. The roots are, we are at enmity with God because he is holy and we are yet sinners but Christ died for us to be forgiven. A FREE gift of eternity. Repent and trust in Jesus. It’s as simple as that, but people would rather eat their sin and enjoy the rotting pleasures of this world than have the blessings and gifts of everlasting life. It breaks my heart.
How do you know? "God says" How do you know god says? "The bible says god says" Why would you trust the bible to be genuine revelation? "I take it on faith." Or "It works for me" or "I was raised within the church"... Point is, you don't have "God says so" as your epistemological ground floor.
I mean you'd have to refute confirmed prochecy, scientific discorvery, historical facts, testimonies, epistemology and ultimately objective truth given from God's Word... Scripture itself sets an unachievable standard of 100% accuracy in all truth and has met it everytime.. any human works without the Holy Spirit simply cannot produce a truthful worldview. I'd say a spiritual person without God can be taken more seriously debating truth than an atheist.. an atheist literally has no basis for even existing.. naturalism is verifiably false.
The mischaracterisation of agnosticism as a universal doubt of all knowledge (i.e. cartesian scepticism) was so bad I had to stop watching. At least get the terms right.
I also enjoyed that he says most atheists reveal themselves to be agnostics when pressed. Two minutes later he says agnostics are usually atheists, they’re just afraid to admit it. I got a little dizzy there.
Cartesian skepticism is the doubt of all knowledge, but I believe the speaker's strawman of agnosticism was more representative of philosophical skepticism which is distinguished from cartesian skepticism in that a philosophical skeptic denies that anything can be known with certainty (whereas a cartesian skeptic doubts everything but still believes you can come to conclusions through this doubt).
The truth that is spoken here is worth listening to the rest my friend. The point that is going to be made will be applicable to both agnostics proper or misdefined agnosticism as any worldview that is not founded on the truth of God has no foundation for any actual certain truth and therefore has no consistent ability to ground its claims
@@jonathanmcentire970 oh, good one! Provide evidence this is his creation? You see, if I don't assume there's a god, then this rock we live on doesn't really seem created, does it? Therefore your insistence it is, makes you look stupid as hell.
@@Thoron_of_Neto There are countless good arguments for the existence of God. What's your primary reason for not believing? Also, ad hominems, attacking the person rather than the argument, does not give credence to your presupposition.
Easiest thing in the world to refute atheism. Just show actual evidence that god exists. Sadly, no theist has ever done this, so I'm still an atheist. You CLAIM you have evidence. But you don't, you just say you do. 'drops a pen' I have just demonstrated the phenomenon we call gravity. Show me evidence akin to that for god, and I will believe. Until then, don't waste my time.
Then that god isn't worth believing in much less worshipping. I shouldn't have to seek out someone who wants me to beleive they exist in the first place. They should just show they exist 'drops a pen' like I can show gravity exists A person or being who does that is just a dick, and even if you do believe in him/her/it I have no idea why you would worship such a bizzarely silly being.
Thomas Dwyer Not an ad hominem. Perhaps God hid Himself so that self-entitled people like you can't reach out to Him. Only for people who seek the truth will He reveal himself to.
There should be no "ism" on the end. To be an atheist is to simply not believe. So to refute that, you would have to prove that the atheist does believe. Even if you prove a god exists, doesn't mean people have to believe it. We've proved the world to be spherical, yet some still believe it's flat.
You deny the most obvious reality and claim people made up the whole universe 😅😅😅😅😅🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡 No wonder you are lost miserable with nothing inside no hope no future only lazy fatalistic dishonest narcissism.
@Keyboard Warriors Lol How does asking a rhetorical question, that you clearly can't answer, indicate I'm a mental zombie? Ironically it seems to indicate that YOU are the mental zombie doesn't it?
@@nickjones5435 no you are dorkbag it was answered and from birth duhhhh🤪🤪🤪 A zombie level dishonest strawman question is the work of a duped decieved fake little video game zombie hahahhahaha Narcissist no 1 owes you anything no 1 needs you What a goofy self entitled lazy dork🤡🤡🤡🤖🤖🤖 How do you tie your own shoelaces with an iq that low spunky 🤣🤣🤣🤣👽🤡🤡🤖🤪🤪
He seems like a nice guy minus the whole comparing gays to child molesters thing. But look up the definition, he was just plain lying about it. Whether on purpose or by mistake, he was wrong, and you have to accept that.
***** No, i'm not dumb for pointing out how condescending it is for you to say if you don't believe now, then you never really believed. You could have once absolutely believed and had that relationship, but now you don't.
@@shinywarm6906 again. Your opinion really doesn't matter in a godless, judgement free worldview where nothing or no one ordains or sees anything. It's all just opinion and everything is subjective and relative. Don't attack my character, attack my argument. But you can't really do that so good luck. You have nothing to stand on.
@@gregferguson9647 "nothing or no-one ordains or sees anything". I guess that might seem true to you, provided you've no self-awareness or conscience, and have never heard of legislatures, state or civil authorities, courts of law, police, prisons, social media posts, or other people. All of these entities, individuals or agents could chose to take notice of my opinions and they could "matter" to all of them. You might define all this as "subjective" but that does not mean it "doesn't matter" (do you think the Nazis' "subjective opinions" didn't matter to the Jews or the Romany Gypsies? You might think without your god "it's all relative", but that doesn't stop it having an effect, or anyone judging or acting on that judgement
@@shinywarm6906 if we all turn to worm food at the end of the day your worldview, then there is no justice for rapists, murderers, slave owners, etc. The lives we live truly mean nothing. And I know you don't believe that.
Terry Harris No. Atheism is the lack of a belief in god, not a belief there is no god. Atheists all have a different world view. All atheists disagree with every other atheist on one thing or another. There is no "atheist world view".
I laughed out loud (even snorted a little) watching this, because of how contradicting, ignorant and patronizing it was. He’s a great speaker, but wow, the actual stuff he says (if you actually listen to his words/claims/arguments) are abysmal. He gets definitions all screwed up. He makes up stories, he gives bad examples, and it’s as if he doesn’t know what he is saying, he’s just talking to be heard. And I am guessing the folks who listen and nod their heads are either doing that because they either like the sound of his voice or they are just as ignorant. Or both. But if this is an example of good Christian apologetics, then that is very sad for Christianity. Someone actually interested and wanting to go over your arguments can easily watch your video more than once and break down your definitions/claims/arguments, and see very clearly how they fail,. And wow do they fail miserably!! And I keep saying wow, because of how great someone can speak, but say something so profoundly ignorant and devoid of any intellectual value.
Funny, because you just did the same thing you accused Jeff Durbin of doing. You wrote a whole paragraph saying how he failed miserably while not actually saying how he failed. Pretty sure we call that Hypocrisy!
@@TexterEX He put out an hour and 20 minutes making bad claims and arguments. I gave a short 2 paragraph opinion, which was critical of the video. Do you want me to break down his video and tell you what he got wrong? I will do that if you really care. If you just want to call me a hypocrite, that's up to you. But that means that people with an opinion can't disagree with this guy, or you for that matter, unless they fully explain their position or else you'll call them a hypocrite. I think that's ridiculous. I think you need to have a better handle on what being a hypocrite means. Well, do you want me to fully explain my position? Are you even interested in the conversation?
@@TexterEX Ok, I'll hit a few highlights right from the beginning (I mean, it is nearly an hour and 20 minutes, so that's a lot of crap over a long period of time). [2:22] he mentions Sye Ten Bruggencate, who is a fraud and complete idiot when it comes to apologetics. And honestly, Jeff here has no credibility at this point with me. Perhaps you still, but believe me, if he’s taking a page from Sye’s book, he’s also a fraud. And then he talks about how Christian Apologetics is not about memorizing a script. Well, that’s EXACTLY what Sye does, and I’m pretty sure most Christian Apologists actually do. I bring this up because it is important later. [6:12] He’s saying that classical atheism says, “there is no god”. Well, the big reason why is that religion has always painted atheism as evil, wicked, of the devil, and as people who declare there is no god. But he’s setting up a straw man argument, because you’ll actually find very few atheists who say, “there is no god”. They say, “I don’t believe in god”, because that is truly what atheism is. He already tries to go back to a bad definition of atheism because it feeds his narrative, but it’s a straw man argument. Also, he continues about agnosticism, but it’s not like agnostics are agnostic about everything as he stated. He totally misrepresents agnosticism, which gets a laugh from the crowd. Being an agnostic when it comes to god means that we don’t know a god exists. And anyone who claims they do know better bring compelling evidence, or they should not convince anyone except the most naïve and gullible people. You can be an agnostic atheist, which means that you don’t know a god exists, and therefore you don’t believe a god exists. That is a very reasonable position, and it doesn’t need justification. I don’t know is a very honest position, and instead of making stuff up (like a god), more people need to go with that than lie to themselves. [7:45] Jeff says it is not a word game, but then plays the Sye Ten Bruggencate classic word game. Wow!! Not even 10 minutes in and you can’t even trust the guy to make good arguments. [8:15] Jeff starts talking about atheism and agnosticism being the same, and starts talking about their world view being tied to Darwin, evolution, and all kinds of stuff under a “world view”. This is again a straw-man argument. He already misrepresented the terms, now he’s trying to lump everything together under a conflicting world-view to Christianity. Big huge obvious straw man, as atheism is not a world view. Agnosticism is not a world view. People have world views. Religions can define their own world views. But having a lack of knowledge of a god, or not believing in a god, is not a world view. And to associate anything with agnosticism or atheism like that is completely wrong. Again, a straw man, because he’s creating an argument that atheists and agnostics aren’t making so he can easily knock them down. [8:42] Jeff mentions origins. Why are origins even brought up? Who said atheists (or agnostics) have a view or idea of origins? Another straw man argument. He assumes all atheists (or agnostics) believe in the same things, and that is not the case. And even if it was, it would be a non-sequitur anyway, as origins are not defined or even implied by atheism (or agnosticism), so why even make that argument? Well, I think we know why he does. He’s creating a divide between Christianity and what he views as non-Christianity, and in the process painting atheists (and agnostics) as being in the wrong. Well, he fails at that. And in the process, shows that instead of making good arguments for his god and Christianity, he just wants to muddy the water and continue his straw man argument. [12:37] Jeff says how do you know? God says so! That’s his words, not mine. And this is just after he rejected the idea of faith being a way to truth (which I agree with). Well, my question would be, “how do you know God said it?” And then he declares that Christianity is different from all other “revelational epistemologies” because God somehow speaks through everything we do and say. And listen to his double-speak - he says that other religions have revelational epistemologies, but they only speak to one person, while his triune god speaks through everything. His justification? Let’s go to the Christian holy book, where it says stuff to back him up. Wow. And don’t you think for a moment that Muslims can make the same claim? He says no, but a couple of billion Muslims will probably disagree, as their book makes similar claims as well, justified by their book. So, good for him. He makes the same argument other religions do, and brings no evidence to the table. Typical religious apologist right there. Ok, so I’m less than 20 minutes in, and I’ve already pointed out a bunch of issues. I’ve got other stuff to do, so I’m going to stop for now. If this isn’t enough to satisfy you, then I you're probably not going to be satisfied if I keep going. I don’t plan to change your mind anyway. I’m sure you’ll say that what I wrote is wrong or that I took things out of context or that I’m just a stupid atheist and just don’t get it. Or whatever, it doesn't matter. Believe what you want, I stand on my original statements. If you want to refute me, please go ahead. But let me warn you - if you make claims that you can't support by good evidence, then who cares?! Not me, that's for sure. Jeff is a con man, and if you don’t want to see that, then that’s on you. I’m certainly not buying his rubbish!
@@smequals 1:I haven't heard of Sye Ten Bruggencate, but you didn't really give me a good reason to believe why he's fraud, so I would have to go off your opinion on that. 2: If you ask any atheists if God exists they would say he does not, I don't know what type of atheists you've seen. 3:Again, you've said he is playing word games but failed to give me any good reason to believe he is, so again, I would have to just take your opinion. 4: You said that classical atheists wouldn't say God does not exist they just don't believe in him(sounds like a different branch of agnostic to me), but here you are saying Jeff is wrong for tying atheism and agnosticism together. Make up your mind. 5:You say atheism has no view of origins, ever heard of evolution? 6:A Muslim trying to say "God says so" would just be really agreeing with Christians because the Quran itself says to go to gospel first for instructions. (Also it sounds like you're playing words games when you say "atheists don't say there is no God they say they don't believe in one" again, you're being a hypocrite by claiming Jeff/Sye is playing games while you're playing word games.
O of course. Atheists don't have any true morals, nor can they even clearly define anything, so when a Christian questions you atheists about your morality you can not even understand your own views.
I am just speechless as to how ridiculous this is, I love a good religious debate but this guy is beyond rational thinking. He is slinging woo woo all over the place.....
+ Wicked_Robb Yeah... and people like him from each and every god-espousing religion/belief-system/way-of-life have lots and lots of unwilling-to-be-unbrainwashed followers who love to lap up all the crap.
@@cromwellfluffington1627 this was painfull to wacht for me, for real, but i do it anyway because a want to learn to hear others ideas to refute them and also to look at the "intelectual" part of christian religion
He actually does, but he is really dense in the way he does it (exactly as he describes here). He has a system that lets him maintain the appearance of confidently responding to everything, even though the actual content makes no sense. Unfortunately, most secular people don’t spend much time thinking about the ontology of logic and morality, so it is easy for him to trip them up with it. His explanations don’t actually answer the concern, but he sounds confident when he says them. He capitalizes on putting/finding people in vulnerable positions. By doing so, he can come out smelling like a rose, by comparison.
Where was the refutation? Still an atheist here. Nothing he said worked at all to refute atheism. Happy to discuss if someone wants. Has to be a civilized and respectful conversation.
Albert Camus and Friedrich Nietzsche very popular atheist philosophers both prove the absurdity of atheists and the logical conclusion of that world view. In short atheisms is self refuting, it proves its self pointless and absurd.
@@souzajustin19d atheism is not being convinced any gods exist. Theism is believing at least one god exists. That’s it for both. Doesn’t matter what some other philosophers said, considering they didn’t actually show atheism is absurd. What is the logical conclusion of atheism? How is it self refuting? How does it prove its pointless? Unless you are trying to do what Jeff does and make atheism more than what it actually is.?
@@souzajustin19d well how about you respond to what I said and asked first? Then I’ll be happy to answer your question. That’s kinda how conversations go.
The object isn't to defeat atheism within your own mind. You will always be the winner of that debate. It is to refute atheism in the mind of the atheist. That is not a simple task.
@chasm or sar they don't want to believe even if you give evidence they will not believe unless God intervenes in their life they will not believe our aim is to tell them the gospel it is up to God whether they believe it or not. people's do not believe in God for various reason but it really just rebellion they don't want someone telling them what to do also it would mean they are accountable to God for how they live their life. everything(but God) has a beginning nothing+nothing=nothing.no God no universe no earth no humans no plants no animals no space no light no planets nothing.
@@truthseekers1620 Of course that's true, but God is also the source of reason. It's okay to use rational arguments as well. It would be denying a part of God's divine essence to think otherwise.
@@chasmofsar2691Indeed - I realize this is old, but I'd say that a lie has limitless appeal. It can be literally anything you want it to be, and it will tell you anything you want to hear. Now of course, lies fail - it's only a matter of where and when. Regarding these truths, the decieved holds hands symbiotically with the deception. To separate from the lie is to die and be born again; an athiest will fight tooth and nail, as if their life depends on it, precisely because it does. Faith changes everything, and challenges every lie that's ever worked together to build a non-believer. Redefinition through faith builds people up stronger than they ever could have been, but a godless person just sees their tiny worldly tower getting knocked down.
Respectfully that’s false… Every Apologetic that I have ever watched(at least) believes in God because of intelligent design that’s some of their main arguments… and that’s self contradicting for you to say that because a lot of atheists claim Religious people plug in “God” for hard to understand things that happen
@@Mojojojo335 of course I’m being hyperbolic but I don’t really understand your point. You’re saying people believe in God because of ID? I don’t think I’ve ever heard of an atheist or agnostic becoming a theist because of ID. It’s almost always someone trying to explain their belief in God in the face of biblical (just an example) contradictions with scientific theories like Evolution.
@@rethinking_reality no that’s not the only reason but that’s one of there main arguments to how they believe we are not here without some sort of god higher power…. Most Atheists don’t want God to exist(from my experience) …. I’m not a super strong Faith Christian I have a lot of nihilist views lol but it’s self defeating I asked my atheist friends and people online if god was proven to be true would you follow him and every single one of them said NO or either they hesitated
@@Mojojojo335 No sir, stop. It has nothing to do with wanting a god to exist. It’s about whether or not there is a justified rational reason to conclude one does. But choosing not to follow one has nothing to do with the desire for there to be one, it just means that they recognize that the God described in the Bible is morally a piece of shit, and following a moral piece of shit would violate their own moral standards. Me, I would sell out in a heartbeat, I’m not going to hell if there is a God, so allow me to be the first atheist to say screw that noise, I will throw my morality right out the window, all the while knowing I’m a better person than that God.
I am constantly surprised on how apologists are unable to understand the terms agnosticism and atheism. First of all, agnostic atheism is not a mutually exclusive position. I do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that no gods exist. That makes ma agnostic. I also happen to not believe a god exists. That makes me an atheist. As long as you understand that one position is related to knowledge, and the other is related to belief, you got it. Pretty simple actually.
Before I became a born again Christian this is how I described myself, you’re right. I didn’t believe, but I also understood that I could not know. Therefore I called myself an agnostic atheist. I would say that this Jeff guy is a little inaccurate with his descriptions of words and religion. He could steelman Atheism/Agnosticism’s position to refute it which would strengthen his point. Instead he strawmanned you guys. Keep searching for the truth my friend. God will reveal himself to you when you are ready. Trust me, I would read this a year ago and call myself crazy. But Christ is truth. 20 year Agnostic Atheist here. I literally wore a Moses costume for “Fictional Character Day” at school. Trust me I was a heathen 😂
@@AaronBornAgain I was a theist for decades. And despite being sincerely searching for god, said god never was revealed to me. I am still opened to being convinced, but I am also not holding my breath. Well, Moses was actually a fictional character. The vast, VAST majority of scholars, historians, Near East experts, etc are convinced about this.
A speech of more than one hour and still I didn't hear a consistent argument against atheism, you can't prove what doesn't exist and a book isn't a proof of anything, neither is your opinion or your feelings. Nevertheless I love Jeff's speeches with JW and mormons.
@17:50 a laundry list of claims, with not citations. (the brain thing excluded) Where is the evidence? Which source, besides the bible, did you get any of this evidence? hmm?
The Christian apologetic uses the Bible as our basis of truth. If you don’t agree with it then reject it and move along. If you had something that you knew to be the truth why would you try using something else to prove it to be true?
+Apologia Studios and specifically +Jeff Durbin I must say that find it extremely difficult to take Pastor Jeff seriously in this sermon/lecture. This is primarily due to Jeff's constant misrepresentation of claims made by Atheists, Mathematicians, Scientists, etc. and it become even more difficult to do so when we consider the absolutist and dogmatic claims (that btw, Jeff failed to in anyway demonstrate are probable let alone are established absolute "Fact/Truth") sprinkled throughout his preachings. In short this speech is indicative off nothing more than the oh so familiar echo chambers that some christians feel are effective. Let me assure you my friend/s preachers like Jeff have no effect (outside perhaps confirming how little religion actually has to offer) on individuals who actually care about finding truth not "Truth. Finally, As a side note to Jeff personally, Jeff based on your propertied encounters with people holding differing view points from your own all I can say is it would seem to the uninformed viewer that you have yet to encounter someone who has given these issues much thought &/or effort. However, after searching the internet I came to discover numerous discussions/debates where you are provided with much more substantive responses to your "questions", so I find it interesting (and even more telling) that you would choose to highlight the "answers" you have in this talk. With that said if you would ever like to discuss any of these topics with someone who is able and most willing to provide better answers your questions and perhaps even some refutations to your claims I would be more than will to offer my services. Thanks for your time, Ned (~P)
32:30 Someone explain this to me, please. I've been trying to understand this for days and I can not. How can one be left in doubt if 2 + 2 are really 4?
It baffles me how willing some people can be to tie themselves up into such logic pretzels that belief without good reason makes sense to them. This is my biggest issue with religion - otherwise sensible people believing in nonsense and feeling justified in doing so.
Dude. There are 100+ logically valid & sound arguments for God recognized by mainstream academia. Type in *100 arguments for God* to see. The only way anyone could claim there aren't any good reasons to believe in God are: 1. Complete ignorance 2. Scientism (the self-refuting philosophy that truth can only be known if it's scientifically verified, which cannot be scientifically verified ITSELF)
@howie b personally belief in God has nothing to do with wishful thinking no God no universe no humans man made religion God made man he has nothing to do with religion
You wouldn't ask that question if you believed the Bible to be true. Since you do not believe it to be true, you can't make sense of nothing, including the question you just made.
You can ask any question you want if you believe the Bible to be true. You can always question the justification of already held beliefs.That YOU wouldn't ask such a question doesn't entail that no one would ask such a question.
Putting it plainly, your question clearly shows that you do not know the Bible, thus my response. Besides, your question also presupposes much many things, that without God, one cannot account for, such as logic and truth.
So I'm about 10 minutes in and it's seeming pretty off. I call myself an agnostic atheist, but under his definitions I'm neither an agnostic nor and atheist. I'm not absolutely certain whether any gods exist, but based on current evidence I don't believe any of the gods that have been described to me actually exist. I don't claim no gods exist. I don't claim we can't know anything, because there are some things I can be absolutely certain of, like the content of my thoughts, opinions, and preferences. I also think a god of classical theism would find it trivially easy to provide evidence for its existence, of the same quality and quantity for everything else I believe in. This is how pretty much every atheist I know or have heard of thinks, too, and so he is constructing arguments against a straw man. And for all that he says don't just follow a script, the "do you know you don't know anything" script is something I've heard several times before, and it always falls flat. There is a reason why we don't have apologists constantly creating philosophical arguments to reassure us of the existence of our pets, the country Australia, the pyramids of Giza, or the element Lithium. These things all have good evidence and their existence is therefore clear. No god meets the same evidentiary criteria; instead they all seem to fall into the same evidentiary category as mythological creatures, magic, and UFOs. And so I don't currently believe such claims.
I think it's important to realize that the target audience for this video is not for someone with your views. It's aimed at Christians who want to understand how to present their beliefs to others. I would say the way God arranges His evidence is it begins as, at best, a 50/50. However, once a person makes the decision to follow Him, this changes until the moment... (have you heard this before? That God "reveals Himself" to someone) and then it is no longer 50/50 and can even be as high as 100%/0%. The main thing is to realize (but NOT from this video) that there is enough evidence to warrant a thorough examination of what is out there. People whose profession is to examine tough questions, the best minds out there that are Nobel Laureates, are a massive majority of believers in God, with at least 68 or so % Christians and another 13% Jewish...and not casual believers but those willingly being quoted in their belief. If these sorts of minds are being convinced, then the rest of us need to examine the issue VERY closely. It all depends upon if a person wants to spend eternity with God or not. God will not force anyone to join Him in the "next life."
@@billyholly Well, the target audience is people who want to challenge my view, and I explained why this sort of challenge won't work. In particular, these arguments and "evidence" skirt around my epistemology, always staying in the realm of likely imaginary things. I understand that the easiest people to convert are desperate people looking for some emotional reassurance, who feel a need for social support. Church communities can definitely offer these things but this in fact has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of their religious claims. Any group of people can do the same, regardless of their particular beliefs. Nor am I impressed by your appeal to Nobel laureates. You are appealing to experts in a particular field, to justify their beliefs about a different field outside of their expertise; this is a fallacious appeal to authority. Nobel laureates also tend to be elderly, and so are culturally much more likely to be religious. In fact the vast majority of scientists and philosophers are atheists, but again this has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of unscientific, unfalsifiable beliefs. Would I want to marry a woman (for a marriage lasting decades) based on a book by anonymous authors, stating third-hand claims about her appearance, personality traits, or the very fact of her existence? Absolutely not. If these writing claimed she had magic powers, I would be even more dubious. How could I possibly want to spend an *eternity* with someone, then, based on the same poor evidence? To determine if I like someone, or for them to coerce me into something through the force of their personality, at a minimum they first have to evidently exist. Right? Plenty of people in the bible are depicted as speaking with god, and then later reject him. He preserved their free will and yet can't talk to me without coercion, or does he probably not exist and these are stories, and there is no god for me to meet?
@@weirdwilliam8500 These are all thoughts worth examining. What if you select the most important. I would suggest those dealing with Jesus since without a resurrected Jesus, there is no reason for Christianity. What do you think? Should we take a look? One thought about the Nobel Laureates, my point there, ancient old or not, they are at their prime enough to win an award and they know how to examine evidence. I am not appealing to their authority. We take Stephen Hawking seriously, Bill Nye the Science Guy and several other well-known atheists and they are also outside their fields in their remarks. Never mind on that. What do you think of my Jesus question? Unlike many other commenters, you actually seem to be seeking real answers and are not relying on repeating memes.
@@billyholly Hey Billy. Thanks for your reply. I agree this has been a good conversation, especially for a RUclips comment section. :) If we look at the evidence for Jesus, it doesn't rise above the common, established pattern of legendary development, urban legends, or exaggerating the truth to promote a religion. These are the sorts of human patterns we see in every other religion, tall tale, etc. The case for Christianity is especially weak since all of the gospels are anonymous and only Paul actually reports seeing a risen Jesus, although he never knew Jesus in life and he only reports seeing a light and hearing a voice. Many known mundane phenomena could explain his single experience. Looking at the chronology of the four gospels, as accepted by the consensus of biblical scholars, we can see that each subsequent gospel includes more supernatural or miraculous details than the one before it. If we then look at the chronology of the other roughly 40 gospels that were not canonized in the bible, we see a continuing pattern of legendary development, with Jesus' head reaching into the clouds, a talking cross, disciples paralyzing people with a touch, and many more extreme claims. The original gospel of Mark had very little supernatural elements, and the modern ending where the women spread the news was also absent in its earliest manuscripts. Just people and an empty tomb. If we plot this rate of increase in supernatural claims on a timeline by each gospel, and extrapolate the line backwards through decades of oral tradition and proselytizing to the time of Jesus' life, we arrive at zero miracles on the line. We arrive at the sort of mundane origin typical of every religion, which you as a Christian presumably believe is the case for every other religion. There are no extra-biblical accounts of anything related to Jesus' supposed life, death or resurrection. There are extra-biblical accounts from decades later, where the accounts simply describe what Christians at that time believed. That early Christians were fervent in their beliefs is neither remarkable nor indicative of the truth or falsehood of their beliefs. We have seen modern preachers as well as the writings of early Church fathers express that lying for the purpose of spreading their faith is acceptable. We have seen how a single claim from one person can spread and become exaggerated or embellished until it becomes a religion. Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard are the most recent examples. We have countless examples of this myth progression, from religions, to the myth of the stolen 2020 election, to Elvis sightings, to tales of Paul Bunyan, King Arthur, Baba Yaga and many more. We have countless examples of people lying, exaggerating, or being mistaken. We have countless examples of bereavement delusions, which is a common phenomenon where people have delusions in which they see, hear, or feel people who have recently died who they had a strong emotional attachment to. We have zero demonstrable or reliable examples of anyone actually rising from the dead. For this reason, I place Christianity in the broadly known, mundane category of mythology, because that is much more likely than an entirely new and undemonstrated ontology, namely a supernatural suspension of physical laws. Thanks for reading, if you read this far!
@@weirdwilliam8500 Hehe! Don't worry about the length. I actually DID make it through to the end. However, it's better you look at the issue one step at a time or one may "lose the forest for the trees," with me mashing up that common saying. Can we take it one point at a time? Jesus? The Gospels aren't nor have ever been embellished. They have never been a game of "telephone." I can refer you to specific scholars on this, if you'd like. There are TONS of clips like: ruclips.net/video/-F_xRyi1yAs/видео.html Memes repeat the telephone idea and others to discredit the accounts but they are simply not true. However, keep in mind, the Bible never saved anyone. We DO have the ridiculous Gnostic Gospels from a couple hundred years later that should totally be rejected, perhaps a distraction strategy, pushed upon us by the "enemy." In an oral tradition society with only a 10% literacy rate and paper costing a fortune, very few written records remain but more words had been written about Jesus than the reigning emperor of the time, like four times as many. The preaching began in the city where Jesus was crucified, a poor choice if they were speaking lies as many witnesses lived right there and could have disagreed with what was being taught of Jesus...and not ONE contradiction from that time came out. As for the hustlers like Smith, who worked as a conman in his younger days, expect the enemy to use such types to distract from the truth.
It's always wise to first understand what you are talking about. It doesn't seem very sensible to provide a group of people with incorrect information. And this gentleman has no idea what atheism means. And that is unfortunate because many Christians look at this and use this in a conversation with an atheist, and many atheists will not recognize themselves in this description of atheism. 'The atheist' and 'The Christian' simply do not exist, they can not easily be defined. An Atheist doesn't deny the existence of a god, but an atheist is not so sure if there is a god at all. That is a considerable difference! Atheism is certainly not a 'denial' of the existence of a god. To deny something that exists without a doubt and that something determines what happens with you after you die is not very logical. If the Christian claims that there is a god, then the Christian will have to prove it. The same applies to the atheist who claims that there is no god. An atheist may use false arguments for his / her unbelief, but that doesn't mean that there is a god. And that also applies to the Christian. Accepting good or bad arguments that reinforce your beliefs is personal. There are so many factors that determine how someone deals with logic. It's also very frustrating for both atheists and Christians when someone paints a false picture of what an atheist or Christian is or isn't, believes or doesn't believe. And when there's also a lot of ego and ridiculization involved then the irritation limit is reached quickly. That's never a good foundation for an honest discussion. I'm not talking about making jokes during a discussion, which can help keep a discussion light.
I made it 4 minutes. That was when he said to think with the mind of Christ to defend Christ with apologetics... I can't take that position seriously, I'm sorry. To have your conclusion in your premises is circular reasoning, I don't know what else to say
I think it's good that you gave it a shot. However, by the title, I think you can guess that the target audience for this clip is not atheists or agnostics. I think it's aimed at Christians and how they might try to organize their thoughts when discussing God with non-believers. I can try to wade through some questions with you. I'm certainly no expert but I am pretty good at searching various sources for answers.
@@billyholly oh boy this was a while ago haha, I don't even remember what the video talked about anymore. But yeah something with that title can't possibly be geared towards the non-believer, unless it is written ironically. Still though, once in a while I like to hear what the other side of the table is talking about, you know?
No, being agnostic does not mean "we can't know anything" it means we don't know if there is or is no higher being or god, because it is impossible to refute or prove.
It's not impossible to prove. Consider this: All of us human beings, aside from a few exceptions here and there, have the same basic/main body parts [head, chest, arms, hands, legs, feet] and move and function the same way. Genesis 1:26-27 "And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Year after year, when babies are born, they pretty much always look, move, and function the same. Same with every other living, breathing life form on the planet. If that's not proof that God, or a high being, is real, I don't know what is. Because if you take intelligent design out of the picture entirely, there's no guarantee that nature would've come to exist and work like it does.
Dear someone at Apologia Studios, Please answer the following: 1. Yes or no, do you exist? If no, then how do you justify the claim that you do not exist? 2. Yes or no, are you certain that you exist? If no, are you saying that it is possible you do not exist? Please justify that! 3. If you have answered _Yes_ to 1. And 2., and are a proponent of the Presuppositional Worldview, you are now making a knowledge claim that: (A) You exist. As well as, (B) The only way you can have knowledge, is to know everything. Meaning: - Being God or to have things revealed to us by One that knows everything. If yes, please justify the knowledge claim that you exist using your presuppositional worldview on how knowledge is gained. 4. If you counter is to say, _“God has revealed to me that I exist; and the fact that I exist allowed me to receive and retain that knowledge,”_ then please answer: Yes or no, would you agree that _if_ the absolute truth or validity of your claim (B) depends on your presuppositional claim/epistemology (A), then, would you not have to have absolute knowledge of (A) to be certain that (B) is true? If no, please justify that! 5. Yes or no, would you agree that in order to have something revealed to you, you must exist in order to be able to receive it? If no, then how do you justify how God can reveal things to people who don’t exist? yYM
7:45 Why does Jeff give an inaccurate description of agnosticism? Agnosticism is not the claim "We cannot know anything." Especially when referring to the god context that he's using, the agnostic position is "I do not know if there's a god." The agnostic may also claim that "We cannot know whether there's a god or not." Jeff's "refutation" to this claim is simply saying, "Do you know that?" and claiming that the agnostic's claim is self-refuting. Sorry, this is a poor start.
As soon as you hear him define "Classical Atheist" you should realize that he isn't defining Atheist. If he was defining Atheist and not straw manning Atheist then why would he use the qualifier "classical"? What does his definition of "Classical Atheist" have to do with the definition of Atheist? If I redefine Atheist to mean Apple and agnostic to mean Green. Does that mean agnostic Atheist belief they are Green Apples? If my redefinition doesn't change what Atheist belief then why would you think his definitions accurately represents what Atheist belief? Why can't you address what Agnostic Atheist actually belief? I don't know if a God or Gods exist and I lack a belief in a God or Gods. By his definition I can not be Agnostic or an Atheist. What am I?
That's his point. The dictionary definition of atheism changed from the classical(original) definition of "there is no god" to the contemporary "lack of belief in God(s)." He didn't change the definition, the dictionary purveyors did.
@@DieElect I feel like there is context in the video being over looked. I'm going to guess he uses his definition to define people into a position they don't hold and that is made apparent in his usage of the qualifier.... yea he just did that with agnostic and I'm not watching the rest of this again. Do you think I think he changed they definition?? That's an absurd assumption.
@@DieElect the word atheist means "a"-"no" theist-"belief in god/gods" Put it all together and you get "no belief in god/gods" Not "belief that there is no god/gods" Atheism by definition is the lack of this belief. Just like a square is a rectangle, but not necessarily the other way around, an atheist can hold a positive belief that no gods exist, but that doesn't mean all have to.
Yeah the sheer hubris of a atheist to make such a claim. You are just intellectual lazy and cowardly. There is never enough evidence for you because you have a emotional reason to deny. You honestly think yourself more clever or possessing some special insight that no one esle has. Majority of your own ATHEIST Arguments are UTTERLY DISHONEST. You alteady deny god so any evidence to the contray you are predisposed to disbelief. That not open mind thats just you being intellectual lazy. Such a pity you lack introspection and the ability to see how absurd and childish your own Atheist world view is.
Morality is a product of society, not religion. This is demonstrated by society deciding that slavery is immoral and not religion. If you really read your bible, you'll not that slavery is endorsed by it.
@@nextlevelmartialarts At one time slavery was acceptable in the US. Society abolished slavery demonstrating my point. Don't draw me into this hypothetical strawman of a point.
@@davidlegkodukh6969 uhm, no. It's the ability to dismiss an idea that makes everything that someone else is telling you you believe, fall apart. I don't believe what this idiot claimed in this video, just because I'm an atheist. He misrepresented atheism, and much of the science, and told people what they know and don't know.
You said that difference between Christianity and other revelational epistemology like Mormonism 14:10 is that Mormon revelations were private. Uhm, wasn't the revelation to Moses, who supposedly wrote the entire first 5 books of the Bible, done in _private_ ...? Wasn't the 10 commandments given to him in private? Wasn't every revelation written by the prophets of the OT given in private? Wasn't the revelation of the book of (drum roll) Revelation, supposedly given to John completely in private while he was secluded on the island of Patmos? Your argument completely invalidates the entire Bible. Well done.
He's obviously referring to the foundational texts of Christianity: the 4 gospels, from which we can deduce the near fullness of the Christian faith. Christ's ministry was public and was transcribed by eyewitnesses. That's unique amongst religions, and should give us more epistemological certainty to the truth of our faith than competing faiths. Admittedly, it does not follow from this that Christianity is true. This is just one more piece of evidence pointing towards the truth of Christianity.
@@scootermcgavin7986 that is utterly false. Not only is it not "obvious" that he is referring to only the 4 Gospels, he in fact explicitly says that he is not. He speaks of the revelation of the entire Bible. That revelation is just as private as any other religion. It is a completely dishonest framing to claim otherwise. He even specifically goes into OT revelational texts like Proverbs to make his point. 15:50 The vast majority of the Bible is private revelation, just like every other Revelation epistemology. The Gospels, on the other hand, are not revelation at all. They are a narrative story. Period.
@Daniel Gigante "Didn't watch the whole video (I guess I lose)." Yeah it's kind of silly to argue with me about my position on what is stated in the video without watching the video. "While that's true, the vast majority of the deposit of the faith" No one was talking about the "deposit of the faith". What does that term even mean? If it means the public life of Jesus described in the Gospels... well then your statement is a completely useless tautology. "To say they're not revelation is simply going off the rails." If you want to call all narratives in holy texts public revelation, I am fine with that. This means that the Islamic holy texts which tell of Mohammad ripping the moon in twain, are public revelation. This means that the tales of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon from golden tablets of an unknown Egyptian dialect by looking into a hat, are public revelation. This means the story of Xenu, leader of the Galactic Confederacy, bringing billions of humanoids to Earth, is an extremely public revelation.
Dear trolling atheists, When we say what we say, we're trying to help you because we love you and care about you, man; but when you say what you say, it usually seems like it's meant to shame and ridicule. I wonder why that is. Thoughts?
After listening / watching sermons and on the street videos from Jeff for a little over a year now I think I'm finally willing and ready to stop eating my neighbors.
Cannibal Tribe open up Hannibal's Bar and Grill. Specials: Fridays during Lent: Fishermen & Chips Saturdays: SWERF & TERF Sunday Brunch: YECC's and FLERF's
@@mrslisabaird disprove the other thousands of gods and I’ll use that reasoning. How about the Bible being full of errors and contradictions. What about the whole thing of an all knowing god wanting everyone in heaven but the only proof of his existence is a sub par book . That is so confusing it has 45k or so denominations all saying they have the right answer to it all.
Please do tell me what you consider to me evidence ? I'm curious as to what your understanding of the concept of what god is and what would be evidence of that same god
I think that the point is that, the fact that you had the ability to type a comment on a video is evidence enough. The Bible says that mans wisdom is foolishness to God. If nothing matters than why do anything at all? Why do you exist? If there is no truth why even comment in the first place, if God doesn’t exist why try to defend any world veiw at all. The point is you prove that God exists for us.
@@a6m3reisen8 evidence is that which can be tested in the lab and demonstrated to be true. That is the only kind of evidence that matters when discussing existence
@@SwainsSaved nope I'm sorry but nobody is proving the existence of God and nobody is proving the existence of God the way you're talking about… What you're doing is engaging a copout. Why do we exist? Your question assumes a reason but you haven't demonstrated that the needs to be one. I exist because my parents had sex at the right time. That's literally the only answer that actually matters in his demonstrable. Who said there is no truth? And what you mean by truth? There are a lot of things that we can demonstrate our true… None of them require a God. If God does exist why would I need a guide to exist in order to defend the worldview. So many of your questions assume the necessity of God when you have not demonstrated that necessity nor demonstrated they got even exists. Meanwhile it's much more logical that God is the invention of humans that were intelligent enough to ask questions about the world around them, but to England to answer those questions because of their lack of knowledge. Your God is nothing more than a God of the gaps in those gaps are getting smaller every day
@@keithziegler8881 well I respect your response, but I disagree. I believe that God is love, and I also believe that love cannot be a result of complicated organic material forming out of nothing all on its own. Love is indeed complicated, but out of 6,000 years of recorded history, the nations that didn’t fall and become swallowed up by the earth were the ones which had a respect and reverence for right and wrong. I know that the attributes of God are perfect love perfect justice and perfect righteousness. All things work together for the good of those who love him. And with all do respect you cannot prove to me that God doesn’t exist, my God keeps promises and never changes, he is more faithful than any man. If your going to prove the Bible wrong you have to read it first
Nick Jones, Besides the Gospel accounts who's earliest manuscript dates to around A.D. 41. There is Talmud whose volumes mention Jesus, Jesuphus who mentions Him in his works on Jewish History, Tacitus in his Annals, and Lucian of Samosata in his highly antiChristian satires.
Nick Jones Yawn...it doesn't matter. They had more access to sources than we do. Not to mention the existence of not 1 but 4 accounts of the life of Christ all of which are dated at exactly that time frame.
Nick Jones, The heavens declare the glory of God, the complexity and size are not something chance can make no matter how many years go by. But here is a question for you. Why do you care?
Nick Jones Well yes, it does. It is the Atheist position that the universe came about by chance accident. Now if you object to this then you are going to have to demonstrate how the cause of the universe and everything in it would have to be without personality and intelligence, and still willfully make everything. If not then the only thing else is mere random chance. Also, concerning your second part. That begs two more questions. Why does stardust infused descendants of fish (im referring to humanity) matter enough to care about morality? And underwhat basis is there a single moral notion that objectivity true under your world view?
Bro...I know. When I first found this neckbeard I was really hoping Aron or Matt Dillahunty had already gotten ahold of him. But then I realized people this articulate who intentionally mischaracterize arguments to this degree are also smart enough not to take public debates with trained killers like Aron & Matt.
+Phal Redenferd Read my other comments. I have refuted what he said. Even this comment addresses one of his points. Haven't you listened to what he said? The method used by scientists and atheists is to go where the evidence leads. And he spoke against that.
This was utterly humiliating; he is so blissfully ignorant about so many things and simultaneously interested in sounding authoritative about those things.
When your putting up a video that makes you feel all smart because you can finally say something to an atheist when he explains to you why your beliefs don't make any sense, you should probably make sure that you don't tell us in the title that you don't even know the definition of atheism. I doubt anything worthwhile is in this video.
How am I supposed to listen to this guy for more than an hour when he can't even honestly represent the positions of the people he's claiming to refute? Right off the bat he slides around the definition of "atheism", at first correctly describing it as NON theism or the rejection of theistic claims, but then immediately moves the goalpost by saying atheism say there absolutely is no god (_and goalpost moving was supposed to be the thing he says atheists do_). THEN he defines agnosticism as being a lack of knowledge of absolutely EVERYTHING, when really it's just a claim of a lack of sufficient knowledge of a specific claim (_in the context of theism, it's a lack of knowledge of a god_). So from the very start the speaker is making his arguments from the perspective that atheists claim absolutely no god exists and agnostics don't know anything. These are lies. I know he's lying because these are not difficult positions to understand. They're very simple and anyone who spends any amount of time listening and responding to theistic/atheistic debates can grasp these concepts. It's also not a leap in logic to speculate one the motivations of a theistic apologist for lying about the positions of his opponents. If your argument is people who are theists have the rational position, the argument is made easier if you can muddy your opponent's position and make it appear as though they have a much less rational position than what they actually hold. I propose that if this man has to lie to make his point, then it's not a very rational position to have.
anyone who trying to debunk this video need so do it with fact fact fact fact fact fact!!!!! Not opinion!!!! but you won't because you can't so go-ahead and just keep helping us prove you wrong. Thanks Jeff for the video as always.
Ok, here's something. He says at about 7:40 that agnostics make the claim that we can't know anything. No they don't, they claim we can't know anything about any God, not everything. That is one large strawman he then goes on to dismantle.
So this guy here mostly just presented his opinion because most of his facts are mixed with opinions or are simply wrong like for example the case given on the 7:40 minute but no one says he need to give facts, but those who dont agree with him (radical atheists) must criticize him only with facts... completely fair. But remember, he explicity apeal to logic, "things must lo be logical and reasonable" so if logic does no support his claims then he is wrong, that is a fact an can be expresed as an opinion, normally christian apologists try to debunk atheists point of view going deeper into the issue, but they if you do the same with them just tell you that should give them facts and not opinions. A simple example can be showed when he says god knows everything, wich is logical, his logic and knowledge must be perfect, then why the people who claims to know the word of God or be able to interpret it always had to change their point of view because logic and experience told them (actually the people that guides themselves with logic told them) that they were wrong? We can see it in how christians and church have change their mind on topics like human rights, science, respect other`s ideas and be more pasive in their practices (like for example not to exclude or persecute people that do not have their same believe) obviously im excluiding some christian cults, talking about those cults, they believe like you or even more than you they have the right interpretation of the God`s word, by the same epistemology method "revelation", how can you tell them they are wrong if they believe for the same reasons that you in their own believes? Their parents taught them their religion, then grew up being indoctrinated and rectificate their believes with their ows cultural videos and multimedia, like this video for probably catolic people there are a lot of indoctrinating videos for JW and mormons, and to conclude, if God`s logic is completely right, then how can be posible that he condenms completely natural and inherentic bahave in humans? The fact that non believers exists is because their reasoning and logic lead them to the conclusion that religion is similars believes are ilogic, if god exist and like he said thing must be reasonable and logic so atheist`s logic must be wrong, suposing that it is true then why god would create humans with enough intelligence to be able to doubt about his existence with what they think are logical arguments and then condenms them for that? If you need to be very intelligent to believe in god or at least believe in him by logic and atheists are not smart enough because of their nature is logic that it is not their fault to be stupid but anyways you condems them, you can say that their have persons like this one to show them the way, but as you can see i have strong reasons to say he is wrong, so im so there are two possibilities, or im so stupid that i cant even understand his precise and undisputable logic or im right... Judge by yourself
Flaynk Did you learn that in your presuppositionalism script? Chances are you did lol. Presuppositionalism is the last desperate dying gasp for theism.
I'm always fascinated by the irrationality of an atheist who wastes his short existence on debating theism... Don't you have anything better to do with that little dash between your birth date and death date?
I could bet you cant. I do bet i can refute atheism and expose its falsity. But 1st i need to understand what atheist you claim to be. Also i can promise you cannot and will not defend your atheism as atheism is indefensible. And because you cannot defend it, and you know you cant defend it, proves atheism is wrong. Since you know you cannot defend atheism, we all must ask and wonder why you actually still subscribe to a false ideology.
This video just proves that religious zealots who make their living off of religious "promotion" are arrogant elitists with a defined sales pitch. Sickening.
He owns a martial arts dojo. He even said so here. Also, ppl are religious zealots for different reasons. And unless you believe rebellion against God is a bad thing, perhaps you’re giving them a reason to stay zealous
I hadn’t realize others were present to witness Moses conversation with deity. Or any who were present to give an account of Abraham’s encounters. Interesting to say the least.
@@adamfoster6313 That is also allegedly, same with the 500 people who witnessed Christ, in one testimonial, yet I find it is often cited like they have 500 accounts of Jesus when they really only have a few if even that.
Right off the start of your video (around the 7-minute mark) you say agnostics believe you can't know anything, that is not true. As you pointed out agnosticism is a claim of knowledge with the Greek prefix meaning "to doubt." Agnostics claim: "that since we can never know if there is a god I choose to take the default position and not believe in one." I do agree with you that there has been a clash of ideas when it comes to agnosticism and atheism; however, I do believe that most atheist today are agnostic-atheist meaning. Since they don't know god exists--because agnosticism is a claim to knowledge--they choose not to believe in a god. Finally, when it comes to agnosticism they do not claim that nothing can be known for sure, but simply that the existence of god cannot be known. You continue to say that god has revealed himself through revelation to everyone, thus we all know there is a god. However, I would like to point out that just because you say something does not mean it is true. While you believe god has revealed himself to everyone, you don't actually know. For example, if someone tells you that they went to the store to get you ice cream. You trust that they are going to actually go and get you ice cream; however, you don't know 100% for sure if they're actually going to do it until they return back with your ice cream. Therefore, while they are gone you can't simply say "they're going to get me ice cream," because while they did tell you that you can't say absolutely that that is what they are doing--unless you're tracking them. Later on, you claim that you things with certainty because god told you so. You then try to prove this with what is said in the bible. You use the bible to prove your claim that god's word is the basis for certaincy; however, you only know god's word is the basis of certainty because the bible tells you so. Do you see how that doesn't make sense? What you did is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning. At some point, you have to admit that you make an assumption--me personally I don't care where you make it. However, you have to be willing to accept the fact that you made an assumption because you cannot use the bible to prove the bible is right. Lastly, since I want to keep this short, I also want to touch on morality from a more atheistic perspective. While there is a lot more to this subject, there are a few major ideas I want to touch on. To begin, you have created this false dichotomy saying that if you believe in objective morality you have to believe in some god and if you believe in subject morality you do not believe in a god. However, this is not true there are some atheists who do believe in objective morailty. For example, Sam Harris he recently published a book about how objective morality can be explained through evolution and science. I do realize that may not be sufficient enough for you since you've already made up your mind on what an atheist most believe. Thus, I will try to show you how even with subjective morality we can still arrive at objective morals. In your video (I only made it in 20 minutes sorry) you claim that an atheist cannot say that it is an absolute moral obligation to not eat humans. Again, while there are some atheists who do believe in objective morality, they may answer yes. However, for those you don't, they could answer both ways and here's why. At the basis of everyone's moral system, there is some assumption, for christians, it is "God's word is true." By having this assumption you are then able to form objectives truths that agree with that. For me, the basis of my morals lies at the assumption that "the preservation and prosperity of human life is a good thing." While I may not know why it is a good thing, as long as I acknowledge that assumption I am able to form objective truths from it. In the same way, reasoning is subjective so is morality. In spite of trying to prove morality is subjective, I hope I have cleared up how an atheist can still--in some way--have objective morals, by having an underlining base assumption.
I also forgot to mention the false dichotomy you place between theism and evolution, they are not mutually exclusive like most evangelical Christians like to think.
I can most certainly say you lost every single person on this thread when you said circular reasoning. Two groups of people are king at circular reasoning Athiest and Mormons. Both hold true to liberal ideology. Both are completely false. I left both based solely on circular reasoning because it is my ultimate pet peeve. Be what ever you want but you can't be a hypocrite my guy. That was foolish
When you tell someone you believe that 13.8 billion years ago the luckiest thing you can ever imagine happened then 4.6 billion years ago another miracle happened then 4.5 billion years ago something else happened that almost destroyed earth then 4 billion years water randomly popped on earth then 3.8 billion years a bunch of molecules formed by a bunch of hot pots that made a chemical reaction under the water. You realize how dumb that sounds. God doesn't exist but all this took place billions of years ago but hasn't died off. No life on Mars but on earth a marine happened a billion years ago 😂
"At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it." Billy Madison the movie.
Logical and Consistent, and testable - his argument to this is saying a "a child molester might say this is good". Morals are a combination of social and empathetic norms among a group of human beings that generally result in the best behavior for the group survival, as such I won't deny the benefits Christianity had on my early life in my personal development of morals or it's place in history, but like santa clause and my fear of getting coal in my stocking you eventually need to stand on your own two feet and take responsibility for your decisions. Regardless this not in any way proof of gods existence, in fact it's more proof of the damage continual believe in these things can cause, whether it's the fact that you believe god is required to tell you that child molesting is wrong to understand what is good or not, or whether it's a man blowing himself up to get 40 virgins because his god said it was ok, it makes you believe you aren't responsible for your own decisions when you are responsible for every action you take on this planet. all that said I still see no proof or argument to coincide with a refute to an atheist that requires "Logical, consistent an testable" proof. let me refute your argument with some of my own and I'll word it to any religion out their not just catholic. what proof do you have that your scripture is real? can you proof a single word in that scripture is authentic to the source it is supposed to be given from? even if you trace it's origins back to a person/persons and can proof that person/persons existence, can you provide proof in any way that the scripture is legitimately from a god/gods and not penned in a back wood as a means to gain social status/power or some other benefit. since I suspect you can't can you provide proof of any part of your religion without said scripture, what leg do you stand on after that...let's be honest here this video is not about refuting atheists because you can't do that, it's about the fact that you believe religion is helping this world, and while it has some advantages nothing in the history of this world has caused more death, genocides, subjugations, suffering, and pain as religion has caused to the human race over history. I will end on this note, you claim agnostics an atheists are the same thing, I will claim my view point because if I had to decide between the two I would identify as agnostic, I believe in the possibility of a creator but no religion to date can explain reality in the detail that needs to be done. as for organized religion that's a farce that I will never subscribe to again faith and religion are separate, the bible preaches peace and unity, the catholic church covers up child rapes, where was your epistemology when the pope was covering that up?
His epistemology would be that it's wrong to molest children because we all made in the image of God with intrinsic value, and harming other people is against God's nature. In your worldview, who says that molestation is really wrong? You? Society? If we are all just atoms bumping into one another and chemical reactions in our brain, maybe the chemicals in some peoples brain makes them think molestation is okay. Who's to say they are objectively wrong. If there is no God, no standard outside of human beings, how can one chemical tell another chemical what they "ought" to do. You can't tell me what to do, why are your chemical reactions in your brain superior over my chemical reactions. But if God created the universe, he has the right to tell me what to do and I am obligated to obey his rules, but im not obligated to obey yours, why don't you obey my rules, and do what my chemical reactions think are good.
Ah the old twist on the "problem of induction" a la Sye Ten Bruggencate. Consider: when you question the validity of logic (the study of valid reasoning) what, then, are you using to question it? In other words, what axioms must you accept to be absolute so that you may doubt that those same axioms are absolute? Do you see the problem?
32:30 Someone explain this to me, please. I've been trying to understand this for days and I can not. How can one be left in doubt if 2 + 2 are really 4?
So the pre-Christian Greco-Roman civilization (lacking Jesus) still managed to master Literature, Sculpture (Art) and Engineering (Mathematics). How did they do this without Jesus?
Well being created by God to have the capacity to do so seems to be a logical answer....im confused that you would ask that. Youre asking why would people who dont believe in Jesus be able to do things people are capable of doing? Why can a toddler speak a sentence?.... because it was made with that capacity.
That’s like saying that an apple is a representation of the “universal truth of red” numbers are just adjectives with which we describe reality, and the fact that something is abstract doesn’t mean that it’s mystical
@@ManlyServant he’s not wrong-he does word salad and try’s to change little things here and there to help himself. Atheism-the lack of belief in a god or gods. Or not being convinced there are any gods. That’s it.
@@samiamm7906 and the point I was making was that how does this apologist think he can refute atheism if he doesn’t understand the basics of the topic? Do you feel he refuted atheism? Some have the view/position of belief. Many don’t.
A wise man said, circa year 1000, immortalized as Psalm 14:1: The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. Once you study and understand material biology, it becomes increasingly difficult to build philosophical foundations on immaterial constructs based on centuries of flawed materialism. If you possess objectivity, have a read of 'In Six Days ' Why 50 Scientists choose to Believe in Creation.
@@BrendanLightfoot Circa 1,000BCE David might have said "the fool has said in his heart, there is no God", but even if he had it's not evidence for a God If anything it's much easier to establish axioms with materialism to use as philosophical foundations; we're all made of matter and our experiences are an interaction of that matter; consciousness; our consciousnesses like to be happy so we should organize ourselves in a way that maximizes this; morality "In Six Days" has no new arguments
@@Zederzzz I'm sorry you feel that way. You may be used to arguing with well intended, if occasionally annoying Christians, but at their core, they want you to come out the other side of death in a better place. One cannot be reasoned or cajoled into the correct, Christ-centric spiritual position. Each conversion is a miracle and sadly, most of us are far too proud to ever get there. We call it having a burden for the lost, as we know what comes after death, and don't want that for you.
@@BrendanLightfoot please don't feel too sorry for us Brendan, but thank you for the concern :) "The road to hell is often paved with good intentions" - but unfortunately intentions are not proof for the intended thing, as much as they are appreciated It's interesting you say no one can be reasoned into believing, and each conversion is a miracle; is that openly saying reason and evidence are not the most important thing to Christ-centrism?
Romans 19 and 20 "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" The proof of God is all around us. Many are just too blind to see.
What's the proof? What is it I don't see? Or are we just seeing the same things and coming to different conclusions? Please be specific, being vague about what I'm not seeing doesn't help me see it.
Where do we start? The date of Christmas? All the other dates? The first half of the entire Bible (ok, that one is kind of unfair)? If we try to point out all of them we would still be here, when the universe ends...
Interesting that although many aethiests have viewed this, all the comments I have seen are from keyboard-surfers giving no points that help their case. If we listen to debates between the two the main difference is not evidence because theories like evolution have no real evidence. The difference is faith - simply what do you choose to believe. You either believe that the universe has a purpose (created by God) or it has no purpose. We all at some point make a choice. If I choose God why would an aethiest care and bother to spend time writing comments trying to convince me otherwise? If I am wrong why would someone else care that much? If we are just star dust and actions have no purpose then surely there is better things to do with your time like enjoying the time you have on earth alive.
well, what's gods criteria for lying, do you get eternal damnation for lots of lies, or just for misrepresenting what atheists and agnostics believe, i would've thought if you are "doing gods work" but lying to achieve it, well, god won't be happy. god made me atheist, and as we know god doesn't just do random stuff. god wants you to be good just for the sake of being good, so an atheist is just what god wants, atheists don't exploit god at all, and what we do we do sincerely, anyone with faith or belief is just following orders and avoiding hell. we aren't, we are open and honest, and still good. us keyboard warriors are concerned becasue religion is a big, big lie, and spreading lies is not a good thing, it's no good saying us keybaord warriors ought to get on with something more productive when you lot are a) condemning us to hell with no evidence, and b) you lot could be doing something more productive, the jordan petersons of this world could actually be using that huge brain to make life better, not perpetuate mythology, gods have already been forgotten, this one needs forgetting too.
If you need apologetics, you're doing something wrong. Reality doesn't need to be deciphered and defended with word games and logic puzzles; it merely needs to be demonstrated. Try this: transcribe every word of this talk, then replace every mention of god with Superman, then evaluate whether you can be persuaded that the comic book character is really out there flying around. Odds are you'll realize how absurd this all sounds, and you can start living your life rather than spending so much time trying to figure out how to trick people into believing something you haven't a molecule of material evidence to demonstrate.
The first idea is a giant straw man. Agnosticism doesn’t say knowledge in general is impossible. It says knowledge about certain things(god for example) is not available at the moment.
Right? Just provide the same evidence for a god as for all the other things we believe exist, and we'll believe the god exists. There is nothing impossible about that if the god does in fact exist. The ball is in the theists' court.
I'm new to Apologia Studios. I've watched about five or six videos this past week and I really like what I see/hear. I really appreciate the respectful approach towards evangelism in the spirit of 2 Tim. 2:24-25: "And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." I've engaged atheists on the internet for over 20 years. In the beginning, due to their often aggressive and arrogant approach (not all do this), I was very intimidated. But after a while you begin to see patterns in their arguments, and you find out that they usually approach the issue of God and religion the same way. Once I saw the logical flaws in their arguments, the attempts on their part to intimidate vanished away. I knew they were more bark than bite. So be encouraged, Christian. Our faith has many valid proofs. God has not asked us to walk blindly. Look beyond any shallow criticism or mocking to the substance of the message and you'll lose your fear and be able to logically refute their arguments. To the atheist, let me just say that it's important for you to understand a very fundamental fact: truth is truth whether you believe it or not. Truth is truth if no one believes it. It stands on its own and doesn't need support. So many of you imagine that unless YOU are convinced by the presented evidence it's not really evidence. Putting aside the arrogance of such a position, it's simply not logical. Again, if something is true it's true whether you believe it or not. So you can't logically and emphatically say, "There is no evidence for God!" All you can say is that you don't find the evidence compelling. Such a statement would be more in line with the truth. We then encourage you to keep your mind open and really examine the evidence thoroughly. Ask yourself (if you're really interested in finding the truth), "Am I missing something?" If you honestly seek, you will find the truth.
Saying that truth is truth whether we believe it or not (meaning truth is objective not subjective) is pointless to say. Atheists do not deny that there is objective truth - they just recognize that people believe according to their subjective idea of it, and that one can't just decree his subjective evaluation as objective. I can say atheism is true whether you believe it or not just as easily as you can say Christianity is true whether I believe it or not. The following videos are true whether you believe them or not ;) Quiz Show (Bible Contradictions): ruclips.net/video/RB3g6mXLEKk/видео.html Jephthah (Judges 11): ruclips.net/video/Pt66kbYmXXk/видео.html Perfect Double Standard: ruclips.net/video/ZyFM0_AhIYA/видео.html The Internet: Where religions come to die ruclips.net/video/0Rqw4krMOug/видео.html The Burden of Proof: ruclips.net/video/KayBys8gaJY/видео.html
@@ErikLiberty Oh, sure! Anyone can claim something is truth, and it’s usually derived from their subjective perspective. So how do we know if they are right or wrong? We lay that claim next to objective truth and see if it measures up, and we embrace or reject accordingly. The general conclusion you came to is true: we all use our subjective bias to interpret objective truth. But that begs the question: can objective truth therefore even be fully known if no one fully represents it? It wouldn’t seem so if I am understanding what you’re saying. However, I believe it exists beyond anyone’s bias and can be known. I believe it’s Christianity (whether I can fairly represent it or not). I know you disagree. So then I ask you, since you acknowledged objective truth, where is it, and how do you KNOW it’s true?
@@ErikLiberty You're right. (Although, there are plenty of people who do not believe in objective truth, so it's not pointless to state.) So, question: where is this objective truth and, if we are all biased, how can we truly recognize it?
You are correct. Truth is truth, or more accurately, reality is reality, regardless our thoughts opinions knowledge acceptance of it. But it also doesn’t do anyone any good if it is not recognized. And for claiming something as truth does not make it truth. Proclaiming the reality of a God does not make God a reality. Quoting a Bible verse that says I actually do know the true God does not do anything to support the claim. So while reality is reality irrespective how our synapses fire, we are the ones trying to figure out which understanding of reality is correct so that we can do life on this space rock together. So what am I missing?
@@mrhyde7600 Thanks for your comments. I guess the real question is, “What is the process by which we recognize reality?” And doesn’t that process need to be universal and standard for all, and doesn’t the reality need to be embraced NO MATTER when it is?
Apologetics like this are why religion is dying. You can't make such obvious mistakes about simple definitions, like agnosticism and atheism, without people doing 5 minutes of research and disproving you.
This will help you:
Gnostic theist: I believe God exists, and I also know God exists.
Agnostic theist: I believe God exists, but don't claim to know God exists.
Agnostic atheist: I don't believe God exists, but don't claim to know God doesn't exist. (most atheists, like me, are here for many definitions of God)
Gnostic atheist: I don't believe God exists, and also claim to know God doesn't exist.
Just for your reference, theists. You won't look so silly right off the bat if you at least understand the terms you're trying to use. Also that's not an ad hominem fallacy, he straight up lies about definitions and literally makes himself look like he has no idea what he's talking about.
Most of you don't even know who are either. I understand where you are coming from but that's a lot of bureaucracy to direct yourself at the same basis at the end of the day: doubt!
@Danny Pipes You did, at least enough to read and comment ;)
@Danny Pipes The "dorky" definitions matter when he is attempting to refute definitions that are not correct
It looks like you are describing yourself.
@Danny Pipes What's so pompous about two very different definitions of atheism, when there are countless different sects of Christianity? Are they all just looking to "rebrand?" Despite my beliefs, I still respect all denominations' beliefs, and don't arrogantly dismiss them for not wanting to be misrepresented. Many atheists felt like their ideology was misreprented by this video, meaning the entire video was straw-manning. But by all means, keep smoking your tobacco so you can rush to meet your maker.
How to completely refute Atheism? Simple; produce a god. Any god. Good luck.
spacecadet35 Produce? Ask God to reveal Himself to you. Do it sincerely. This is how God is proven.
Most atheists were once Christians, and so they know it's not that simple.
Lorel Latorilla God is proven the same way as anything else is, through empirical evidence, not through anecdotal data. The way you suggests produces no evidence of anything except a human's ability to deceive themselves about reality.
spacecadet35
Pray tell how I would prove God empirically?
Secondly, naturalism suggests that our thought processes are the result of chemical reactions that follow the laws of nature. How am I sure that what I think/believe points to the truth?
Also, if we came about by evolution, what does it matter if we don't perceive reality properly? Jeff Durbin was a drug addict before he became a Christian. So even if Christianity were false, would you not agree that it is a good belief system that ensures his evolutionary fitness? Evolution doesn't care about true beliefs or not.
*How am I sure that what I think/believe points to the truth?*
If it has predictive power, and those predictions hold up to scrutiny, then it is likely true. There are no absolute certainties in life, but if your model of reality is consistently producing accurate results, then you have a pretty good model going for you. This is why science is so powerful. You can use it to create or observe something and predict how it will behave in the future with remarkable accuracy. So, now the question is, what predictive power does religion have? What evidence is there of a religion being able to predict an occurrence in the real world?
Side note: Evolution is not meant to weed out religion, though I'm sure it will eventually. There is definitely a net-negative benefit to society as a result of religion.
Sadly, you probably know your audience well enough to think this will strike them as valid logic.
@zzpfft hm... not sure how to make it clearer...
I think the man in the video (con man, charlatan, swindler, bullshit artist) understands his audience (the people listening intently to him) well enough to be confident they will find what he is saying (selling) is actually logical and valid (instead of complete and utter crap) and not wonder what the hell he has been smoking (pot, grass, ganja, weed)
Hopefully this cleared up any confusion.
@zzpfft No offense taken. If you're not interested in my opinion I suggest not reading them... and certainly not writing to me asking for more of them.
And the 5 black belts mean what...?
@zzpfft Then I would suggest you don't know much about martial arts.
He is not "teaching Love ,Joy,and Peace to total strangers," he is making money by selling a product. And his income is based on his customers not looking too hard.
@zzpfft cool.
Breaking News : The universe farted and everything suddenly existed.
How to strawman atheists and agnostics, or how I learned to stop worrying and love the lies
Cry more
@@Kehvo_exe he’s not wrong.
@@Kehvo_exe cope
Looks like the heavenly father became the father of lies. Who would've thunk it?
You're only revealing you didn't bother paying attention to context if you think he strawmanned agnosticism or atheists. Watch it again, while noticing he was speaking about Epistemology when he said agnostics claim to not be able to know anything with certainty.
using the bible to prove god is like using harry potter to prove the existence of magic
tmblefebvre no it's not.
thisisafakeusername you are right, there is more tangible evidence in Harry Potter than in the bible
tmblefebvre so you believe in magic?
tmblefebvre Jesus rose from the dead. If you can prove He didn't I would agree with you about Harry Potter.
Peter Spencer Harry Potter also rose from the dead.
I'm a christian pilot and I thank God for giving us the ability to produce engineer aerodynamic aircrafts while also thanking him for our dense air that allows for aircrafts to fly. :)
You have no proof that your God exists
This is not a refutation of atheism, it is a sermon, and a perfect example of why apologetics are only convincing to those who already believe. Christians, please, in the same way that you wouldn't go to a Buddhist to learn what Muslims believe, don't go to your pastor or favorite apologist to learn what atheists believe.
As a Christian that is a great analogy lol
Please, there’s no honesty or integrity in Christian apologetics! Its truth seeking with an agenda Other than seeking truth, which means it isn’t truly truth seeking.
I used to be an Atheist. Then I became an Agnostic. Then God pulled me out of my life and revealed himself to me. The saddest part is that when I share my testimony, people don’t believe it’s possible for them. God promises us that he will reveal himself to those who seek him with all their heart mind and soul.
“For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you, declares the Lord, and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and all the places where I have driven you, declares the Lord, and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile.”
Jeremiah 29:11-14 ESV
bible.com/bible/59/jer.29.12-14.ESV
Then I started reading and was not longer blinded. The Bible spoke the truth. The living word of God. I used to criticize but hardly read, or I read with judgement and out of context. Seek him and you’ll find the truth but we don’t because we love our sin.
I know what atheists believe because I was one and I can testify to many refutable things Pastor Jeff says because that was me. I said all those things. I believe all those things. The roots are, we are at enmity with God because he is holy and we are yet sinners but Christ died for us to be forgiven. A FREE gift of eternity. Repent and trust in Jesus. It’s as simple as that, but people would rather eat their sin and enjoy the rotting pleasures of this world than have the blessings and gifts of everlasting life.
It breaks my heart.
How do you know?
"God says"
How do you know god says?
"The bible says god says"
Why would you trust the bible to be genuine revelation?
"I take it on faith." Or "It works for me" or "I was raised within the church"...
Point is, you don't have "God says so" as your epistemological ground floor.
I mean you'd have to refute confirmed prochecy, scientific discorvery, historical facts, testimonies, epistemology and ultimately objective truth given from God's Word... Scripture itself sets an unachievable standard of 100% accuracy in all truth and has met it everytime.. any human works without the Holy Spirit simply cannot produce a truthful worldview.
I'd say a spiritual person without God can be taken more seriously debating truth than an atheist.. an atheist literally has no basis for even existing.. naturalism is verifiably false.
@@sejason56
Nothing in what you just said made any sense at all.
I absolutely love it when pastor Jeff says "ready?" and "watch this"
Same! He always gets my full attention with these phrases and it’s so endearing
Me to. Its normally his cue to make a baseless assertion, a strawman or to demonstrate the dishonesty and moral bankruptcy of Christians!
absolutely? Isn't everything relative?😉
@@jonnyrondo507 Why do you like your own comments? Feeling insecure about something?
@@petros-estin-petra- i like his comments to.
How can someone talk so much but say nothing
I was wondering the same thing: So many words, so little sense.
Mike Public if he was made of chocolate he'd eat himself
apologetics
Rationalizing an emotionally selected conclusion.
the power of faith
The mischaracterisation of agnosticism as a universal doubt of all knowledge (i.e. cartesian scepticism) was so bad I had to stop watching. At least get the terms right.
Very true. I'm not sure if it was his attempt to sway the definition in order to bolster his claims....but it was obviously a fallacious statement.
I also enjoyed that he says most atheists reveal themselves to be agnostics when pressed. Two minutes later he says agnostics are usually atheists, they’re just afraid to admit it. I got a little dizzy there.
Cartesian skepticism is the doubt of all knowledge, but I believe the speaker's strawman of agnosticism was more representative of philosophical skepticism which is distinguished from cartesian skepticism in that a philosophical skeptic denies that anything can be known with certainty (whereas a cartesian skeptic doubts everything but still believes you can come to conclusions through this doubt).
The truth that is spoken here is worth listening to the rest my friend.
The point that is going to be made will be applicable to both agnostics proper or misdefined agnosticism as any worldview that is not founded on the truth of God has no foundation for any actual certain truth and therefore has no consistent ability to ground its claims
@@chrismatthews1762 exactly, the person who commented this missed the point of the video
"How Not To Completely Refute Atheists".....That's a better description of this video. You're welcome.
@Jason
Nope
What a load of complete nonsense
Statement without explanation lol
How to completely refute atheism: present evidence for the existence of god. Go!
You're sitting on his creation.
@@jonathanmcentire970 Are you referring to my ass or to the chair I am on?
@@jonathanmcentire970 oh, good one! Provide evidence this is his creation?
You see, if I don't assume there's a god, then this rock we live on doesn't really seem created, does it? Therefore your insistence it is, makes you look stupid as hell.
@@Thoron_of_Neto There are countless good arguments for the existence of God. What's your primary reason for not believing?
Also, ad hominems, attacking the person rather than the argument, does not give credence to your presupposition.
Easiest thing in the world to refute atheism.
Just show actual evidence that god exists.
Sadly, no theist has ever done this, so I'm still an atheist. You CLAIM you have evidence. But you don't, you just say you do.
'drops a pen' I have just demonstrated the phenomenon we call gravity. Show me evidence akin to that for god, and I will believe. Until then, don't waste my time.
Thomas Dwyer God don't play like that. If you want Him to up, you seek. Sincerely. If not--fine, God doesn't exist for you and you can live your life.
Then that god isn't worth believing in much less worshipping. I shouldn't have to seek out someone who wants me to beleive they exist in the first place.
They should just show they exist 'drops a pen' like I can show gravity exists
A person or being who does that is just a dick, and even if you do believe in him/her/it I have no idea why you would worship such a bizzarely silly being.
Thomas stop acting like a baby for Petes sake. Jeez.
Ad hominem 'shrug'
Thomas Dwyer
Not an ad hominem. Perhaps God hid Himself so that self-entitled people like you can't reach out to Him. Only for people who seek the truth will He reveal himself to.
The title alone proves he's unable to understand what atheism is.
Please explain
@@Jordancheddar Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. It's not something that can be refuted.
@@gabehcuod7017 Well, it could be, if you could show a god exists. Which you can't.
There should be no "ism" on the end. To be an atheist is to simply not believe. So to refute that, you would have to prove that the atheist does believe. Even if you prove a god exists, doesn't mean people have to believe it.
We've proved the world to be spherical, yet some still believe it's flat.
@@jamesmkoenig Well put!
Isn't revelatory epistemology code for making shit up that you can't support with credible evidence?
You deny the most obvious reality and claim people made up the whole universe 😅😅😅😅😅🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
No wonder you are lost miserable with nothing inside no hope no future only lazy fatalistic dishonest narcissism.
What a literal mental zombie 😅😅😅😅😅😅
@Keyboard Warriors Lol How does asking a rhetorical question, that you clearly can't answer, indicate I'm a mental zombie?
Ironically it seems to indicate that YOU are the mental zombie doesn't it?
@@nickjones5435 no you are dorkbag it was answered and from birth duhhhh🤪🤪🤪
A zombie level dishonest strawman question is the work of a duped decieved fake little video game zombie hahahhahaha
Narcissist no 1 owes you anything no 1 needs you
What a goofy self entitled lazy dork🤡🤡🤡🤖🤖🤖
How do you tie your own shoelaces with an iq that low spunky 🤣🤣🤣🤣👽🤡🤡🤖🤪🤪
@@nickjones5435 duhhh i copy what other people say to claim it proves them wrong how clever can you be 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😃😃😃😃
It's not a word game or a trick. It's you setting up a strawman. I used to believe this stuff. Now I see the snake oil salesman at work.
its blatant misrepresentation of the definition.
He seems like a nice guy minus the whole comparing gays to child molesters thing. But look up the definition, he was just plain lying about it. Whether on purpose or by mistake, he was wrong, and you have to accept that.
How condescending. So if someone doesn't believe anymore its because they weren't a real Christian? you realize how condescending that is, don't you?
whitebeltmonkey Romans 1 says you do.
***** No, i'm not dumb for pointing out how condescending it is for you to say if you don't believe now, then you never really believed. You could have once absolutely believed and had that relationship, but now you don't.
There are few things uglier than a salesman inventing a conversation in order to persuade his mark that only idiots wouldn't buy his product.
your opinion, doesn't really matter in an atheistic worldview
@@gregferguson9647 that's the sort of remark that suggests you've given up on the whole "rational thought" thing
@@shinywarm6906 again. Your opinion really doesn't matter in a godless, judgement free worldview where nothing or no one ordains or sees anything. It's all just opinion and everything is subjective and relative. Don't attack my character, attack my argument. But you can't really do that so good luck. You have nothing to stand on.
@@gregferguson9647 "nothing or no-one ordains or sees anything". I guess that might seem true to you, provided you've no self-awareness or conscience, and have never heard of legislatures, state or civil authorities, courts of law, police, prisons, social media posts, or other people. All of these entities, individuals or agents could chose to take notice of my opinions and they could "matter" to all of them. You might define all this as "subjective" but that does not mean it "doesn't matter" (do you think the Nazis' "subjective opinions" didn't matter to the Jews or the Romany Gypsies? You might think without your god "it's all relative", but that doesn't stop it having an effect, or anyone judging or acting on that judgement
@@shinywarm6906 if we all turn to worm food at the end of the day your worldview, then there is no justice for rapists, murderers, slave owners, etc. The lives we live truly mean nothing. And I know you don't believe that.
I broke my calculator adding up the lies
Your life is becoming a disaster and you cannot find rest because you fight against the Living God.
@@loren7114 can you provide actual evidence for anything you just wrote
"Do you want to learn how to refute the Atheistic Worldview?"
There is no atheist world view...
liar
Terry Harris How, exactly, am I lying?
the atheistic worldview is the shared godless worldview.
Terry Harris No. Atheism is the lack of a belief in god, not a belief there is no god. Atheists all have a different world view. All atheists disagree with every other atheist on one thing or another. There is no "atheist world view".
semantics,still godless
I laughed out loud (even snorted a little) watching this, because of how contradicting, ignorant and patronizing it was. He’s a great speaker, but wow, the actual stuff he says (if you actually listen to his words/claims/arguments) are abysmal. He gets definitions all screwed up. He makes up stories, he gives bad examples, and it’s as if he doesn’t know what he is saying, he’s just talking to be heard. And I am guessing the folks who listen and nod their heads are either doing that because they either like the sound of his voice or they are just as ignorant. Or both.
But if this is an example of good Christian apologetics, then that is very sad for Christianity. Someone actually interested and wanting to go over your arguments can easily watch your video more than once and break down your definitions/claims/arguments, and see very clearly how they fail,. And wow do they fail miserably!! And I keep saying wow, because of how great someone can speak, but say something so profoundly ignorant and devoid of any intellectual value.
Funny, because you just did the same thing you accused Jeff Durbin of doing. You wrote a whole paragraph saying how he failed miserably while not actually saying how he failed. Pretty sure we call that Hypocrisy!
@@TexterEX He put out an hour and 20 minutes making bad claims and arguments. I gave a short 2 paragraph opinion, which was critical of the video. Do you want me to break down his video and tell you what he got wrong? I will do that if you really care. If you just want to call me a hypocrite, that's up to you. But that means that people with an opinion can't disagree with this guy, or you for that matter, unless they fully explain their position or else you'll call them a hypocrite. I think that's ridiculous. I think you need to have a better handle on what being a hypocrite means.
Well, do you want me to fully explain my position? Are you even interested in the conversation?
@@smequals yesz go ahead id like to see what you can come up with, or were your claims just "ignorant"
@@TexterEX Ok, I'll hit a few highlights right from the beginning (I mean, it is nearly an hour and 20 minutes, so that's a lot of crap over a long period of time).
[2:22] he mentions Sye Ten Bruggencate, who is a fraud and complete idiot when it comes to apologetics. And honestly, Jeff here has no credibility at this point with me. Perhaps you still, but believe me, if he’s taking a page from Sye’s book, he’s also a fraud. And then he talks about how Christian Apologetics is not about memorizing a script. Well, that’s EXACTLY what Sye does, and I’m pretty sure most Christian Apologists actually do. I bring this up because it is important later.
[6:12] He’s saying that classical atheism says, “there is no god”. Well, the big reason why is that religion has always painted atheism as evil, wicked, of the devil, and as people who declare there is no god. But he’s setting up a straw man argument, because you’ll actually find very few atheists who say, “there is no god”. They say, “I don’t believe in god”, because that is truly what atheism is. He already tries to go back to a bad definition of atheism because it feeds his narrative, but it’s a straw man argument. Also, he continues about agnosticism, but it’s not like agnostics are agnostic about everything as he stated. He totally misrepresents agnosticism, which gets a laugh from the crowd. Being an agnostic when it comes to god means that we don’t know a god exists. And anyone who claims they do know better bring compelling evidence, or they should not convince anyone except the most naïve and gullible people. You can be an agnostic atheist, which means that you don’t know a god exists, and therefore you don’t believe a god exists. That is a very reasonable position, and it doesn’t need justification. I don’t know is a very honest position, and instead of making stuff up (like a god), more people need to go with that than lie to themselves.
[7:45] Jeff says it is not a word game, but then plays the Sye Ten Bruggencate classic word game. Wow!! Not even 10 minutes in and you can’t even trust the guy to make good arguments.
[8:15] Jeff starts talking about atheism and agnosticism being the same, and starts talking about their world view being tied to Darwin, evolution, and all kinds of stuff under a “world view”. This is again a straw-man argument. He already misrepresented the terms, now he’s trying to lump everything together under a conflicting world-view to Christianity. Big huge obvious straw man, as atheism is not a world view. Agnosticism is not a world view. People have world views. Religions can define their own world views. But having a lack of knowledge of a god, or not believing in a god, is not a world view. And to associate anything with agnosticism or atheism like that is completely wrong. Again, a straw man, because he’s creating an argument that atheists and agnostics aren’t making so he can easily knock them down.
[8:42] Jeff mentions origins. Why are origins even brought up? Who said atheists (or agnostics) have a view or idea of origins? Another straw man argument. He assumes all atheists (or agnostics) believe in the same things, and that is not the case. And even if it was, it would be a non-sequitur anyway, as origins are not defined or even implied by atheism (or agnosticism), so why even make that argument? Well, I think we know why he does. He’s creating a divide between Christianity and what he views as non-Christianity, and in the process painting atheists (and agnostics) as being in the wrong. Well, he fails at that. And in the process, shows that instead of making good arguments for his god and Christianity, he just wants to muddy the water and continue his straw man argument.
[12:37] Jeff says how do you know? God says so! That’s his words, not mine. And this is just after he rejected the idea of faith being a way to truth (which I agree with). Well, my question would be, “how do you know God said it?” And then he declares that Christianity is different from all other “revelational epistemologies” because God somehow speaks through everything we do and say. And listen to his double-speak - he says that other religions have revelational epistemologies, but they only speak to one person, while his triune god speaks through everything. His justification? Let’s go to the Christian holy book, where it says stuff to back him up. Wow. And don’t you think for a moment that Muslims can make the same claim? He says no, but a couple of billion Muslims will probably disagree, as their book makes similar claims as well, justified by their book. So, good for him. He makes the same argument other religions do, and brings no evidence to the table. Typical religious apologist right there.
Ok, so I’m less than 20 minutes in, and I’ve already pointed out a bunch of issues. I’ve got other stuff to do, so I’m going to stop for now. If this isn’t enough to satisfy you, then I you're probably not going to be satisfied if I keep going. I don’t plan to change your mind anyway. I’m sure you’ll say that what I wrote is wrong or that I took things out of context or that I’m just a stupid atheist and just don’t get it. Or whatever, it doesn't matter. Believe what you want, I stand on my original statements. If you want to refute me, please go ahead. But let me warn you - if you make claims that you can't support by good evidence, then who cares?! Not me, that's for sure.
Jeff is a con man, and if you don’t want to see that, then that’s on you. I’m certainly not buying his rubbish!
@@smequals 1:I haven't heard of Sye Ten Bruggencate, but you didn't really give me a good reason to believe why he's fraud, so I would have to go off your opinion on that.
2: If you ask any atheists if God exists they would say he does not, I don't know what type of atheists you've seen.
3:Again, you've said he is playing word games but failed to give me any good reason to believe he is, so again, I would have to just take your opinion.
4: You said that classical atheists wouldn't say God does not exist they just don't believe in him(sounds like a different branch of agnostic to me), but here you are saying Jeff is wrong for tying atheism and agnosticism together. Make up your mind.
5:You say atheism has no view of origins, ever heard of evolution?
6:A Muslim trying to say "God says so" would just be really agreeing with Christians because the Quran itself says to go to gospel first for instructions.
(Also it sounds like you're playing words games when you say "atheists don't say there is no God they say they don't believe in one" again, you're being a hypocrite by claiming Jeff/Sye is playing games while you're playing word games.
I love YT comment sections, the 13 year old atheists come in with all the edge.
The title should be "How to be stupid and make money by making others stupid"
The goal post shifts because of how YOU want to define it.
Oh the irony.
O of course. Atheists don't have any true morals, nor can they even clearly define anything, so when a Christian questions you atheists about your morality you can not even understand your own views.
Read the book yet?
I am just speechless as to how ridiculous this is, I love a good religious debate but this guy is beyond rational thinking. He is slinging woo woo all over the place.....
Nice explanation
+ Wicked_Robb
Yeah... and people like him from each and every god-espousing religion/belief-system/way-of-life have lots and lots of unwilling-to-be-unbrainwashed followers who love to lap up all the crap.
@@yevodee4024 or maybe you just dont get it :)
+@@danielomitted1867
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I do get it. :-)
@@yevodee4024 just curious, what’s your worldview?
I get the impression that he has never debated a real atheist.
Actually he has, and it’s pretty interesting! I’d encourage you to check out his recent debate: Durbin & White vs. Clark & Ellis
@@kayttajatunnus01 will do, thanks.
I feel like he's setting up believers for failure. Not intentionally, of course.
@@kayttajatunnus01 so just watched a debate. He doesn't know what he's talking about. It was painful to watch.
@@cromwellfluffington1627 this was painfull to wacht for me, for real, but i do it anyway because a want to learn to hear others ideas to refute them and also to look at the "intelectual" part of christian religion
He actually does, but he is really dense in the way he does it (exactly as he describes here). He has a system that lets him maintain the appearance of confidently responding to everything, even though the actual content makes no sense.
Unfortunately, most secular people don’t spend much time thinking about the ontology of logic and morality, so it is easy for him to trip them up with it. His explanations don’t actually answer the concern, but he sounds confident when he says them. He capitalizes on putting/finding people in vulnerable positions. By doing so, he can come out smelling like a rose, by comparison.
Where was the refutation? Still an atheist here. Nothing he said worked at all to refute atheism. Happy to discuss if someone wants. Has to be a civilized and respectful conversation.
Albert Camus and Friedrich Nietzsche very popular atheist philosophers both prove the absurdity of atheists and the logical conclusion of that world view. In short atheisms is self refuting, it proves its self pointless and absurd.
@@souzajustin19d No, they don’t.
@@souzajustin19d atheism is not being convinced any gods exist.
Theism is believing at least one god exists.
That’s it for both.
Doesn’t matter what some other philosophers said, considering they didn’t actually show atheism is absurd.
What is the logical conclusion of atheism?
How is it self refuting? How does it prove its pointless? Unless you are trying to do what Jeff does and make atheism more than what it actually is.?
@@therick363 what is the objective purpose of life?
@@souzajustin19d well how about you respond to what I said and asked first? Then I’ll be happy to answer your question. That’s kinda how conversations go.
The object isn't to defeat atheism within your own mind. You will always be the winner of that debate. It is to refute atheism in the mind of the atheist. That is not a simple task.
@chasm or sar they don't want to believe even if you give evidence they will not believe unless God intervenes in their life they will not believe our aim is to tell them the gospel it is up to God whether they believe it or not.
people's do not believe in God for various reason but it really just rebellion they don't want someone telling them what to do also it would mean they are accountable to God for how they live their life. everything(but God) has a beginning nothing+nothing=nothing.no God no universe no earth no humans no plants no animals no space no light no planets nothing.
@@truthseekers1620 Of course that's true, but God is also the source of reason. It's okay to use rational arguments as well. It would be denying a part of God's divine essence to think otherwise.
@@chasmofsar2691Indeed - I realize this is old, but I'd say that a lie has limitless appeal. It can be literally anything you want it to be, and it will tell you anything you want to hear.
Now of course, lies fail - it's only a matter of where and when. Regarding these truths, the decieved holds hands symbiotically with the deception.
To separate from the lie is to die and be born again; an athiest will fight tooth and nail, as if their life depends on it, precisely because it does.
Faith changes everything, and challenges every lie that's ever worked together to build a non-believer. Redefinition through faith builds people up stronger than they ever could have been, but a godless person just sees their tiny worldly tower getting knocked down.
@@truthseekers1620but you Christians have given 0 evidence for God
@@chasmofsar2691prove that God exist
Apologetics: how to make the evidence fit your belief rather than make your belief fit the evidence. Got it.
Respectfully that’s false… Every Apologetic that I have ever watched(at least) believes in God because of intelligent design that’s some of their main arguments… and that’s self contradicting for you to say that because a lot of atheists claim Religious people plug in “God” for hard to understand things that happen
@@Mojojojo335 of course I’m being hyperbolic but I don’t really understand your point. You’re saying people believe in God because of ID? I don’t think I’ve ever heard of an atheist or agnostic becoming a theist because of ID. It’s almost always someone trying to explain their belief in God in the face of biblical (just an example) contradictions with scientific theories like Evolution.
@@rethinking_reality no that’s not the only reason but that’s one of there main arguments to how they believe we are not here without some sort of god higher power…. Most Atheists don’t want God to exist(from my experience) …. I’m not a super strong Faith Christian I have a lot of nihilist views lol but it’s self defeating I asked my atheist friends and people online if god was proven to be true would you follow him and every single one of them said NO or either they hesitated
@@Mojojojo335 No sir, stop. It has nothing to do with wanting a god to exist. It’s about whether or not there is a justified rational reason to conclude one does. But choosing not to follow one has nothing to do with the desire for there to be one, it just means that they recognize that the God described in the Bible is morally a piece of shit, and following a moral piece of shit would violate their own moral standards. Me, I would sell out in a heartbeat, I’m not going to hell if there is a God, so allow me to be the first atheist to say screw that noise, I will throw my morality right out the window, all the while knowing I’m a better person than that God.
Same thing could be said about science 🤷🏽♂️
I am constantly surprised on how apologists are unable to understand the terms agnosticism and atheism.
First of all, agnostic atheism is not a mutually exclusive position.
I do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that no gods exist. That makes ma agnostic.
I also happen to not believe a god exists. That makes me an atheist.
As long as you understand that one position is related to knowledge, and the other is related to belief, you got it. Pretty simple actually.
pandstar he’s not unable to understand. He’s unwilling to admit that he DOES.
Same thing with "knowledge" and "belief"
Before I became a born again Christian this is how I described myself, you’re right.
I didn’t believe, but I also understood that I could not know. Therefore I called myself an agnostic atheist. I would say that this Jeff guy is a little inaccurate with his descriptions of words and religion. He could steelman Atheism/Agnosticism’s position to refute it which would strengthen his point. Instead he strawmanned you guys. Keep searching for the truth my friend. God will reveal himself to you when you are ready. Trust me, I would read this a year ago and call myself crazy. But Christ is truth. 20 year Agnostic Atheist here. I literally wore a Moses costume for “Fictional Character Day” at school. Trust me I was a heathen 😂
@@AaronBornAgain I was a theist for decades. And despite being sincerely searching for god, said god never was revealed to me. I am still opened to being convinced, but I am also not holding my breath.
Well, Moses was actually a fictional character. The vast, VAST majority of scholars, historians, Near East experts, etc are convinced about this.
@@AaronBornAgain Moses costume 😂
Atheism doesn't say there is no god, it says there is no credible evidence for a god and thus justifies a lack of a belief in a god.
A speech of more than one hour and still I didn't hear a consistent argument against atheism, you can't prove what doesn't exist and a book isn't a proof of anything, neither is your opinion or your feelings. Nevertheless I love Jeff's speeches with JW and mormons.
@17:50 a laundry list of claims, with not citations. (the brain thing excluded) Where is the evidence? Which source, besides the bible, did you get any of this evidence? hmm?
You didn’t get it.
The Christian apologetic uses the Bible as our basis of truth. If you don’t agree with it then reject it and move along. If you had something that you knew to be the truth why would you try using something else to prove it to be true?
+Apologia Studios and specifically +Jeff Durbin I must say that find it extremely difficult to take Pastor Jeff seriously in this sermon/lecture. This is primarily due to Jeff's constant misrepresentation of claims made by Atheists, Mathematicians, Scientists, etc. and it become even more difficult to do so when we consider the absolutist and dogmatic claims (that btw, Jeff failed to in anyway demonstrate are probable let alone are established absolute "Fact/Truth") sprinkled throughout his preachings.
In short this speech is indicative off nothing more than the oh so familiar echo chambers that some christians feel are effective. Let me assure you my friend/s preachers like Jeff have no effect (outside perhaps confirming how little religion actually has to offer) on individuals who actually care about finding truth not "Truth.
Finally, As a side note to Jeff personally, Jeff based on your propertied encounters with people holding differing view points from your own all I can say is it would seem to the uninformed viewer that you have yet to encounter someone who has given these issues much thought &/or effort. However, after searching the internet I came to discover numerous discussions/debates where you are provided with much more substantive responses to your "questions", so I find it interesting (and even more telling) that you would choose to highlight the "answers" you have in this talk. With that said if you would ever like to discuss any of these topics with someone who is able and most willing to provide better answers your questions and perhaps even some refutations to your claims I would be more than will to offer my services.
Thanks for your time,
Ned (~P)
32:30 Someone explain this to me, please. I've been trying to understand this for days and I can not.
How can one be left in doubt if 2 + 2 are really 4?
Actually no matter what you say you can’t refute beliefs. Beliefs are not a choice but something that happens.
I came here expecting you to lie and misunderstand, and I was not disappointed.
It baffles me how willing some people can be to tie themselves up into such logic pretzels that belief without good reason makes sense to them. This is my biggest issue with religion - otherwise sensible people believing in nonsense and feeling justified in doing so.
Oh the irony
@@ServingChrist where is the irony?
@@ServingChrist bro fr, I literally thought that was a Christian commenting at first, the irony is extremely strong.
Dude. There are 100+ logically valid & sound arguments for God recognized by mainstream academia. Type in *100 arguments for God* to see.
The only way anyone could claim there aren't any good reasons to believe in God are:
1. Complete ignorance
2. Scientism (the self-refuting philosophy that truth can only be known if it's scientifically verified, which cannot be scientifically verified ITSELF)
@howie b personally belief in God has nothing to do with wishful thinking no God no universe no humans man made religion God made man he has nothing to do with religion
Would you like to shame people, judge people and be proud to hate....Ladies and Gentleman....Jeff is for you!
On a revelational epistemology, how does one know that the revelation isn't actually from Satan deceiving us trying to draw us away from God?
You wouldn't ask that question if you believed the Bible to be true. Since you do not believe it to be true, you can't make sense of nothing, including the question you just made.
You can ask any question you want if you believe the Bible to be true. You can always question the justification of already held beliefs.That YOU wouldn't ask such a question doesn't entail that no one would ask such a question.
Putting it plainly, your question clearly shows that you do not know the Bible, thus my response. Besides, your question also presupposes much many things, that without God, one cannot account for, such as logic and truth.
How do you KNOW that YHWH isn't the devil that Satan is reputed to be?
Believing the bible to be true does not MAKE it true, you utter fucking moron.
Says he knows things because "God said so". Proceeds to give zero evidence that any god said anything. Be better.
So I'm about 10 minutes in and it's seeming pretty off. I call myself an agnostic atheist, but under his definitions I'm neither an agnostic nor and atheist. I'm not absolutely certain whether any gods exist, but based on current evidence I don't believe any of the gods that have been described to me actually exist. I don't claim no gods exist. I don't claim we can't know anything, because there are some things I can be absolutely certain of, like the content of my thoughts, opinions, and preferences. I also think a god of classical theism would find it trivially easy to provide evidence for its existence, of the same quality and quantity for everything else I believe in. This is how pretty much every atheist I know or have heard of thinks, too, and so he is constructing arguments against a straw man.
And for all that he says don't just follow a script, the "do you know you don't know anything" script is something I've heard several times before, and it always falls flat.
There is a reason why we don't have apologists constantly creating philosophical arguments to reassure us of the existence of our pets, the country Australia, the pyramids of Giza, or the element Lithium. These things all have good evidence and their existence is therefore clear. No god meets the same evidentiary criteria; instead they all seem to fall into the same evidentiary category as mythological creatures, magic, and UFOs. And so I don't currently believe such claims.
I think it's important to realize that the target audience for this video is not for someone with your views. It's aimed at Christians who want to understand how to present their beliefs to others.
I would say the way God arranges His evidence is it begins as, at best, a 50/50. However, once a person makes the decision to follow Him, this changes until the moment... (have you heard this before? That God "reveals Himself" to someone) and then it is no longer 50/50 and can even be as high as 100%/0%.
The main thing is to realize (but NOT from this video) that there is enough evidence to warrant a thorough examination of what is out there. People whose profession is to examine tough questions, the best minds out there that are Nobel Laureates, are a massive majority of believers in God, with at least 68 or so % Christians and another 13% Jewish...and not casual believers but those willingly being quoted in their belief. If these sorts of minds are being convinced, then the rest of us need to examine the issue VERY closely.
It all depends upon if a person wants to spend eternity with God or not. God will not force anyone to join Him in the "next life."
@@billyholly Well, the target audience is people who want to challenge my view, and I explained why this sort of challenge won't work. In particular, these arguments and "evidence" skirt around my epistemology, always staying in the realm of likely imaginary things.
I understand that the easiest people to convert are desperate people looking for some emotional reassurance, who feel a need for social support. Church communities can definitely offer these things but this in fact has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of their religious claims. Any group of people can do the same, regardless of their particular beliefs.
Nor am I impressed by your appeal to Nobel laureates. You are appealing to experts in a particular field, to justify their beliefs about a different field outside of their expertise; this is a fallacious appeal to authority. Nobel laureates also tend to be elderly, and so are culturally much more likely to be religious. In fact the vast majority of scientists and philosophers are atheists, but again this has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of unscientific, unfalsifiable beliefs.
Would I want to marry a woman (for a marriage lasting decades) based on a book by anonymous authors, stating third-hand claims about her appearance, personality traits, or the very fact of her existence? Absolutely not. If these writing claimed she had magic powers, I would be even more dubious. How could I possibly want to spend an *eternity* with someone, then, based on the same poor evidence?
To determine if I like someone, or for them to coerce me into something through the force of their personality, at a minimum they first have to evidently exist. Right? Plenty of people in the bible are depicted as speaking with god, and then later reject him. He preserved their free will and yet can't talk to me without coercion, or does he probably not exist and these are stories, and there is no god for me to meet?
@@weirdwilliam8500 These are all thoughts worth examining. What if you select the most important. I would suggest those dealing with Jesus since without a resurrected Jesus, there is no reason for Christianity. What do you think? Should we take a look? One thought about the Nobel Laureates, my point there, ancient old or not, they are at their prime enough to win an award and they know how to examine evidence. I am not appealing to their authority. We take Stephen Hawking seriously, Bill Nye the Science Guy and several other well-known atheists and they are also outside their fields in their remarks.
Never mind on that. What do you think of my Jesus question? Unlike many other commenters, you actually seem to be seeking real answers and are not relying on repeating memes.
@@billyholly Hey Billy. Thanks for your reply. I agree this has been a good conversation, especially for a RUclips comment section. :)
If we look at the evidence for Jesus, it doesn't rise above the common, established pattern of legendary development, urban legends, or exaggerating the truth to promote a religion. These are the sorts of human patterns we see in every other religion, tall tale, etc. The case for Christianity is especially weak since all of the gospels are anonymous and only Paul actually reports seeing a risen Jesus, although he never knew Jesus in life and he only reports seeing a light and hearing a voice. Many known mundane phenomena could explain his single experience.
Looking at the chronology of the four gospels, as accepted by the consensus of biblical scholars, we can see that each subsequent gospel includes more supernatural or miraculous details than the one before it. If we then look at the chronology of the other roughly 40 gospels that were not canonized in the bible, we see a continuing pattern of legendary development, with Jesus' head reaching into the clouds, a talking cross, disciples paralyzing people with a touch, and many more extreme claims. The original gospel of Mark had very little supernatural elements, and the modern ending where the women spread the news was also absent in its earliest manuscripts. Just people and an empty tomb.
If we plot this rate of increase in supernatural claims on a timeline by each gospel, and extrapolate the line backwards through decades of oral tradition and proselytizing to the time of Jesus' life, we arrive at zero miracles on the line. We arrive at the sort of mundane origin typical of every religion, which you as a Christian presumably believe is the case for every other religion.
There are no extra-biblical accounts of anything related to Jesus' supposed life, death or resurrection. There are extra-biblical accounts from decades later, where the accounts simply describe what Christians at that time believed. That early Christians were fervent in their beliefs is neither remarkable nor indicative of the truth or falsehood of their beliefs.
We have seen modern preachers as well as the writings of early Church fathers express that lying for the purpose of spreading their faith is acceptable. We have seen how a single claim from one person can spread and become exaggerated or embellished until it becomes a religion. Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard are the most recent examples.
We have countless examples of this myth progression, from religions, to the myth of the stolen 2020 election, to Elvis sightings, to tales of Paul Bunyan, King Arthur, Baba Yaga and many more. We have countless examples of people lying, exaggerating, or being mistaken. We have countless examples of bereavement delusions, which is a common phenomenon where people have delusions in which they see, hear, or feel people who have recently died who they had a strong emotional attachment to.
We have zero demonstrable or reliable examples of anyone actually rising from the dead.
For this reason, I place Christianity in the broadly known, mundane category of mythology, because that is much more likely than an entirely new and undemonstrated ontology, namely a supernatural suspension of physical laws.
Thanks for reading, if you read this far!
@@weirdwilliam8500 Hehe! Don't worry about the length. I actually DID make it through to the end.
However, it's better you look at the issue one step at a time or one may "lose the forest for the trees," with me mashing up that common saying. Can we take it one point at a time? Jesus? The Gospels aren't nor have ever been embellished. They have never been a game of "telephone." I can refer you to specific scholars on this, if you'd like. There are TONS of clips like: ruclips.net/video/-F_xRyi1yAs/видео.html
Memes repeat the telephone idea and others to discredit the accounts but they are simply not true. However, keep in mind, the Bible never saved anyone.
We DO have the ridiculous Gnostic Gospels from a couple hundred years later that should totally be rejected, perhaps a distraction strategy, pushed upon us by the "enemy."
In an oral tradition society with only a 10% literacy rate and paper costing a fortune, very few written records remain but more words had been written about Jesus than the reigning emperor of the time, like four times as many.
The preaching began in the city where Jesus was crucified, a poor choice if they were speaking lies as many witnesses lived right there and could have disagreed with what was being taught of Jesus...and not ONE contradiction from that time came out.
As for the hustlers like Smith, who worked as a conman in his younger days, expect the enemy to use such types to distract from the truth.
It's always wise to first understand what you are talking about.
It doesn't seem very sensible to provide a group of people with incorrect information.
And this gentleman has no idea what atheism means.
And that is unfortunate because many Christians look at this and use this in a conversation with an atheist, and many atheists will not recognize themselves in this description of atheism.
'The atheist' and 'The Christian' simply do not exist, they can not easily be defined.
An Atheist doesn't deny the existence of a god, but an atheist is not so sure if there is a god at all.
That is a considerable difference!
Atheism is certainly not a 'denial' of the existence of a god.
To deny something that exists without a doubt and that something determines what happens with you after you die is not very logical.
If the Christian claims that there is a god, then the Christian will have to prove it.
The same applies to the atheist who claims that there is no god.
An atheist may use false arguments for his / her unbelief, but that doesn't mean that there is a god.
And that also applies to the Christian.
Accepting good or bad arguments that reinforce your beliefs is personal.
There are so many factors that determine how someone deals with logic.
It's also very frustrating for both atheists and Christians when someone paints a false picture of what an atheist or Christian is
or isn't, believes or doesn't believe.
And when there's also a lot of ego and ridiculization involved then the irritation limit is reached quickly.
That's never a good foundation for an honest discussion.
I'm not talking about making jokes during a discussion, which can help keep a discussion light.
-- yeah, no. You saying what you think Dawkins said then claiming Dawkins said it is more of the same kind of dreck in this video.
I made it 4 minutes. That was when he said to think with the mind of Christ to defend Christ with apologetics... I can't take that position seriously, I'm sorry. To have your conclusion in your premises is circular reasoning, I don't know what else to say
I think it's good that you gave it a shot. However, by the title, I think you can guess that the target audience for this clip is not atheists or agnostics. I think it's aimed at Christians and how they might try to organize their thoughts when discussing God with non-believers. I can try to wade through some questions with you. I'm certainly no expert but I am pretty good at searching various sources for answers.
@@billyholly oh boy this was a while ago haha, I don't even remember what the video talked about anymore. But yeah something with that title can't possibly be geared towards the non-believer, unless it is written ironically. Still though, once in a while I like to hear what the other side of the table is talking about, you know?
All epistemological reasoning is circular. Keep studying.
No, being agnostic does not mean "we can't know anything" it means we don't know if there is or is no higher being or god, because it is impossible to refute or prove.
It's not impossible to prove. Consider this:
All of us human beings, aside from a few exceptions here and there, have the same basic/main body parts [head, chest, arms, hands, legs, feet] and move and function the same way.
Genesis 1:26-27 "And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
Year after year, when babies are born, they pretty much always look, move, and function the same. Same with every other living, breathing life form on the planet.
If that's not proof that God, or a high being, is real, I don't know what is.
Because if you take intelligent design out of the picture entirely, there's no guarantee that nature would've come to exist and work like it does.
Dear someone at Apologia Studios,
Please answer the following:
1. Yes or no, do you exist?
If no, then how do you justify the claim that you do not exist?
2. Yes or no, are you certain that you exist?
If no, are you saying that it is possible you do not exist? Please justify that!
3. If you have answered _Yes_ to 1. And 2., and are a proponent of the Presuppositional Worldview, you are now making a knowledge claim that:
(A) You exist. As well as,
(B) The only way you can have knowledge, is to know everything. Meaning: - Being God or to have things revealed to us by One that knows everything.
If yes, please justify the knowledge claim that you exist using your presuppositional worldview on how knowledge is gained.
4. If you counter is to say, _“God has revealed to me that I exist; and the fact that I exist allowed me to receive and retain that knowledge,”_ then please answer: Yes or no, would you agree that _if_ the absolute truth or validity of your claim (B) depends on your presuppositional claim/epistemology (A), then, would you not have to have absolute knowledge of (A) to be certain that (B) is true?
If no, please justify that!
5. Yes or no, would you agree that in order to have something revealed to you, you must exist in order to be able to receive it?
If no, then how do you justify how God can reveal things to people who don’t exist?
yYM
7:45 Why does Jeff give an inaccurate description of agnosticism? Agnosticism is not the claim "We cannot know anything." Especially when referring to the god context that he's using, the agnostic position is "I do not know if there's a god." The agnostic may also claim that "We cannot know whether there's a god or not." Jeff's "refutation" to this claim is simply saying, "Do you know that?" and claiming that the agnostic's claim is self-refuting. Sorry, this is a poor start.
Well, he IS an apologist... his job it to make shit up in order to perform the mental gymnastics required to justify his belief in Yahweh
@@keystonelyte Naturally.
As soon as you hear him define "Classical Atheist" you should realize that he isn't defining Atheist. If he was defining Atheist and not straw manning Atheist then why would he use the qualifier "classical"? What does his definition of "Classical Atheist" have to do with the definition of Atheist? If I redefine Atheist to mean Apple and agnostic to mean Green. Does that mean agnostic Atheist belief they are Green Apples? If my redefinition doesn't change what Atheist belief then why would you think his definitions accurately represents what Atheist belief? Why can't you address what Agnostic Atheist actually belief?
I don't know if a God or Gods exist and I lack a belief in a God or Gods. By his definition I can not be Agnostic or an Atheist. What am I?
That's his point. The dictionary definition of atheism changed from the classical(original) definition of "there is no god" to the contemporary "lack of belief in God(s)." He didn't change the definition, the dictionary purveyors did.
@@DieElect I feel like there is context in the video being over looked. I'm going to guess he uses his definition to define people into a position they don't hold and that is made apparent in his usage of the qualifier.... yea he just did that with agnostic and I'm not watching the rest of this again.
Do you think I think he changed they definition?? That's an absurd assumption.
@@DieElect the word atheist means "a"-"no" theist-"belief in god/gods"
Put it all together and you get "no belief in god/gods"
Not "belief that there is no god/gods"
Atheism by definition is the lack of this belief. Just like a square is a rectangle, but not necessarily the other way around, an atheist can hold a positive belief that no gods exist, but that doesn't mean all have to.
Thanks for unintentionally illustrating the fact that theists are as fundamentally dishonest as their "arguments".
Yeah the sheer hubris of a atheist to make such a claim. You are just intellectual lazy and cowardly. There is never enough evidence for you because you have a emotional reason to deny. You honestly think yourself more clever or possessing some special insight that no one esle has. Majority of your own ATHEIST Arguments are UTTERLY DISHONEST. You alteady deny god so any evidence to the contray you are predisposed to disbelief. That not open mind thats just you being intellectual lazy. Such a pity you lack introspection and the ability to see how absurd and childish your own Atheist world view is.
@Bad Boys Boogie None are good, that´s the point. Believing the Bible does not make us good.
@Bad Boys Boogie what is "a good person"?
@Bad Boys Boogie on what basis that is "good" and since all beings must have a reason to motivate them, what is the reason for such way of life?
So he refuted atheism by giving a very lengthy monologue that can be summarized as "But the Christian God is super extra real." Cool.
So you refute god with a super extra real cool quip 👏🏽🥴
@@samiamm7906 Exactly.
Morality is a product of society, not religion. This is demonstrated by society deciding that slavery is immoral and not religion. If you really read your bible, you'll not that slavery is endorsed by it.
If you believe that…if your society says rape is permissible would you be in agreement?
@@nextlevelmartialarts At one time slavery was acceptable in the US. Society abolished slavery demonstrating my point. Don't draw me into this hypothetical strawman of a point.
As soon as he referenced Sye Ten Brugenncate, I knew this was going to be nonsense. I was right. This whole thing was just embarrassing.
@Jason enjoy ignorance
The ability to dismiss an idea that makes everything you believe in fall apart.....
Makes your worse than an ignorant fool
@Jason why enjoy hell??
@@Zederzzz weird bit of projection there but okay dude.
@@davidlegkodukh6969 uhm, no. It's the ability to dismiss an idea that makes everything that someone else is telling you you believe, fall apart. I don't believe what this idiot claimed in this video, just because I'm an atheist. He misrepresented atheism, and much of the science, and told people what they know and don't know.
You said that difference between Christianity and other revelational epistemology like Mormonism 14:10 is that Mormon revelations were private. Uhm, wasn't the revelation to Moses, who supposedly wrote the entire first 5 books of the Bible, done in _private_ ...? Wasn't the 10 commandments given to him in private?
Wasn't every revelation written by the prophets of the OT given in private?
Wasn't the revelation of the book of (drum roll) Revelation, supposedly given to John completely in private while he was secluded on the island of Patmos?
Your argument completely invalidates the entire Bible. Well done.
He's obviously referring to the foundational texts of Christianity: the 4 gospels, from which we can deduce the near fullness of the Christian faith.
Christ's ministry was public and was transcribed by eyewitnesses. That's unique amongst religions, and should give us more epistemological certainty to the truth of our faith than competing faiths. Admittedly, it does not follow from this that Christianity is true. This is just one more piece of evidence pointing towards the truth of Christianity.
@@scootermcgavin7986 that is utterly false. Not only is it not "obvious" that he is referring to only the 4 Gospels, he in fact explicitly says that he is not. He speaks of the revelation of the entire Bible. That revelation is just as private as any other religion. It is a completely dishonest framing to claim otherwise.
He even specifically goes into OT revelational texts like Proverbs to make his point. 15:50
The vast majority of the Bible is private revelation, just like every other Revelation epistemology. The Gospels, on the other hand, are not revelation at all. They are a narrative story. Period.
@Daniel Gigante "Didn't watch the whole video (I guess I lose)."
Yeah it's kind of silly to argue with me about my position on what is stated in the video without watching the video.
"While that's true, the vast majority of the deposit of the faith"
No one was talking about the "deposit of the faith". What does that term even mean? If it means the public life of Jesus described in the Gospels... well then your statement is a completely useless tautology.
"To say they're not revelation is simply going off the rails."
If you want to call all narratives in holy texts public revelation, I am fine with that. This means that the Islamic holy texts which tell of Mohammad ripping the moon in twain, are public revelation. This means that the tales of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon from golden tablets of an unknown Egyptian dialect by looking into a hat, are public revelation. This means the story of Xenu, leader of the Galactic Confederacy, bringing billions of humanoids to Earth, is an extremely public revelation.
Dear trolling atheists,
When we say what we say, we're trying to help you because we love you and care about you, man; but when you say what you say, it usually seems like it's meant to shame and ridicule. I wonder why that is. Thoughts?
I think you're confusing agnosticism with solipsism.
I think most pop atheists _are_ borderline solipsists.
@@wesleycolemanmusic based on what?
@@corymoore8562 Based on my experiences talking with them online on Christian and Atheist channels and forums.
@@wesleycolemanmusic k
@@wesleycolemanmusic Nope. Atheists just believe in one god less than Christians.
"Well to the gursh buh gush da cuh, a skooda purple.... wood... the sky is- hello and icecream under the bridge and cars and ZOOOOM" XD
How to completely refute atheism: the 100m sprint.
[Proceeds to stumble at the starting gun of defining atheism]
After listening / watching sermons and on the street videos from Jeff for a little over a year now I think I'm finally willing and ready to stop eating my neighbors.
Catholic Missionary: Tell Me, How has Catholicism changed tribal life?
Cannibal Chief: Ugh, Now we only eat'em Fishermen on Fridays! 😂🤣
Cannibal Tribe open up Hannibal's Bar and Grill. Specials:
Fridays during Lent: Fishermen & Chips
Saturdays: SWERF & TERF
Sunday Brunch: YECC's and FLERF's
lol so funny 😐
That's always the hardest sin to give up in the transition to Christianity.
@@lightbeforethetunnel 😂
A link to this video should be in the dictionary next to "strawman"
Why is straw man wrong in your worldview?
@@wallchart111 I can see where this is going...
Is it really so difficult to understand the definitions? Maybe this guy should really get an education before starting to talk.
Lay preachers with no formal education are the fucking worst.
Its his job to deliberately lie and misrepresent to suit his narrative. He knows exactly what he is going.
"You want proof? Let's go to the bible!” fucking hilarious
Don’t use your reasoning to try and justify or explain your reasoning! That’s HILARIOUS!
@@mrslisabaird disprove the other thousands of gods and I’ll use that reasoning. How about the Bible being full of errors and contradictions. What about the whole thing of an all knowing god wanting everyone in heaven but the only proof of his existence is a sub par book . That is so confusing it has 45k or so denominations all saying they have the right answer to it all.
@@Dcm193 you have to mix worldviews to get the contradictions. Within its own worldview it’s does not
@@andyayala5639 no i mean they just contradict thing after thing
@@Dcm193 example
Thank you for posting this video.
I'm always looking for videos I can refer people to when they ask why I'm not a Christian.
*tips fedora*
No one asks you that. Stop lying. But here is a question for you: why are you watching videos like this on RUclips?
I didn’t notice any evidence of a god in this video? So I’m confused as to how it refuted anything.
Please do tell me what you consider to me evidence ? I'm curious as to what your understanding of the concept of what god is and what would be evidence of that same god
I think that the point is that, the fact that you had the ability to type a comment on a video is evidence enough. The Bible says that mans wisdom is foolishness to God. If nothing matters than why do anything at all? Why do you exist? If there is no truth why even comment in the first place, if God doesn’t exist why try to defend any world veiw at all. The point is you prove that God exists for us.
@@a6m3reisen8 evidence is that which can be tested in the lab and demonstrated to be true. That is the only kind of evidence that matters when discussing existence
@@SwainsSaved nope I'm sorry but nobody is proving the existence of God and nobody is proving the existence of God the way you're talking about… What you're doing is engaging a copout.
Why do we exist? Your question assumes a reason but you haven't demonstrated that the needs to be one. I exist because my parents had sex at the right time. That's literally the only answer that actually matters in his demonstrable.
Who said there is no truth? And what you mean by truth? There are a lot of things that we can demonstrate our true… None of them require a God.
If God does exist why would I need a guide to exist in order to defend the worldview.
So many of your questions assume the necessity of God when you have not demonstrated that necessity nor demonstrated they got even exists.
Meanwhile it's much more logical that God is the invention of humans that were intelligent enough to ask questions about the world around them, but to England to answer those questions because of their lack of knowledge.
Your God is nothing more than a God of the gaps in those gaps are getting smaller every day
@@keithziegler8881 well I respect your response, but I disagree. I believe that God is love, and I also believe that love cannot be a result of complicated organic material forming out of nothing all on its own. Love is indeed complicated, but out of 6,000 years of recorded history, the nations that didn’t fall and become swallowed up by the earth were the ones which had a respect and reverence for right and wrong.
I know that the attributes of God are perfect love perfect justice and perfect righteousness. All things work together for the good of those who love him.
And with all do respect you cannot prove to me that God doesn’t exist, my God keeps promises and never changes, he is more faithful than any man.
If your going to prove the Bible wrong you have to read it first
Before trying your hand at godawful apologetics, maybe first try NOT to misrepresent the concept this ENTIRE hour-plus video is about...?
Anyone else getting a pickup artist lecture vibe from this?
Arguably Yes.
The flailing logic delivered with preening arrogance certainly fits that crowd.
God could come down, walk among them, talk to them, heal them, etc. And Atheists would still disbelieve. How do I know this? Because He already did.
Nick Jones, Besides the Gospel accounts who's earliest manuscript dates to around A.D. 41. There is Talmud whose volumes mention Jesus, Jesuphus who mentions Him in his works on Jewish History, Tacitus in his Annals, and Lucian of Samosata in his highly antiChristian satires.
Nick Jones Yawn...it doesn't matter. They had more access to sources than we do. Not to mention the existence of not 1 but 4 accounts of the life of Christ all of which are dated at exactly that time frame.
Nick Jones, The heavens declare the glory of God, the complexity and size are not something chance can make no matter how many years go by. But here is a question for you. Why do you care?
Nick Jones Well yes, it does. It is the Atheist position that the universe came about by chance accident. Now if you object to this then you are going to have to demonstrate how the cause of the universe and everything in it would have to be without personality and intelligence, and still willfully make everything. If not then the only thing else is mere random chance.
Also, concerning your second part. That begs two more questions. Why does stardust infused descendants of fish (im referring to humanity) matter enough to care about morality? And underwhat basis is there a single moral notion that objectivity true under your world view?
Objectively *
a debate with Aron Re. would be good
Bro...I know. When I first found this neckbeard I was really hoping Aron or Matt Dillahunty had already gotten ahold of him. But then I realized people this articulate who intentionally mischaracterize arguments to this degree are also smart enough not to take public debates with trained killers like Aron & Matt.
Aron Ra is an idiot and very bias. I would have disagree with you on that.
Of course you are afraid to go where the evidence leads because you have zero evidence. If you had any, you wouldn't be afraid to present it.
Refute what he said.
+Phal Redenferd Read my other comments. I have refuted what he said. Even this comment addresses one of his points. Haven't you listened to what he said? The method used by scientists and atheists is to go where the evidence leads. And he spoke against that.
NicolSD
You failed.
Phal Redenferd Please expand.
NicolSD
You didn't refute what he said.
This was utterly humiliating; he is so blissfully ignorant about so many things and simultaneously interested in sounding authoritative about those things.
Exactly! He is a professional debater/speaker. His mechanism is to "sound authoritative" when he is no where even close to it.
When your putting up a video that makes you feel all smart because you can finally say something to an atheist when he explains to you why your beliefs don't make any sense, you should probably make sure that you don't tell us in the title that you don't even know the definition of atheism. I doubt anything worthwhile is in this video.
“Your personal experience doesn’t tell us what’s actually true” Does this hipster wannabe ever think before he talks?
How am I supposed to listen to this guy for more than an hour when he can't even honestly represent the positions of the people he's claiming to refute?
Right off the bat he slides around the definition of "atheism", at first correctly describing it as NON theism or the rejection of theistic claims, but then immediately moves the goalpost by saying atheism say there absolutely is no god (_and goalpost moving was supposed to be the thing he says atheists do_). THEN he defines agnosticism as being a lack of knowledge of absolutely EVERYTHING, when really it's just a claim of a lack of sufficient knowledge of a specific claim (_in the context of theism, it's a lack of knowledge of a god_). So from the very start the speaker is making his arguments from the perspective that atheists claim absolutely no god exists and agnostics don't know anything.
These are lies.
I know he's lying because these are not difficult positions to understand. They're very simple and anyone who spends any amount of time listening and responding to theistic/atheistic debates can grasp these concepts. It's also not a leap in logic to speculate one the motivations of a theistic apologist for lying about the positions of his opponents. If your argument is people who are theists have the rational position, the argument is made easier if you can muddy your opponent's position and make it appear as though they have a much less rational position than what they actually hold.
I propose that if this man has to lie to make his point, then it's not a very rational position to have.
Awwwww did the athiest get offended?
@@MicaelaContreras... am I offended by lies?
@@FrankLightheart you're the only liar here lol
You lie to yourself everyday when you say God's not real
With an atheistic worldview what’s wrong with lying? Can you justify your point as to a foundational truth?
anyone who trying to debunk this video need so do it with fact fact fact fact fact fact!!!!! Not opinion!!!! but you won't because you can't so go-ahead and just keep helping us prove you wrong. Thanks Jeff for the video as always.
Ok, here's something. He says at about 7:40 that agnostics make the claim that we can't know anything. No they don't, they claim we can't know anything about any God, not everything. That is one large strawman he then goes on to dismantle.
So this guy here mostly just presented his opinion because most of his facts are mixed with opinions or are simply wrong like for example the case given on the 7:40 minute but no one says he need to give facts, but those who dont agree with him (radical atheists) must criticize him only with facts... completely fair. But remember, he explicity apeal to logic, "things must lo be logical and reasonable" so if logic does no support his claims then he is wrong, that is a fact an can be expresed as an opinion, normally christian apologists try to debunk atheists point of view going deeper into the issue, but they if you do the same with them just tell you that should give them facts and not opinions. A simple example can be showed when he says god knows everything, wich is logical, his logic and knowledge must be perfect, then why the people who claims to know the word of God or be able to interpret it always had to change their point of view because logic and experience told them (actually the people that guides themselves with logic told them) that they were wrong? We can see it in how christians and church have change their mind on topics like human rights, science, respect other`s ideas and be more pasive in their practices (like for example not to exclude or persecute people that do not have their same believe) obviously im excluiding some christian cults, talking about those cults, they believe like you or even more than you they have the right interpretation of the God`s word, by the same epistemology method "revelation", how can you tell them they are wrong if they believe for the same reasons that you in their own believes? Their parents taught them their religion, then grew up being indoctrinated and rectificate their believes with their ows cultural videos and multimedia, like this video for probably catolic people there are a lot of indoctrinating videos for JW and mormons, and to conclude, if God`s logic is completely right, then how can be posible that he condenms completely natural and inherentic bahave in humans? The fact that non believers exists is because their reasoning and logic lead them to the conclusion that religion is similars believes are ilogic, if god exist and like he said thing must be reasonable and logic so atheist`s logic must be wrong, suposing that it is true then why god would create humans with enough intelligence to be able to doubt about his existence with what they think are logical arguments and then condenms them for that? If you need to be very intelligent to believe in god or at least believe in him by logic and atheists are not smart enough because of their nature is logic that it is not their fault to be stupid but anyways you condems them, you can say that their have persons like this one to show them the way, but as you can see i have strong reasons to say he is wrong, so im so there are two possibilities, or im so stupid that i cant even understand his precise and undisputable logic or im right... Judge by yourself
I’d pay to watch this hack debate an atheist like Matt Dillahunty or Tracie Harris.
Adults with imaginary friends are precious....
Trolls aren't...
Flaynk Did you learn that in your presuppositionalism script? Chances are you did lol. Presuppositionalism is the last desperate dying gasp for theism.
Jon B But yet you reply.......
I'm always fascinated by the irrationality of an atheist who wastes his short existence on debating theism... Don't you have anything better to do with that little dash between your birth date and death date?
Mischievous Heathen Why not?
It's ironic, and a little disappointing, how easy all of this is to refute, using his own words against themselves.
I could bet you cant. I do bet i can refute atheism and expose its falsity. But 1st i need to understand what atheist you claim to be.
Also i can promise you cannot and will not defend your atheism as atheism is indefensible. And because you cannot defend it, and you know you cant defend it, proves atheism is wrong. Since you know you cannot defend atheism, we all must ask and wonder why you actually still subscribe to a false ideology.
This video just proves that religious zealots who make their living off of religious "promotion" are arrogant elitists with a defined sales pitch. Sickening.
He owns a martial arts dojo. He even said so here.
Also, ppl are religious zealots for different reasons. And unless you believe rebellion against God is a bad thing, perhaps you’re giving them a reason to stay zealous
I hadn’t realize others were present to witness Moses conversation with deity. Or any who were present to give an account of Abraham’s encounters. Interesting to say the least.
Yo be quiet we're trying to listen to the adult in the room
There were a total of 4 persons at each of those meetings you mentioned.
@@adamfoster6313 That is also allegedly, same with the 500 people who witnessed Christ, in one testimonial, yet I find it is often cited like they have 500 accounts of Jesus when they really only have a few if even that.
Yeah really weird then how Moses predicted the Messiah thousands of years after himself. Must be a coincidence, right buddy?
I mean Abraham’s encounters were written by Moses, which is quite literally an account of those encounters, but yeah
Right off the start of your video (around the 7-minute mark) you say agnostics believe you can't know anything, that is not true. As you pointed out agnosticism is a claim of knowledge with the Greek prefix meaning "to doubt." Agnostics claim: "that since we can never know if there is a god I choose to take the default position and not believe in
one." I do agree with you that there has been a clash of ideas when it comes to agnosticism and atheism; however, I do believe that most atheist today are agnostic-atheist meaning. Since they don't know god exists--because agnosticism is a claim to knowledge--they choose not to believe in a god. Finally, when it comes to agnosticism they do not claim that nothing can be known for sure, but simply that the existence of god cannot be known.
You continue to say that god has revealed himself through revelation to everyone, thus we all know there is a
god. However, I would like to point out that just because you say something does not mean it is true. While you believe god has revealed himself to everyone, you don't actually know. For example, if someone tells you that they went to the store to get you ice cream. You trust that they are going to actually go and get you ice cream; however, you don't know 100% for sure if they're actually going to do it until they return back with your ice cream. Therefore, while they are gone you can't simply say "they're going to get me ice cream," because while they did tell you that you can't say absolutely that that is what they are doing--unless you're tracking them.
Later on, you claim that you things with certainty because god told you so. You then try to prove this with what is said in the bible. You use the bible to prove your claim that god's word is the basis for certaincy; however, you only know god's word is the basis of certainty because the bible tells you so. Do you see how that doesn't make sense? What you did is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning. At some point, you have to admit that you make an assumption--me personally I don't care where you make it. However, you have to be willing to accept the fact that you made an assumption because you cannot use the bible to prove the bible is right.
Lastly, since I want to keep this short, I also want to touch on morality from a more atheistic perspective. While there is a lot more to this subject, there are a few major ideas I want to touch on. To begin, you have created this false dichotomy saying that if you believe in objective morality you have to believe in some god and if you believe in subject morality you do not believe in a god. However, this is not true there are some atheists who do believe in objective morailty. For example, Sam Harris he recently published a book about how objective morality can be explained through evolution and science.
I do realize that may not be sufficient enough for you since you've already made up your mind on what an atheist most believe. Thus, I will try to show you how even with subjective morality we can still arrive at objective morals. In your video (I only made it in 20 minutes sorry) you claim that an atheist cannot say that it is an absolute moral obligation to not eat humans. Again, while there are some atheists who do believe in objective morality, they may answer yes. However, for those you don't, they could answer both ways and here's why. At the basis of everyone's moral system, there is some assumption, for christians, it is "God's word is true." By having this assumption you are then able to form objectives truths that agree with that. For me, the basis of my morals lies at the assumption that "the preservation and prosperity of human life is a good thing." While I may not know why it is a good thing, as long as I acknowledge that assumption I am able to form objective truths from it. In the same way, reasoning is subjective so is morality. In spite of trying to prove morality is subjective, I hope I have cleared up how an atheist can still--in some way--have objective morals, by having an underlining base assumption.
I also forgot to mention the false dichotomy you place between theism and evolution, they are not mutually exclusive like most evangelical Christians like to think.
I can most certainly say you lost every single person on this thread when you said circular reasoning. Two groups of people are king at circular reasoning Athiest and Mormons. Both hold true to liberal ideology. Both are completely false. I left both based solely on circular reasoning because it is my ultimate pet peeve. Be what ever you want but you can't be a hypocrite my guy. That was foolish
When you tell someone you believe that 13.8 billion years ago the luckiest thing you can ever imagine happened then 4.6 billion years ago another miracle happened then 4.5 billion years ago something else happened that almost destroyed earth then 4 billion years water randomly popped on earth then 3.8 billion years a bunch of molecules formed by a bunch of hot pots that made a chemical reaction under the water. You realize how dumb that sounds. God doesn't exist but all this took place billions of years ago but hasn't died off. No life on Mars but on earth a marine happened a billion years ago 😂
"At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it." Billy Madison the movie.
Logical and Consistent, and testable - his argument to this is saying a "a child molester might say this is good".
Morals are a combination of social and empathetic norms among a group of human beings that generally result in the best behavior for the group survival, as such I won't deny the benefits Christianity had on my early life in my personal development of morals or it's place in history, but like santa clause and my fear of getting coal in my stocking you eventually need to stand on your own two feet and take responsibility for your decisions.
Regardless this not in any way proof of gods existence, in fact it's more proof of the damage continual believe in these things can cause, whether it's the fact that you believe god is required to tell you that child molesting is wrong to understand what is good or not, or whether it's a man blowing himself up to get 40 virgins because his god said it was ok, it makes you believe you aren't responsible for your own decisions when you are responsible for every action you take on this planet.
all that said I still see no proof or argument to coincide with a refute to an atheist that requires "Logical, consistent an testable" proof.
let me refute your argument with some of my own and I'll word it to any religion out their not just catholic.
what proof do you have that your scripture is real? can you proof a single word in that scripture is authentic to the source it is supposed to be given from? even if you trace it's origins back to a person/persons and can proof that person/persons existence, can you provide proof in any way that the scripture is legitimately from a god/gods and not penned in a back wood as a means to gain social status/power or some other benefit.
since I suspect you can't can you provide proof of any part of your religion without said scripture, what leg do you stand on after that...let's be honest here this video is not about refuting atheists because you can't do that, it's about the fact that you believe religion is helping this world, and while it has some advantages nothing in the history of this world has caused more death, genocides, subjugations, suffering, and pain as religion has caused to the human race over history.
I will end on this note, you claim agnostics an atheists are the same thing, I will claim my view point because if I had to decide between the two I would identify as agnostic, I believe in the possibility of a creator but no religion to date can explain reality in the detail that needs to be done. as for organized religion that's a farce that I will never subscribe to again faith and religion are separate, the bible preaches peace and unity, the catholic church covers up child rapes, where was your epistemology when the pope was covering that up?
Cope and seethe. Nobody reads your wall of text with zero arguments
@@Pikee I read it. The last bit, the pope is a no no.
His epistemology would be that it's wrong to molest children because we all made in the image of God with intrinsic value, and harming other people is against God's nature. In your worldview, who says that molestation is really wrong? You? Society? If we are all just atoms bumping into one another and chemical reactions in our brain, maybe the chemicals in some peoples brain makes them think molestation is okay. Who's to say they are objectively wrong. If there is no God, no standard outside of human beings, how can one chemical tell another chemical what they "ought" to do. You can't tell me what to do, why are your chemical reactions in your brain superior over my chemical reactions. But if God created the universe, he has the right to tell me what to do and I am obligated to obey his rules, but im not obligated to obey yours, why don't you obey my rules, and do what my chemical reactions think are good.
you'd think these guys have access to dictionaries.
Ah the old twist on the "problem of induction" a la Sye Ten Bruggencate.
Consider: when you question the validity of logic (the study of valid reasoning) what, then, are you using to question it?
In other words, what axioms must you accept to be absolute so that you may doubt that those same axioms are absolute?
Do you see the problem?
yes
32:30 Someone explain this to me, please. I've been trying to understand this for days and I can not.
How can one be left in doubt if 2 + 2 are really 4?
So the pre-Christian Greco-Roman civilization (lacking Jesus) still managed to master Literature, Sculpture (Art) and Engineering (Mathematics). How did they do this without Jesus?
Well being created by God to have the capacity to do so seems to be a logical answer....im confused that you would ask that. Youre asking why would people who dont believe in Jesus be able to do things people are capable of doing? Why can a toddler speak a sentence?.... because it was made with that capacity.
That’s like saying that an apple is a representation of the “universal truth of red” numbers are just adjectives with which we describe reality, and the fact that something is abstract doesn’t mean that it’s mystical
Yeah but red is subjective. Numbers are not subjective. If you had 2 apples, a colorblind man would still see 2 apples. There is no number blindness.
refuting atheism? havent even started watching this but i already know it will be pure comedy. im prepared to laugh so this better not dissapoint
then it means you have bias
@@ManlyServant he’s not wrong-he does word salad and try’s to change little things here and there to help himself.
Atheism-the lack of belief in a god or gods.
Or not being convinced there are any gods. That’s it.
@@guyjosephs5654 this is also a belief 🤔 kind of like I believe that a man cannot be a woman and vice versa 💁🏽♂️
@@samiamm7906 and the point I was making was that how does this apologist think he can refute atheism if he doesn’t understand the basics of the topic?
Do you feel he refuted atheism?
Some have the view/position of belief. Many don’t.
That is because Jeff Durbin is an F Level apologist
I love the pretend strawman athiest that all these apologists construct. it never fails that jesus manages to silence them. lmao!
Read the atheis comment and try to not be a bias dumb. Your brain is truly being brainwashed.
12:30 "because God says so"... Did he just argue that? 🤭
15:48 "you want proof? Let's go to the Bible, Proverbs one verse 7"
This just keeps getting better and better
A wise man said, circa year 1000, immortalized as Psalm 14:1: The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. Once you study and understand material biology, it becomes increasingly difficult to build philosophical foundations on immaterial constructs based on centuries of flawed materialism. If you possess objectivity, have a read of 'In Six Days
' Why 50 Scientists choose to Believe in Creation.
@@BrendanLightfoot Circa 1,000BCE David might have said "the fool has said in his heart, there is no God", but even if he had it's not evidence for a God
If anything it's much easier to establish axioms with materialism to use as philosophical foundations; we're all made of matter and our experiences are an interaction of that matter; consciousness; our consciousnesses like to be happy so we should organize ourselves in a way that maximizes this; morality
"In Six Days" has no new arguments
@@Zederzzz I'm sorry you feel that way. You may be used to arguing with well intended, if occasionally annoying Christians, but at their core, they want you to come out the other side of death in a better place. One cannot be reasoned or cajoled into the correct, Christ-centric spiritual position. Each conversion is a miracle and sadly, most of us are far too proud to ever get there. We call it having a burden for the lost, as we know what comes after death, and don't want that for you.
@@BrendanLightfoot please don't feel too sorry for us Brendan, but thank you for the concern :)
"The road to hell is often paved with good intentions" - but unfortunately intentions are not proof for the intended thing, as much as they are appreciated
It's interesting you say no one can be reasoned into believing, and each conversion is a miracle; is that openly saying reason and evidence are not the most important thing to Christ-centrism?
Romans 19 and 20 "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"
The proof of God is all around us. Many are just too blind to see.
What's the proof? What is it I don't see? Or are we just seeing the same things and coming to different conclusions? Please be specific, being vague about what I'm not seeing doesn't help me see it.
The Christian "boat" doesn't take water because it's not even IN the water. If it was, it would sink like a rock.
Still after years, this video to this day still doesn't refute atheism on any level.
Do we want to point out all the things Christianity has stolen from other religions?
Where do we start? The date of Christmas? All the other dates? The first half of the entire Bible (ok, that one is kind of unfair)? If we try to point out all of them we would still be here, when the universe ends...
Interesting that although many aethiests have viewed this, all the comments I have seen are from keyboard-surfers giving no points that help their case. If we listen to debates between the two the main difference is not evidence because theories like evolution have no real evidence. The difference is faith - simply what do you choose to believe. You either believe that the universe has a purpose (created by God) or it has no purpose. We all at some point make a choice. If I choose God why would an aethiest care and bother to spend time writing comments trying to convince me otherwise? If I am wrong why would someone else care that much? If we are just star dust and actions have no purpose then surely there is better things to do with your time like enjoying the time you have on earth alive.
TO YOUR COMMENT, I ASK, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT.
PUT IT INTO A SYLLOGISM, SO I CAN SEE IF WHAT YOU WROTE IS TRUE.
well, what's gods criteria for lying, do you get eternal damnation for lots of lies, or just for misrepresenting what atheists and agnostics believe, i would've thought if you are "doing gods work" but lying to achieve it, well, god won't be happy.
god made me atheist, and as we know god doesn't just do random stuff.
god wants you to be good just for the sake of being good, so an atheist is just what god wants, atheists
don't exploit god at all, and what we do we do sincerely, anyone with faith or belief is just following orders and avoiding hell. we aren't, we are
open and honest, and still good.
us keyboard warriors are concerned becasue religion is a big, big lie, and spreading lies is not a good thing, it's no good saying us keybaord warriors ought to get on with something more productive when you lot are a) condemning us to hell with no evidence, and b) you lot could be doing something more productive, the jordan petersons of this world could actually be using that huge brain to make life better, not perpetuate mythology, gods have already been forgotten, this one needs forgetting too.
If you need apologetics, you're doing something wrong. Reality doesn't need to be deciphered and defended with word games and logic puzzles; it merely needs to be demonstrated. Try this: transcribe every word of this talk, then replace every mention of god with Superman, then evaluate whether you can be persuaded that the comic book character is really out there flying around. Odds are you'll realize how absurd this all sounds, and you can start living your life rather than spending so much time trying to figure out how to trick people into believing something you haven't a molecule of material evidence to demonstrate.
The first idea is a giant straw man. Agnosticism doesn’t say knowledge in general is impossible. It says knowledge about certain things(god for example) is not available at the moment.
It's so simple, isn't it?? Yet people just fall all over the words coming from this guy's mouth. They are the epitome of "sheeple".
Right? Just provide the same evidence for a god as for all the other things we believe exist, and we'll believe the god exists. There is nothing impossible about that if the god does in fact exist. The ball is in the theists' court.
I'm new to Apologia Studios. I've watched about five or six videos this past week and I really like what I see/hear. I really appreciate the respectful approach towards evangelism in the spirit of 2 Tim. 2:24-25: "And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth."
I've engaged atheists on the internet for over 20 years. In the beginning, due to their often aggressive and arrogant approach (not all do this), I was very intimidated. But after a while you begin to see patterns in their arguments, and you find out that they usually approach the issue of God and religion the same way. Once I saw the logical flaws in their arguments, the attempts on their part to intimidate vanished away. I knew they were more bark than bite.
So be encouraged, Christian. Our faith has many valid proofs. God has not asked us to walk blindly. Look beyond any shallow criticism or mocking to the substance of the message and you'll lose your fear and be able to logically refute their arguments.
To the atheist, let me just say that it's important for you to understand a very fundamental fact: truth is truth whether you believe it or not. Truth is truth if no one believes it. It stands on its own and doesn't need support. So many of you imagine that unless YOU are convinced by the presented evidence it's not really evidence. Putting aside the arrogance of such a position, it's simply not logical. Again, if something is true it's true whether you believe it or not. So you can't logically and emphatically say, "There is no evidence for God!" All you can say is that you don't find the evidence compelling. Such a statement would be more in line with the truth. We then encourage you to keep your mind open and really examine the evidence thoroughly. Ask yourself (if you're really interested in finding the truth), "Am I missing something?" If you honestly seek, you will find the truth.
Saying that truth is truth whether we believe it or not (meaning truth is objective not subjective) is pointless to say. Atheists do not deny that there is objective truth - they just recognize that people believe according to their subjective idea of it, and that one can't just decree his subjective evaluation as objective. I can say atheism is true whether you believe it or not just as easily as you can say Christianity is true whether I believe it or not.
The following videos are true whether you believe them or not ;)
Quiz Show (Bible Contradictions):
ruclips.net/video/RB3g6mXLEKk/видео.html
Jephthah (Judges 11):
ruclips.net/video/Pt66kbYmXXk/видео.html
Perfect Double Standard:
ruclips.net/video/ZyFM0_AhIYA/видео.html
The Internet: Where religions come to die
ruclips.net/video/0Rqw4krMOug/видео.html
The Burden of Proof:
ruclips.net/video/KayBys8gaJY/видео.html
@@ErikLiberty Oh, sure! Anyone can claim something is truth, and it’s usually derived from their subjective perspective.
So how do we know if they are right or wrong? We lay that claim next to objective truth and see if it measures up, and we embrace or reject accordingly.
The general conclusion you came to is true: we all use our subjective bias to interpret objective truth. But that begs the question: can objective truth therefore even be fully known if no one fully represents it? It wouldn’t seem so if I am understanding what you’re saying.
However, I believe it exists beyond anyone’s bias and can be known. I believe it’s Christianity (whether I can fairly represent it or not). I know you disagree.
So then I ask you, since you acknowledged objective truth, where is it, and how do you KNOW it’s true?
@@ErikLiberty You're right. (Although, there are plenty of people who do not believe in objective truth, so it's not pointless to state.)
So, question: where is this objective truth and, if we are all biased, how can we truly recognize it?
You are correct. Truth is truth, or more accurately, reality is reality, regardless our thoughts opinions knowledge acceptance of it. But it also doesn’t do anyone any good if it is not recognized. And for claiming something as truth does not make it truth. Proclaiming the reality of a God does not make God a reality. Quoting a Bible verse that says I actually do know the true God does not do anything to support the claim.
So while reality is reality irrespective how our synapses fire, we are the ones trying to figure out which understanding of reality is correct so that we can do life on this space rock together. So what am I missing?
@@mrhyde7600 Thanks for your comments. I guess the real question is, “What is the process by which we recognize reality?” And doesn’t that process need to be universal and standard for all, and doesn’t the reality need to be embraced NO MATTER when it is?
I don't think this guy believes his own words.
u r my gf
That's just because your IQ is too low to understand them.
He doesn't believe his own hair colour
You have a microphone, no need to yell. And the volume you're speaking at does not change the strength of weak arguments, you know.
How to completely refute atheism - assert that God is real. Got it
NO WE PROVE THAT YOUR POSITION IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR KNOWLEDGE THAT IS CERTAIN.
That’s an hour I’ll never get back....