Aron: *_asks for evidence_* Angelos: You have a very low standard of truth. Also Angelos: *_believes in a magic man in the sky, that made everything_* You might have that backwards.
It is atheist who believe magic made the universe not theist. Get your facts straight. Theist hold the designer of the universe-God formulated the laws of the universe. He used knowledge aswell as energy not magic to create the universe. We know the universe is governed by precise mathematical laws of physics. Rule of newton: there cannot be laws without a lawmaker. All laws require mind to formulate and mind to understand. Atheist cannot get around that fact. Atheist have essentially three options and neither of them work. These are their options you don’t know (which is ignorance) dumb mistakes formulated the laws or magic did. We know dumb mistakes cannot account for anything therefore your only option is magic did it. Therefore it is Atheist who believe magic made everything not theist.
It's like talking to a used car salesman. The word yes and no don't exist, everything is just more word salad. Kudos your your ability to channel your anger into words, Aron. The world needs more of you.
I wish that Christians wouldn't take your incivility as a reason to disregard your points. You are an incredible speaker and advocate for scientific literacy.
despite them starting the conversation by being passive/aggressively incivil. Starting a discussion (almost always more of a lecture) by assuming your opponent (rather than discussion colleague) is necessarily wrong despite not having any evidence is _really_ rude.
Yeah it's always wrong when the non believer doesn't have infinite patience for their bullshit. But they can start threatening us with hell, calling us horrible disgusting people and insulting us in other ways. That's all fine.
I actually appreciate your anger...willful ignorance should never be meet with understanding or any civility. They are liars and know they are lying...they don't deserve any respect. This isn't to say you can't be religious...you just have to know it isn't backed by any facts, logic or evidence...its entirely your feelings.
In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's Monad (first emanation of God), from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together with the strong nuclear force: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong nuclear force. 2) Interconnectedness: In the Monadology, monads are interconnected in a vast network. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together. 3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions. 4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics. 7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions. em·a·na·tion noun an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.
Metaphysics Context The monad, the word and the idea, belongs to the Western philosophical tradition and has been used by various authors. Leibniz, who was exceptionally well-read, could not have ignored this, but he did not use it himself until mid-1696 when he was sending for print his New System. Apparently he found with it a convenient way to expound his own philosophy as it was elaborated in this period. What he proposed can be seen as a modification of occasionalism developed by latter-day Cartesians. Leibniz surmised that there are indefinitely many substances individually 'programmed' to act in a predetermined way, each substance being coordinated with all the others. This is the pre-established harmony which solved the mind-body problem, but at the cost of declaring any interaction between substances a mere appearance. Summary The rhetorical strategy adopted by Leibniz in The Monadology is fairly obvious as the text begins with a description of monads (proceeding from simple to complicated instances), then it turns to their principle or creator and finishes by using both to explain the world. (I) As far as Leibniz allows just one type of element in the building of the universe his system is monistic. The unique element has been 'given the general name monad or entelechy' and described as 'a simple substance' (§§1, 19). When Leibniz says that monads are 'simple,' he means that "which is one, has no parts and is therefore indivisible". Relying on the Greek etymology of the word entelechie (§18), Leibniz posits quantitative differences in perfection between monads which leads to a hierarchical ordering. The basic order is three-tiered: (1) entelechies or created monads (§48), (2) souls or entelechies with perception and memory (§19), and (3) spirits or rational souls (§82). Whatever is said about the lower ones (entelechies) is valid for the higher (souls and spirits) but not vice versa. As none of them is without a body (§72), there is a corresponding hierarchy of (1) living beings and animals (2), the latter being either non-reasonable or reasonable. The degree of perfection in each case corresponds to cognitive abilities and only spirits or reasonable animals are able to grasp the ideas of both the world and its creator. Some monads have power over others because they can perceive with greater clarity, but primarily, one monad is said to dominate another if it contains the reasons for the actions of other(s). Leibniz believed that any body, such as the body of an animal or man, has one dominant monad which controls the others within it. This dominant monad is often referred to as the soul. (II) God is also said to be a simple substance (§47) but it is the only one necessary (§§38-9) and without a body attached (§72). Monads perceive others "with varying degrees of clarity, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity". God could take any and all perspectives, knowing of both potentiality and actuality. As well as that God in all his power would know the universe from each of the infinite perspectives at the same time, and so his perspectives-his thoughts-"simply are monads". Creation is a permanent state, thus "[monads] are generated, so to speak, by continual fulgurations of the Divinity" (§47). Any perfection comes from being created while imperfection is a limitation of nature (§42). The monads are unaffected by each other, but each have a unique way of expressing themselves in the universe, in accordance with God's infinite will. (III) Composite substances or matter are "actually sub-divided without end" and have the properties of their infinitesimal parts (§65). A notorious passage (§67) explains that "each portion of matter can be conceived as like a garden full of plants, or like a pond full of fish. But each branch of a plant, each organ of an animal, each drop of its bodily fluids is also a similar garden or a similar pond". There are no interactions between different monads nor between entelechies and their bodies but everything is regulated by the pre-established harmony (§§78-9). Much like how one clock may be in synchronicity with another, but the first clock is not caused by the second (or vice versa), rather they are only keeping the same time because the last person to wind them set them to the same time. So it is with monads; they may seem to cause each other, but rather they are, in a sense, "wound" by God's pre-established harmony, and thus appear to be in synchronicity. Leibniz concludes that "if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is-not merely in respect of the whole in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular" (§90). In his day, atoms were proposed to be the smallest division of matter. Within Leibniz's theory, however, substances are not technically real, so monads are not the smallest part of matter, rather they are the only things which are, in fact, real. To Leibniz, space and time were an illusion, and likewise substance itself. The only things that could be called real were utterly simple beings of psychic activity "endowed with perception and appetite." The other objects, which we call matter, are merely phenomena of these simple perceivers. "Leibniz says, 'I don't really eliminate body, but reduce [revoco] it to what it is. For I show that corporeal mass [massa], which is thought to have something over and above simple substances, is not a substance, but a phenomenon resulting from simple substances, which alone have unity and absolute reality.' (G II 275/AG 181)" Leibniz's philosophy is sometimes called "'panpsychic idealism' because these substances are psychic rather than material". That is to say, they are mind-like substances, not possessing spatial reality. "In other words, in the Leibnizian monadology, simple substances are mind-like entities that do not, strictly speaking, exist in space but that represent the universe from a unique perspective." It is the harmony between the perceptions of the monads which creates what we call substances, but that does not mean the substances are real in and of themselves. (IV) Leibniz uses his theory of Monads to support his argument that we live in the best of all possible worlds. He uses his basis of perception but not interaction among monads to explain that all monads must draw their essence from one ultimate monad. He then claims that this ultimate monad would be God because a monad is a “simple substance” and God is simplest of all substances, He cannot be broken down any further. This means that all monads perceive “with varying degrees of perception, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity”. This superior perception of God then would apply in much the same way that he says a dominant monad controls our soul, all other monads associated with it would, essentially, shade themselves towards Him. With all monads being created by the ultimate monad and shading themselves in the image of this ultimate monad, Leibniz argues that it would be impossible to conceive of a more perfect world because all things in the world are created by and imitating the best possible monad.
[2D is not the center of the universe, 0D is the center of the mirror universe]: The mirror universe theory is based on the concept of parity violation, which was discovered in the 1950s. Parity violation refers to the observation that certain processes in particle physics don't behave the same way when their coordinates are reversed. This discovery led to the idea that there might be a mirror image of our universe where particles and their properties are flipped. In this mirror universe, the fundamental particles that make up matter, such as electrons, protons, and neutrinos, would have their charges reversed. For example, in our universe, electrons have a negative charge, but in the mirror universe, they might have a positive charge. Furthermore, another aspect of the mirror universe theory involves chirality, which refers to the property of particles behaving differently from their mirror images. In our universe, particles have a certain handedness or chirality, but in the mirror universe, this chirality could be reversed. Leibniz or Newton: Quantum mechanics is more compatible with Leibniz's relational view of the universe than Newton's absolute view of the universe. In Newton's absolute view, space and time are absolute and independent entities that exist on their own, independent of the objects and events that take place within them. This view implies that there is a privileged observer who can observe the universe from a neutral and objective perspective. On the other hand, Leibniz's relational view holds that space and time are not absolute, but are instead relational concepts that are defined by the relationships between objects and events in the universe. This view implies that there is no privileged observer and that observations are always made from a particular point of view. Quantum mechanics is more compatible with the relational view because it emphasizes the role of observers and the context of measurement in determining the properties of particles. In quantum mechanics, the properties of particles are not absolute, but are instead defined by their relationships with other particles and the measuring apparatus. This means that observations are always made from a particular point of view and that there is no neutral and objective perspective. Overall, quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is fundamentally relational rather than absolute, and is therefore more compatible with Leibniz's relational view than Newton's absolute view. What are the two kinds of truth according to Leibniz? There are two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible. What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus? Newton's calculus is about functions. Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints. In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation. In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation. What are the arguments against Leibniz? Critics of Leibniz argue that the world contains an amount of suffering too great to permit belief in philosophical optimism. The claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds drew scorn most notably from Voltaire, who lampooned it in his comic novella Candide.
@@ryonalionthunder supposedly highly intellect in Christian wisdom literature and strength in heartiness also I’m crippled. It just takes a little while of becoming self aware and habitually continuously doing your justice and compassion deeds it’s like a 12 step program. But without all the drama, fear mongering, and promotion of dread. Got that. So there’s no excuse only “detractions” God willing we put in obedience, love & work. To get to where we need to be. Here they are: The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism" by Timothy Keller, Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis become great to your friends and don’t have credit card debt.
@@Catholictomherbert Clearly not very intelligent then. I’ll spell it out for you: Him: If Christianity had merit, it would not need people explaining it. You: here are 3 people explaining it. You are tacitly admitting christianity has no merit.
@@ryonalionthunder respected, ryon alion thunder I understand that you have doubts about the validity of Christianity based on its perceived lack of self-evidence. While I can see where you're coming from, I'd like to offer another perspective grounded in both scriptural references and the principles of the Church's teaching. Firstly, let's consider the Bible's viewpoint on human intelligence and comprehension. Scriptures repeatedly emphasize that God's ways surpass human understanding (Isaiah 55:8-9) and that His wisdom is foolishness to those who refuse to accept it (1 Corinthians 1:25). Therefore, expecting immediate clarity or tangibility in matters of faith might not align with biblical teachings. Secondly, divine revelation is necessary for full understanding of religious truths. Human reason alone cannot grasp the mysteries of salvation, which is why believers rely on sacred texts, tradition, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. By acknowledging the limits of human intellect, we open ourselves up to the possibility of transcendent wisdom beyond our current comprehension. Lastly, I'd like to address your statement about the need for explanations. Yes, Christianity involves deep theological concepts that require careful study and interpretation. However, this doesn't imply a lack of inherent worth or authenticity. Rather than seeing explanation as a weakness, we could view it as an opportunity for growth and exploration. Through contemplating the rich history, doctrine, and experiences of fellow believers, we broaden our horizons and strengthen our connection with God. In summary, I hope this response helps clarify the complexity yet profound beauty of Christianity. May we continue to seek understanding through humility, prayer, and mutual respect. predicting you peace and enlightenment, Dr Herbert
I used to think you were cocky and rude when I first came across this channel but after watching for a while (6-7 years at this point) I can only imagine the pure frustration that you must feel and the amount of restraint you must have given yourself. I've never heard of someone who has tried popularizing science as much as you have and even though my major was in math education, popularizing and bringing forth scientific thinking and methods to as many people as you have is truly inspiring and one of the reasons I developed a fascination with other fields of science/STEM. We need more people like you to commit themselves to fighting for truth and reason wherever it stands and to put in as much work in this fight as you have. You truly have a valuable skill and talent that too many people, including myself, don't have - the endurance to clash with pure ignorance every day, to hear the same droning and refuted points every day and still take the time to debunk them again and again and again.
@@michaels70171 nope wrong again. Godless in the Bible is another name for a crooked person a wicked person-A deceiver a liar. He’s putting the shirt as a way of promoting just that. This is similar to the columbine shooters wearing shirts with bold letters that read “natural selection” these were not worn by accident but for the occasion. They intended to try to leave a message-Their false message. Aaron is no different.
It's painful to watch a man dodge questions that he obviously knows the answer to simply because he's not allowed to answer honestly for fear of angering his imaginary friend. This is sad
He doesn't even care about that. Just watching him I know he's one of those types who desperately wants that youtube "fame" and money and so he's doing all this nonsense for money not because he cares about "godl"
This is painful. Bro can't answer the challenge then accuses Aron of throwing more challenges at him. If you can't answer one, why wouldn't I move on? This dude knows he's lying.
There's nothing delusional about the apologists they know exactly what they're doing. They lie to perpetuate their beliefs that they know to be bullshit in the first place.
Let’s see how delusional atheist really are. Atheist without admitting believe the universe magically created itself. Prove this wrong. If you cannot prove this wrong then this is so.
@@BeSensiblePlayThePercentages How dare you, not only mis-gender me, but also, not blindly believe in the accuracy of my randomly estimated and uncited percentage, unquestioningly?!?! 😆
This guy should be shunned in every conversation about religion for the rest of his life. AronRa couldnt get him to give a single true answer in an hour!!! Literally an hour of deflection and obfuscations.
This is the end result when Muppets start with the assumption that their religion just has to be correct, but they can't get it through their tiny little minds that they are basing their lives on a false premise. It's both sickening and sad. Good on you Aron for getting as far as you did.
@@jdos5643 Believing that an atheist is following a religion is equivalent to believing that "Off" is a TV channel. Nice when a Muppet stops by to prove the point. Thanks.
@@jdos5643100% incorrect. Atheism isn't a religion, it's the opposite of that. Saying atheism is a religion would be like saying like sexual abstinence is a sexual intercourse position. We just don't see sufficient evidence for the existence of a god and don't act stupid, gullible and scared shitless of hell as though such nonsense existed. At best, "god" is a concept of a higher and better idea of self, but there are already words for that and that isn't a religion, and it's compatible with atheism.
@@Paolo8772 absolutely not. Don’t bet on it. Belief in no God is still just a belief. It takes faith to accept that. Also maybe you live under a rock but there are for a fact atheist churches. Some of these are next level cultish. Aaron himself is an atheistic pagan cultist. Look up the atheist churches around. For ppl who admit atheism is a religion. It’s the fish religion. Sure atheist don’t worship a deity. But I have seen a heck amount of atheist worship celebrities they idolize them others worship objects and even nature. Many are as patriotic as the so call Christian nationalist who venerate a tangible piece of cloth of flags. Atheist worship without realizing. Anyways atheism is also a religion in that it’s a way of life. A religion of no moral codes do as you please. In the world of politics atheism=communism. Maybe read about Stalin who pushed atheism across schools during his regime. if that wasn’t enough facts for you to handle, atheist and I mean most have beliefs that are contradicting one to another, many which conflict reality itself. What do you think Aaron believes? Besides nonsense he holds the universe magically created itself. He doesn’t admit it. But he has been seen parading around in wizard costumes being the clown he is. Of course such costumes befit a person whose existence is owed to magic. Many atheist I have come across believe life came to this earth from stardust (aka pixie dust.) maybe you should try this- go around and Ask atheist what they believe in. You will find out each has either no clue or conflicting beliefs to you or others. Atheism is a religion whether you care to admit it or not-That’s the bottom line. And I don’t care for insults I don’t take such individuals serious. The minute you spew that kind of language nonsense you proved only how intellectually lacking you really are. I was never taught curse words as part of curriculum. That’s that.
Usually they're all wound up and animated, as well as celebratory when they make a point like only God explains logic, morals, and the appearance of life, etc and you (atheist or scientist) can't explain it. Supernatural!! Oh yes, Supernatural! Smug a holes.
Nah, he's way too soft. Aron reviewed and openly debated most abrasive apologists out there. Angelos couldn't get a couple words out before Aron began tearing apart inconsistencies with dogma, mistakes or things I can only generously presume Angelos wasn't even aware of being lies.
Having finished the whole video... Well, Angelo has certainly paid attention to other apologists. He's got a bright future shilling to the irrational, because he's already memorized the same tired song and dance.
Wait what frustrations? Atheism comes with no benefit. Why would aaron get frustrated when his beliefs are false and his science is distorted? Maybe he got frustrated trying to communicate his lies in a way that more ppl can gulp them up. You see, when you back a crook into a corner their last line of defense is to get hostile as what Aaron does. You give him the facts and he gets loud rude and interrupts. Look at all his interviews, he does just that.
Best question of the convo: "Why are you an apologist". I nearly fell over. They should all be called out on this grifting profession. Same for psychics, homeopaths, and (hot take) Chiropractors.
Homeopathy and chiropractic absolutely deserve to be called out too. Chiropractic is legally a religion because the government started cracking down on it, and so the quack who made it figured "huh, well the can't call it quackery if it's a religion." It is quackery though. People suffer and die because of it, and it enrages me that we aren't taught about this in school. Hot take: I think its actually important to allow chiropractors to keep practicing, because the first ammendment is important to uphold consistently and fairly. Howwwwever... that doesn't mean that we can't be taught about the origins of chiropractic as quackery and learn about how baseless it is. That information can literally save lives. Same goes for Homeopathy.
"Theres no point in sharing my evidence because youll prove it wrong in 5 seconds with verifiable facts and i'll look like an idiot infront of my fledgling audience of 3, ruining my chances of taking peoples money by lying to them"
BINGO..... DING DING DING. YOU WIN THE OBVIOUS PRIZE WHICH MOST DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE DESPITE THE OBVIOUSNESS. IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY IN THE END FOR THESE LIARS NOT GOD.
@@deathdealer312 eh. Not really. Just being an atheist in the comments doesn’t guarantee someone can actually read between the lines, see through the veil, or use logic or common sense to induce or deduce something even if it’s obvious. Instead, most viewers on any channel, just believe and do and or follow whatever the RUclipsrs they watch say, even if they conflict with each other or change. For example they’ll watch a video where a popular RUclipsr says “all RUclips apologies are fake”, and it will be LITERAL news to them, and they’ll believe it, then a few later the same RUclipsr will get caught in a scandal and make an apology video saying “RUclipsr apologies are not fake and mine is totally genuine”, and they’ll believe that too. But they will never wonder “wait why did he say that? Why is he contradicting himself? Oh wait that’s right he’s afraid to lose his subs which really means lose his ad revenue because oh wait that’s right we don’t matter to him at all only the money we make for him does”. So yea most people are too dumb to understand the meaning behind what people do or say. You know Andrew Tate or whatever. Guys kiss his a55 and I’ve been telling them in comments that he doesn’t care about any of you and probably laughs behind ur back and calls u stupid. They won’t believe me cuz I’m not popular with millions of subs (not that I want to), and guess what, he got exposed calling his viewers stupid. And STILL they remain subscribed and keep paying him. Never underestimate the average persons desire to fit in. It will make them shut off their brain and lack awareness, and be permanently r3tarded (no offense) if it helps them fit in and belong with the group
As to your opening: I love it when you finally lose your patience, some people just don't learn, you can't reason with them, you can't show them evidence, they either don't want to learn, or simply can't. Then there are those who truly deserve it, those who know better, but refuse to acknowledge the facts and evidence, because it would hurt their image. I greatly appreciate how much time and effort you put in to this, and how much overall time you've spent in this. You're more than allowed to go off on someone once in a while, you need that vent. You have far more patience than I.
Dude, Aron.. I fucking loved the intro you added to this video. When I clicked to watch it, I wasn’t sure if this was a video where you’re talking to a sane person, or a moron. As soon as he started speaking and said “yeah thanks for having me on again Aron blah blah thanks for letting me share with you blah blah thank you.” Like holy shit, every religious person seems to think that being polite at the introduction to a debate is plot armor to the entire discussion. It’s probably because religious people don’t even listen to factual discussions. And if they’re convinced to listen to a second of it, they hear the morons being polite.
It's also been my experience that they think speaking in a polite tone will let them get away with constant insults, both insinuated and direct. As though tone matters more than substance... That garbage was frustrating even back when I was a believer.
@@KianaWolftbf, tone mattering more than the substance is a very common neurotypical thing. As a neurodivergent autistic person I had to learn that the hard way. It's not just religious people.
I've made the same observation quite a few times. Seems they expect a more generous disregard of their irrational content as a returned favour if they but flatter and fawn the necessary bit for it, only to be dissapointed - though never in themselves - thus justifying their ad hominem henceforth.
I checked for him. carbon-14 dating won't work on dinosaur bones. The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, so carbon-14 dating is only effective on samples that are less than 50,000 years old.
Potholer54 did a video where he mentioned a creationist getting a fossil from a museum that was covered in shellac and having it carbon dated and claiming it disproved evolution, it might be what he was thinking about.
Or more accurately, these people never tell the truth. You can say "Oi, you can't carbon date dinosaur bones, there's no fucking carbon in them!" as much as you like, they will never admit they know that.
@@mardishores4016 Nearly everyone has been brainwashed by it in the past. As a child when you see seemingly intelligent people believing in in it and preaching it you automatically think it’s true but are being brainwashed. It still goes on that is the horrible part.
Angelos thinks it's not a lie to say "you can carbon date dinosaur bones" because he believes it. This is the Trump defense, too stupid to lie. Anyone who knows anything about carbon dating knows it doesn't work for anything that old.
This is something I actually hoped Aron Ra would have addressed, but didn't. Regardless if something is true or not or even if you believe it is true or not, you should not make a claim in a debate if you are not qualified and informed about the subject. If you want to mention something, but you don't have that level of certainty, you need to qualify it with "I think..." or "I could be mistaken, but..." etc. Alternatively, you can just admit you don't know. If you make such claims without proper qualification, you are dishonest. It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong nor what you believe to be true, you are being dishonest. Angelos doesn't think he lied because he doesn't use the same definition of a lie that I think a reasonable person should
@@tabularasa0606- Yeah, agreed, technically you can put anything through the carbon dating process. But for dinosaur bones you'll just get background noise, something over 50000 years. Angelos believes you can carbon date dinosaur bones and get young ages (e.g. under 10000 years), which is nonsense. (To be clear, I'm agreeing with you!)
@@NotGoodAtNamingThings My thoughts exactly. Here's something else to consider, we should be careful not to insist that "you can't carbon date dinosaur fossils because they're too old" less we be doing science by starting with the conclusion. We should be open minded (and skeptical) to any evidence that demonstrates dinosaur fossils that do contain levels of C14 that might suggest a more recent age than expected, or we could be missing out on a very interesting discovery! For example, there are several life forms that we once thought to be extinct and now know to be still living! In fact, there are many living organisms that have been around since the time of the dinosaurs and before that are still largely unchanged. Maybe there was a "dinosaur" that made it to as recently as 30,000 years ago that would still be recognizable as it's ancestors from 65mil years ago and may have left a fossil that could be dated with C14! Unlikely, but scientifically possible.
Aron: asks a yes or no question, any question Angelos: tries to find ways to explain why his answer isn't the one Aron is expecting instead of answering the question Advice for anyone in Angelos position: Answer the question first and THEN give your reasons
He's not, in his mindset. He just adopts the same methodology of every believer: takes what he needs to support his thesis, and gives them enormous relevance even when they were minority exceptions. That's why I would appreciate a more steel-manning approach from Aron. Usually, it works better with this kind of tactic, because it stop the opponent's usual defense, self-victimization.
@@MicheleGardinithe guy literally lied about radiocarbon dating and lied about how many arguments he had presented forth, how enraging it is when someone lies to your face about your own conversation history D:
Angelos continually dodges, deceives, dives, denies and deflects to defend his indefensable ideas. He's not particularly good at any of that either... Love the content Aron. Keep up the great work.
I'm autistic and I can see Angelos is lying. I used to be Christian for years. I just heard about the stars and how 2/3 of the named stars are Arabic names because Islam used to be very scientific and made advances in mathematics but some religious thing happened and it was forbidden to mess with anything modifying numbers. So religion held them back and is still holding them back. The name "Apologetic" implies that you are sorry about something as if you are wrong. I think that's weird. Also did anyone find it weird that at first with AronRa Angelos said he just started apologetics 7:58 and later says he's been doing it for awhile 22:42 ? Contradicting. Wow, Angelos really screwed up with the dinosaur bones. There's no reason to respect this Angelos guy he tries to say AronRa is ad hominem attacking him but he clearly doesn't understand that calling someones ignorance on a subject is not a ad hominem attack. His ignorance is very clear and AronRa made him glitch like an Oblivion NPC script. AronRa is good at that.
I'm not Christian but you got that first thing wrong, it says BOTH all your heart and mind, soul and strength. How do you not know that? Please don't talk about stuff you know nothing about.
@@TruthSpeaker. Maybe because I haven't been a Christian in so many years. It's been over 16yrs. So I forgot. It doesn't matter since it's all delusion. I'll talk about what I want you control freak. You said I know nothing? I'll have to correct you "it says BOTH all your heart and mind, soul and strength." It's not BOTH. You mentioned 3 more. Mind, soul, and strength. That's more than 2. If you are going to correct me at least use correct English. You even edited it. So much for you trying to be critical. What's that saying? Let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone? 🤣
@@thekaxmax it was never to recruit more, but to keep the ones there stay. like jehova's witnesses going door to door, it's not to actually get new people to join, just to make the outside world look scary so the missionaries going door to door would stay in the cult
This is the way to address apologists: focus on one objective point and don't let them either away with gish-gallopping or whataboutism. Tie them to their words and all they can do is recede into sophistry and personal attacks. It was entertaining, thanks.
Hard work? What exactly is he doing to produce hard work? Hard work is what construction workers do while laboring under the sun. Producing results worthy of honor. Pardon this but This crook Aaron sits his drunken behind on a desk and rants about his false atheism using distorted science and loud bold letters on shirts that show his ignorance. Hard work? Try again.
1:03:21 Aron: NAME ME ONE THING Bald, Babbling Baby Apologist: "see, here's the thing" This interaction sums up the entire encounter between these two.
Theists are not the most insufferable humans on the plant, unless they also happen to be dominionists. Fascists are the most insufferable ones in all their forms, libertarians, dominionists, Liberals, conservatives, Capitalists, imperialists, etc.
You have more patience than I would've. My blood pressure was going up with the amount of bs this guy was knowingly spewing. I think I got an aneurysm just watching this.
The more I watch them doing it, the more I'm convinced that apologetics is some sort of therapy for morons who want to get their own back on the world.
When people who practice all of this garbage get shown over and over again the evidence that it's garbage they have to admit the fact that they have wasted a huge portion of their life. This causes them to double down because its hard for them to admit they've been fooled. That's the reason for their anger.
There is a common strand running through the debates between AronRa and religious apologists and creationists: they always go in circles. The latter, in particular, are always evasive in their answers -- never being able to look AronRa straight in the eye.
You invest so much work, effort, energy, time, money and patience in your educational work. You've helped more than you might think. I am very grateful to you for that.
Your patience lasted one hour and thirteen minutes longer than mine would have. This guy must have learned his apologist debating tactics from Kent (I wasn't prepared for that) Hovind!
I applaud you Aron for spending over an hour with this guy. I've dealt with pathological liars in the past and there's nothing more frustrating than dealing with someone who lies to your face when you both know you know the truth.
"Maybe you aren't familiar with the current scientific consensus in regards to religion, mister several decades long counter-apologist and science communicator! It's not like it's been your job or anything!" xD
"You are allowed to question doctrine" Do atheists who questioned doctrine go to heaven? "Well, uhm, you know, you are allowed to question doctrine, but, uhm, I'm not gonna do that and don't give you a straight answer"
Regarding the preface... Even from the perspective of someone who errs on the side of being too diplomatic (I typically want to convince people, and getting angry rarely helps with that), the fact that so many of the people you respond to are willfully ignorant liars who often build their careers actively making this problem ('this problem' being the epidemic of misinformation in society) worse definitely justifies getting a bit rude now and then. Also, of the 'grumpy atheist' types, you're by far the most patient that I've seen. You've kept a level head in situations where lesser people would have long since started throwing out childish insults.
Aron, you made me an atheist nearly 6 years ago. Scratch that, you demonstrated scientific knowledge that guided me to a better understanding of the world at large. Thank you for all the work you do.
So in other words that interprets as you have no purpose nor meaning nor hope of any kind life is a mistake according to you and Aaron and you are proud of that…….
@@jdos5643 If that is the truth, then you should be proud of believing it. Or would you rather be proud of believing a lie that tells you you do have purpose? Wouldn't you rather want to believe whatever the truth happens to be, irrelevant of what it is?
@@Mithcoriel I don’t believe life is a result of dumb mistakes. Neither do I accept atheism because there is no benefit to it….also because there’s no such thing as absolute truth with atheism. For someone like me who loves the truth I stick to it.
@@jdos5643 Evolution isn't a result of dumb mistakes. It's a result of natural adaptations for survival, which have one random component (mutations) and one non-random component (which mutations were beneficial for survival). The claim that there is no benefit to atheism is called Pascal's Wager. Look it up. If atheism is the truth, there is no need for there to be a benefit to it, you just believe it cause you don't want to believe a lie. If Christianity is false, there is also no benefit to Christianity. You are using wishful thinking here with the claim that you're no atheist because "there is no benefit" and "there is no absolute truth" and apparently also with evolution: it seems you don't want to be the result of "dumb mistakes" as you put it, I guess cause it doesn't sound as fancy as "an all-powerful being created me on purpose", so you choose to reject evolution. Just because you want there to be a benefit to what you believe, and you want there to be an absolute truth, and you want to be the creation of a god, doesn't magically change reality and mean any of these things is true.
@@Mithcoriel if atheism is true then nothing matters even your long pointless comment. but because atheism is false then you are wrong and can be proven. Evolution and life according to atheist/evolutionists was result of dumb mistakes. Stamping “natural “ to it is just sugarcoating it. Also mutations and adaptions have everything to do with micro evolution which simply means there’s variations within kinds. Example there’s variations of finches but bottom line is finches are still finches to this day. What you haven’t been able to prove is macro evolution which is in simple words-a made up lie. I reject evolution not just because there is no evidence for it, but also because it conflicts biology of life. I mean if evolution is true as you claim, then what came first the newborn or its mother? I already know the answer but do you? Go ahead….
Aron, you ARE patient. And you have high standards. I am on the same subject in two conversations and I am faced with people that are denying that until we find gods, the god proposal can't bring anything but attribution errors.
@@celiand2618 the Bible is scientifically historically and archaeologically accurate. this is why scholars and historians alike agree with it. But the Bible is not evidence against God. Try again. or better yet first prove God does not exist let’s start there.
@@celiand2618 mind naming evidence for God? Sure glad to. Hmm let’s see which one do we start with. Ok the universe; we know it is governed by precise mathematical laws of Physics-Rule of newton: there cannot be laws without a lawmaker. All laws require minds to formulate and mind to understand. The laws of the universe call for intelligent design not dumb mistakes. As for the earth. God created things in fours. for example: there are four seasons four elements four winds four sides to earths compass. The grid used for global maps is made up of four squares all exact in four sides. In nature we have animals that walk on fours have four limbs typically have four toes. Tarantula fours in each side same with octopuses. Humans have four fingers excluding thumbs. Humans also grow four wisdom teeth. DNA which makes up all life is made up of four principle molecules. Gods name in Hebrew you guessed it, four letters-YHWH. The eden he created in the beginning origins had four rivers go through it, two of which still exist today. It seems God left his fingerprints all over creation.
I'm deeply impressed that Aron didn't lose his rag more. Angelo was being a terrible guest, and Aron gave him every chance to not lie, but Angelo couldn't do it. Good on you Aron, keep up the good work.
It always makes me want to puke when the people put on this veil of false respect and patience. "Yeah, thats a really good question...." The tone of voice and the look on his face comes across so condescending and disrespectful.
For a minute, I felt a little sorry for the man Aron is talking with.... I wanted to know what the quote was that he had mined. Eventually, I looked up the doctrinal quote Aron gave. I found it came from the New Testament Mathew 4:7. For one, it absolutely applies to the topic. Second, it completely refutes the apologists' assertion that doctrine supported and led to the beginning of science. The kicker is that when read in context, it's about 10 verses of the bible that accurately depict what the apologist is literally doing right then. Someone says, "Prove to me the veracity of your claims. Show me the evidence" and the believer says, "Im not supposed to do that and I dont have too, and here are some quotes that dont offer any proof but, instead condemn you and your criticism. So Aron, this was really fantastic. I understood your point as, "Not only does doctrine not support the pursuit of science, but it condemns those who pursue it. You can ask a priest (or others, I guess) whatever you want about god, but you must accept their conclusions as truth without any burden for proof. To question further, or worse, conclude differently, is heresy, the punishment for which is death and eternal damnation. And this is what the apologist thinks you desreve and what is coming to you. Makes a lot of sense why you didn't give a shit about his stupid ass quote.
I used to believe that even if someone was arguing dishonestly that extending them grace and continuing to debate civilly would somehow get them to eventually take what I’m saying seriously. I don’t believe that anymore. Hopefully grilling these people and holding their feet to the fire will either stick in their brain until they’re forced to confront their flawed reasoning, or someone out there questioning their beliefs sees these debates and it convinces them to critically think and do their own research.
I cannot believe Angelos actually tried saying, with a straight face, that Aron's standards for evidence were "too high", or "shallow" as he put it. And it was like arguing with a child? What the actual hell?
Aron never apologise for getting frustrated for liars and apologetics. They keep showing that they don't care about the truth and they twist and turn their scripts to say what they want it to show and fit their own mind. They will never admit that they are wrong and lying about it. It's their way to make money and feel important and wanted.
@@jdos5643Named after creationist debater Duane Gish, "The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments."
@@jdos5643You are an idiot! Athiesm is just the position of disbelief. A thiest says there is a god, an Athiest says I don't believe you, demonstrate there is s God. Never been any evidence.
Aron Ra you are not mean, you are a powerhouse of reasoning for humanity in the modern age, so awesome, I’m awed, you’re a hero, that would be a more appropriate description for one Aron Ra.
Refusing to answer yes or no questions as much as this guy does is one of the biggest red flags of a dishonest operator. Your anger at someone refusing to be honest in any capacity is well warranted.
And instead of answering, he immediately started accusing Aron of being unreasonable. They hope you'll try to defend yourself so they can change the subject.
@originalslothking Insisting that the answer can only be yes or no is called a false dichotomy. Sometimes the answer is something else. I for one don't think you should ever insist your opponent answer only in the binary. It just feels too much like "Have you stopped beating your wife". I can understand telling them to keep their reply short and not go off on a tangent, but flat-out only yes or no doesn't sound like a good debate to me. Now, when Aron asked "Can an atheist go to heaven, yes or no?" that one was pretty clear-cut, alright (though even then I would have liked to hear what he's going to reply). But the second time it was "can you show me evidence for carbon dating dinosaurs". Ok, technically you can answer it yes or no, as in yes I've seen a study. But it's more natural to start describing the evidence. Maybe what he had wasn't a scientific study but some less reliable source. Maybe he wasn't sure if his source was scientific. Would have still been interesting to know what it is. He started replying with "So..." and I would have liked to hear a few sentences of that before Aron cut him off. Who cares if he's going to make a fallacious statement. I want to hear what that is too, so I can enjoy the rebuttal.
@@Mithcoriel So it was impossible for Angelo to answer with "Yes, and the evidence is..."???? This isn't a false dichotomy, he either has evidence or he doesn't and he refused to answer in the affirmative. Do you have any scientific studies that can back up what Angelo was claiming?
Einstein wrote: " The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable but still largely primitive legends. No interpretation, however subtle, can change this (for me). " .
I meet people like this and they make me so frustrated with them, just nothing to say and accept nothing that challenges their dogma, well done Aron for lasting so long I normally walk away laughing at them long before it gets to that stage timewasters.
That was frustrating lol. You sir Aron are a work of art. I could fully feel what you were trying to convey. And as I am viewing you through my phone as a video I think that qualifies as art right? Well done
One small suggestion: when apologists/opponents complain that you are not letting them state their best point, then announce "OK, I will give you three minutes uninterrupted to state your best case." Set an egg timer to three minutes and allow your debate opponent dig himself into a hole without interruption and then address the problems with the parts of that statement. This may allow them to filibuster a bunch of wild allegations, but you can focus on one main (or early) point.
Maybe just a minute. Don't underestime the amount of BS claims a human can spout for a minute. But also 3 minutes will be enough material for Aron to produce content for a month.
@sejembalm As much as that sounds nice on paper, in practice it would be 3 minutes of preaching with every second that goes by a chance for the apologist to assert something that can be shown to be false. After 3 minutes, no matter how hard you try going back through every point one by one, you will be stuck at the first point forever because it's the apologist job to deny so they can keep believing. This means that those 3 minutes of preaching, only the first 10 seconds will be argued anyway. So why not cut to the chase to begin with and interject when something is said that is demonstrably false? Yes sometimes it's fair to give the other person time, but if he was indeed someone who knew his stuff, then the criteria of "shut up, tell me 1 thing" would be an easy challenge to pass. If the tables were turned, Aron would have just listed things from muscle memory (as shown in this video). It was very obvious that the guy did his best to stick the obvious script that we've heard a million times. I'm sick of that same script, and unlike Aron, I haven't been hearing it for 25 years or so. Oftentimes Aron has said that he doesn't like these types of debates because it's hard for people to cite things in the moment. It's why he requested in the video they do it over email or give him time because then you can do exactly what you asked. Point by point, let him write everything and then point by point, list everything and refute one by one. But this is youtube, not gmail. Unfortunately the apologists know that and use it to their advantage. They know it's the only way they can convince their lies without ever having to cite anything. Because the moment they do, they lose.
OK,@@DVDplayerz, give them one minute of uninterrupted silence to make their best case and then get one minute of silence from them during the rebuttal and see how that works. As I have seen before from apologists, this gives them a perfect opportunity to dig themselves into a ludicrous mental pit of no escape. Such as this clown asserting that there are no transitional fossils. Aron should have just bit his lip and let him go further with that one that is easily refutable (except for those who do not believe in evidence that is counter to their preferred narrative, but the evidence is not for them, but the video's viewers). Let them present their case and show the world how irrational it is.
@@sejembalm Unfortunately their case is all about getting eyes and ears because there is no such a thing as bad publicity. The more people they can get to hear their bullshit the bigger the chance someone gullible enough can get hooked. Their whole thing revolves around following a script because if you give them time, it works. Lies with a bit of truth can do miracles. (pun intended) We've all seen debates where every second is structured and I have never seen any of those debates actually be productive. With every turn you get into 10 tangents and you'd get lucky to be able to address one or two things properly during your few seconds. There's a reason viewers and debaters go to channels like modern day debate where the structure is removed. Yes, with structure you get to see their views fully and scrutinize it yourself, however you also give them a platform to tell lies after lies and odds are that most of the lies wont have time to be addressed by the opponent. The way I see it. If you start by saying something that is factually incorrect, then there is no reason to keep rambling since the beginning already doesn't make sense. Could have Aron given a 1 minute silence? Sure. Would it have been any more productive or would the apologist have said anything original and not predictable? I doubt it.
I still live in hope that one day a North American Christian will engage with me in polite conversation. Whenever I ask a simple question, seeking clarification on one point within the body of their claim, I am suddenly attacked. I am immediately told that I am an Atheist, followed by an onslaught of abuse. And ending with "You will burn in hell". Aron, you have my respect for tolerating ignorance for this long.
@@AnnoyingNewsletters Thank you. You make perfect sense and have verified my own hypotheses. From the age of four years old when I started infant school, my classmates were regularly beaten by our Christian Teachers. A slap on the face, the ruler across the palm and the cane across the bare backside. "Spare the Rod..." was the doctrine enforced by the Church of England in all State Schools. We envied North America for being Constitutionally Secular. How ironic I still get a short, sharp shock 60 years later from a Secular Nation, after my own countrymen have finally turned their back on Christianity.
@@tomsenior7405they did and still do the same thing in private religious schools here. My parents actually found it amusing that my catholic school teacher hurled textbooks at me from across the room or smacked me with a ruler. That being said, kids are fucking awful and need some balance of discipline, there just needs to be some median between the religious love of beating the literal piss out of a child and the modern sense of parenting in all developed nations where people just let their kids run roughshod and act like absolute animals because they refuse to even verbally correct them.
@@Tsumami__ Thank you for this. Yikes! Corporal Punishment lives on. Bloody hell, that is not good. You do not deserve that. It became illegal here in the 1980s. Too late for my generation. I agree that children are not the little angels we want them to be. And yes indeed, they can be frightful little basterds. I recall getting a Blackboard Eraser in the face, it was aimed at the child behind me. Every Teacher could play the piano, but they were all lousy at Cricket. A terrible bowling arm. Violence towards children does not work. Nor does tearing them to shreds by a couple of bears. I completely agree with you. There is a better way. We know not how each child has to navigate their way through life. Not all of of us enjoyed the benefits of a loving. supportive family. It is a blight on everyone. Take care of yourself. Thanks again.
Having watched your content over the years, I really do see the patience of a saint you have for the majority of the people you talk to. Whenver I talk to people half as dumb as your interlocutors, I am not even half as calm as you are. Facing stuff like fractal wrongness of creationism and eventually getting angry is a natural and understandable reaction, especially once you tried being calm and laying out facts before. Stay strong!
I think we reached a point where we have literally all knowledge to mankind available in a second's reach and combatted superstition to the point that anything that isn't traditionally religion will be handwaved away by most people, and had countless debates and failed attempts to prove any religion ti be true, that I think we should be allowed to lose our shit. If you live in a first and second world country and have access to the internet, you don't have any excuse to ignore facts and counter arguments.
Twitter & Facebook have millions of followers for anti-scientific clap-trap. Authors of pseudo-science make millions. US politics overflows with science denial. The internet is powerful at spreading nonsense, rumor & lies.
Unfortunately, god's are the excuse, critical thinking skills in childhood instead of indoctrination would be a game changer in religious countries. I'm Irish and 30 years of war against the tyranny of foreign occupation thought us to think critically and abandon falsehoods for the truth of the matter. We lost our fear, they lost their power. Fuck'em 🖕 fuck'em all. 🌈✨🧚🦄💚
@@jdos5643the fact that he claims that dinosaur fossils can be carbon dated when they Can’t? And when Aron pressed him to show one Peer reviewed study he kept on deflecting and dodging?
Anglelos: 'I have lots of evidence for creationism. Are you afraid of it?' Aron: 'Give it.' Angelos: 'Hold on, I'm just going to google "religious scientist" and then I'll talk about blasphemy.'
Apologists??? You mean Excusegists 😅 When they start apologizing for the lies and such... they can earn the apologists title. Til then they're just liars making shitty excuses.
I started taking issue with just about every other sentence uttered by Angelos. I'm self-aware enough to know I have no business doing what Aron does out in public forums.
Apologists are salespeople. They aren't there to convert non-Christians and win souls, they're there to convert existing Christians to their brand. They're not evangelists, they're intravangelists. Their targets are the fans of the other teams in the competition, not the people who don't follow the sport. The reason they debate people like Aron isn't to convert atheists - because they know they won't - it's to convert Brand A Christians to Brand B. How do you know you're dealing with an apologist? When they accuse you of having a defective standard of truth after they learn you don't accept mythology as history.
41:33 AronRa: "if you come to the conclusion that God does not exist you are going Heaven or Hell which is it pick one" Apologists: "So ..." Apologists can not answer a question directly. That's actually a sign of con men.
@@troelsvestergaard6644 how does politeness or scinarty have anything to do with being right? I sincerely love my dog and my family. That doesn't mean I can afford to house them all.
@troelsvestergaard6644 people are always sincere about when they try and save someone's life. As they may not know to or have the strength or proper knowledge and could put their own life in danger. It doesn't mean they can still save this person's life. You either don't understand the actual definition of sincerity or your apply the word to how your belief in a God makes you feel.
'I've got tons of examples!' 'Provide one.' '... I've got just so many examples.' 'Provide one.' 'So very many examples.' 'Provide *one*.' 'Well now I don't want to because you're being mean.' Yeah there are times where if you're not angry you're not paying attention and dealing with someone that dishonest certainly qualifies as a good reason to get angry.
Aron: *_asks for evidence_*
Angelos: You have a very low standard of truth.
Also Angelos: *_believes in a magic man in the sky, that made everything_*
You might have that backwards.
Something cant from nothing.
It is atheist who believe magic made the universe not theist. Get your facts straight. Theist hold the designer of the universe-God formulated the laws of the universe. He used knowledge aswell as energy not magic to create the universe. We know the universe is governed by precise mathematical laws of physics. Rule of newton: there cannot be laws without a lawmaker. All laws require mind to formulate and mind to understand. Atheist cannot get around that fact. Atheist have essentially three options and neither of them work. These are their options you don’t know (which is ignorance) dumb mistakes formulated the laws or magic did. We know dumb mistakes cannot account for anything therefore your only option is magic did it. Therefore it is Atheist who believe magic made everything not theist.
@@pownagematt2443 so you admit a god cant create the world from nothing, nor that it can exist. 👍
@@DiMadHatter God is eternal. That is the only way human life is possible.
@@pownagematt2443 those two sentences are just empty assertions, you would need to demonstrate them to be considered reasonable.
It's like talking to a used car salesman. The word yes and no don't exist, everything is just more word salad. Kudos your your ability to channel your anger into words, Aron. The world needs more of you.
Except he isn’t even selling you a real car but a pretend one.
@@Nocturnaluxeven worse, he's selling you 2 cubic feet of tailings from a copper mine and the blueprints for a Pagani Zonda R. 😂
I wish that Christians wouldn't take your incivility as a reason to disregard your points. You are an incredible speaker and advocate for scientific literacy.
despite them starting the conversation by being passive/aggressively incivil.
Starting a discussion (almost always more of a lecture) by assuming your opponent (rather than discussion colleague) is necessarily wrong despite not having any evidence is _really_ rude.
@@thekaxmax
Exactly 💯
@@thekaxmaxit's always the people with power/privilege that obsess over civility politics
Yeah it's always wrong when the non believer doesn't have infinite patience for their bullshit. But they can start threatening us with hell, calling us horrible disgusting people and insulting us in other ways. That's all fine.
@@Sciguy95christian love at it's finest
I wish news reporters would interview like you do: "Just answer the fucking question without lying!"
I actually appreciate your anger...willful ignorance should never be meet with understanding or any civility. They are liars and know they are lying...they don't deserve any respect. This isn't to say you can't be religious...you just have to know it isn't backed by any facts, logic or evidence...its entirely your feelings.
Apologists are the liars, the others are just their marks.
Agreed, and because of that this has to be one my favorite videos of Aron's.
In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's Monad (first emanation of God), from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together with the strong nuclear force:
1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong nuclear force.
2) Interconnectedness: In the Monadology, monads are interconnected in a vast network. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together.
3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions.
4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter.
5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz.
6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics.
7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions.
em·a·na·tion
noun
an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.
Metaphysics
Context
The monad, the word and the idea, belongs to the Western philosophical tradition and has been used by various authors. Leibniz, who was exceptionally well-read, could not have ignored this, but he did not use it himself until mid-1696 when he was sending for print his New System.
Apparently he found with it a convenient way to expound his own philosophy as it was elaborated in this period. What he proposed can be seen as a modification of occasionalism developed by latter-day Cartesians. Leibniz surmised that there are indefinitely many substances individually 'programmed' to act in a predetermined way, each substance being coordinated with all the others.
This is the pre-established harmony which solved the mind-body problem, but at the cost of declaring any interaction between substances a mere appearance.
Summary
The rhetorical strategy adopted by Leibniz in The Monadology is fairly obvious as the text begins with a description of monads (proceeding from simple to complicated instances),
then it turns to their principle or creator and
finishes by using both to explain the world.
(I) As far as Leibniz allows just one type of element in the building of the universe his system is monistic. The unique element has been 'given the general name monad or entelechy' and described as 'a simple substance' (§§1, 19). When Leibniz says that monads are 'simple,' he means that "which is one, has no parts and is therefore indivisible".
Relying on the Greek etymology of the word entelechie (§18), Leibniz posits quantitative differences in perfection between monads which leads to a hierarchical ordering. The basic order is three-tiered:
(1) entelechies or created monads (§48),
(2) souls or entelechies with perception and memory (§19), and
(3) spirits or rational souls (§82).
Whatever is said about the lower ones (entelechies) is valid for the higher (souls and spirits) but not vice versa. As none of them is without a body (§72), there is a corresponding hierarchy of
(1) living beings and animals
(2), the latter being either non-reasonable or reasonable.
The degree of perfection in each case corresponds to cognitive abilities and only spirits or reasonable animals are able to grasp the ideas of both the world and its creator. Some monads have power over others because they can perceive with greater clarity, but primarily, one monad is said to dominate another if it contains the reasons for the actions of other(s). Leibniz believed that any body, such as the body of an animal or man, has one dominant monad which controls the others within it. This dominant monad is often referred to as the soul.
(II) God is also said to be a simple substance (§47) but it is the only one necessary (§§38-9) and without a body attached (§72). Monads perceive others "with varying degrees of clarity, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity". God could take any and all perspectives, knowing of both potentiality and actuality. As well as that God in all his power would know the universe from each of the infinite perspectives at the same time, and so his perspectives-his thoughts-"simply are monads". Creation is a permanent state, thus "[monads] are generated, so to speak, by continual fulgurations of the Divinity" (§47). Any perfection comes from being created while imperfection is a limitation of nature (§42). The monads are unaffected by each other, but each have a unique way of expressing themselves in the universe, in accordance with God's infinite will.
(III) Composite substances or matter are "actually sub-divided without end" and have the properties of their infinitesimal parts (§65). A notorious passage (§67) explains that "each portion of matter can be conceived as like a garden full of plants, or like a pond full of fish. But each branch of a plant, each organ of an animal, each drop of its bodily fluids is also a similar garden or a similar pond". There are no interactions between different monads nor between entelechies and their bodies but everything is regulated by the pre-established harmony (§§78-9). Much like how one clock may be in synchronicity with another, but the first clock is not caused by the second (or vice versa), rather they are only keeping the same time because the last person to wind them set them to the same time. So it is with monads; they may seem to cause each other, but rather they are, in a sense, "wound" by God's pre-established harmony, and thus appear to be in synchronicity. Leibniz concludes that "if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is-not merely in respect of the whole in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular" (§90).
In his day, atoms were proposed to be the smallest division of matter. Within Leibniz's theory, however, substances are not technically real, so monads are not the smallest part of matter, rather they are the only things which are, in fact, real. To Leibniz, space and time were an illusion, and likewise substance itself. The only things that could be called real were utterly simple beings of psychic activity "endowed with perception and appetite."
The other objects, which we call matter, are merely phenomena of these simple perceivers. "Leibniz says, 'I don't really eliminate body, but reduce [revoco] it to what it is. For I show that corporeal mass [massa], which is thought to have something over and above simple substances, is not a substance, but a phenomenon resulting from simple substances, which alone have unity and absolute reality.' (G II 275/AG 181)" Leibniz's philosophy is sometimes called "'panpsychic idealism' because these substances are psychic rather than material". That is to say, they are mind-like substances, not possessing spatial reality. "In other words, in the Leibnizian monadology, simple substances are mind-like entities that do not, strictly speaking, exist in space but that represent the universe from a unique perspective." It is the harmony between the perceptions of the monads which creates what we call substances, but that does not mean the substances are real in and of themselves.
(IV) Leibniz uses his theory of Monads to support his argument that we live in the best of all possible worlds. He uses his basis of perception but not interaction among monads to explain that all monads must draw their essence from one ultimate monad. He then claims that this ultimate monad would be God because a monad is a “simple substance” and God is simplest of all substances, He cannot be broken down any further. This means that all monads perceive “with varying degrees of perception, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity”.
This superior perception of God then would apply in much the same way that he says a dominant monad controls our soul, all other monads associated with it would, essentially, shade themselves towards Him. With all monads being created by the ultimate monad and shading themselves in the image of this ultimate monad, Leibniz argues that it would be impossible to conceive of a more perfect world because all things in the world are created by and imitating the best possible monad.
[2D is not the center of the universe,
0D is the center of the mirror universe]:
The mirror universe theory is based on the concept of parity violation, which was discovered in the 1950s. Parity violation refers to the observation that certain processes in particle physics don't behave the same way when their coordinates are reversed. This discovery led to the idea that there might be a mirror image of our universe where particles and their properties are flipped.
In this mirror universe, the fundamental particles that make up matter, such as electrons, protons, and neutrinos, would have their charges reversed. For example, in our universe, electrons have a negative charge, but in the mirror universe, they might have a positive charge.
Furthermore, another aspect of the mirror universe theory involves chirality, which refers to the property of particles behaving differently from their mirror images. In our universe, particles have a certain handedness or chirality, but in the mirror universe, this chirality could be reversed.
Leibniz or Newton:
Quantum mechanics is more compatible with Leibniz's relational view of the universe than Newton's absolute view of the universe.
In Newton's absolute view, space and time are absolute and independent entities that exist on their own, independent of the objects and events that take place within them. This view implies that there is a privileged observer who can observe the universe from a neutral and objective perspective.
On the other hand, Leibniz's relational view holds that space and time are not absolute, but are instead relational concepts that are defined by the relationships between objects and events in the universe. This view implies that there is no privileged observer and that observations are always made from a particular point of view.
Quantum mechanics is more compatible with the relational view because it emphasizes the role of observers and the context of measurement in determining the properties of particles. In quantum mechanics, the properties of particles are not absolute, but are instead defined by their relationships with other particles and the measuring apparatus. This means that observations are always made from a particular point of view and that there is no neutral and objective perspective.
Overall, quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is fundamentally relational rather than absolute, and is therefore more compatible with Leibniz's relational view than Newton's absolute view.
What are the two kinds of truth according to Leibniz?
There are two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible.
What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus?
Newton's calculus is about functions.
Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints.
In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation.
In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation.
What are the arguments against Leibniz?
Critics of Leibniz argue that the world contains an amount of suffering too great to permit belief in philosophical optimism. The claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds drew scorn most notably from Voltaire, who lampooned it in his comic novella Candide.
If religion could stand on its own merits it wouldn't need people making excuses for it at every turn.
I could give 3 books on it if you want just depends on how smart you are. And if your willing to educate yourself. And meditate constantly.
@@Catholictomherbert You have 3 books worth of excuses and somehow think that didn’t just prove his point? How smart are you?
@@ryonalionthunder supposedly highly intellect in Christian wisdom literature and strength in heartiness also I’m crippled. It just takes a little while of becoming self aware and habitually continuously doing your justice and compassion deeds it’s like a 12 step program. But without all the drama, fear mongering, and promotion of dread. Got that. So there’s no excuse only “detractions” God willing we put in obedience, love & work. To get to where we need to be. Here they are: The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism" by Timothy Keller, Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis become great to your friends and don’t have credit card debt.
@@Catholictomherbert
Clearly not very intelligent then. I’ll spell it out for you:
Him: If Christianity had merit, it would not need people explaining it.
You: here are 3 people explaining it.
You are tacitly admitting christianity has no merit.
@@ryonalionthunder
respected, ryon alion thunder
I understand that you have doubts about the validity of Christianity based on its perceived lack of self-evidence. While I can see where you're coming from, I'd like to offer another perspective grounded in both scriptural references and the principles of the Church's teaching. Firstly, let's consider the Bible's viewpoint on human intelligence and comprehension. Scriptures repeatedly emphasize that God's ways surpass human understanding (Isaiah 55:8-9) and that His wisdom is foolishness to those who refuse to accept it (1 Corinthians 1:25). Therefore, expecting immediate clarity or tangibility in matters of faith might not align with biblical teachings.
Secondly, divine revelation is necessary for full understanding of religious truths. Human reason alone cannot grasp the mysteries of salvation, which is why believers rely on sacred texts, tradition, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. By acknowledging the limits of human intellect, we open ourselves up to the possibility of transcendent wisdom beyond our current comprehension.
Lastly, I'd like to address your statement about the need for explanations. Yes, Christianity involves deep theological concepts that require careful study and interpretation. However, this doesn't imply a lack of inherent worth or authenticity. Rather than seeing explanation as a weakness, we could view it as an opportunity for growth and exploration. Through contemplating the rich history, doctrine, and experiences of fellow believers, we broaden our horizons and strengthen our connection with God.
In summary, I hope this response helps clarify the complexity yet profound beauty of Christianity. May we continue to seek understanding through humility, prayer, and mutual respect.
predicting you peace and enlightenment,
Dr Herbert
I used to think you were cocky and rude when I first came across this channel but after watching for a while (6-7 years at this point) I can only imagine the pure frustration that you must feel and the amount of restraint you must have given yourself. I've never heard of someone who has tried popularizing science as much as you have and even though my major was in math education, popularizing and bringing forth scientific thinking and methods to as many people as you have is truly inspiring and one of the reasons I developed a fascination with other fields of science/STEM.
We need more people like you to commit themselves to fighting for truth and reason wherever it stands and to put in as much work in this fight as you have. You truly have a valuable skill and talent that too many people, including myself, don't have - the endurance to clash with pure ignorance every day, to hear the same droning and refuted points every day and still take the time to debunk them again and again and again.
Great comment!
You don’t see it do you? How this guy is a lying fraud? Just look at his shirt. It screams ignorance on his part.
@@jdos5643What's on his shirt, then, that necessarily shows ignorance? I love how fashion choices are how we gauge knowledge now, apparently.
@@jdos5643It just says "godless heathen" like... yeah? His shirt isn't supposed to support or refute an argument, he's just wearing it
@@michaels70171 nope wrong again. Godless in the Bible is another name for a crooked person a wicked person-A deceiver a liar. He’s putting the shirt as a way of promoting just that. This is similar to the columbine shooters wearing shirts with bold letters that read “natural selection” these were not worn by accident but for the occasion. They intended to try to leave a message-Their false message. Aaron is no different.
It's painful to watch a man dodge questions that he obviously knows the answer to simply because he's not allowed to answer honestly for fear of angering his imaginary friend. This is sad
He doesn't even care about that. Just watching him I know he's one of those types who desperately wants that youtube "fame" and money and so he's doing all this nonsense for money not because he cares about "godl"
Sad - but also quite funny!
Thank you Aron for holding the delusional apologists feet to the fire. 👍
LOL! poor guy didn't have a leg to stand on. LOL!
This is painful. Bro can't answer the challenge then accuses Aron of throwing more challenges at him. If you can't answer one, why wouldn't I move on?
This dude knows he's lying.
There's nothing delusional about the apologists they know exactly what they're doing.
They lie to perpetuate their beliefs that they know to be bullshit in the first place.
Let’s see how delusional atheist really are. Atheist without admitting believe the universe magically created itself. Prove this wrong. If you cannot prove this wrong then this is so.
Actually the quiet one won the debate!
You lose it as much as you like mate .You have earned that right and they fully deserve it .
You're not a dick; you're magnificent....💚 Also more patient than 99.1% of humans.
Magnificent Dick! Lol.
Nah, the 'dick' was Angelos.
"99.1%"??!! Can you site this source, sir?! 🤣😂🤣🤣
@@BeSensiblePlayThePercentages Can you show us the other .99%?
@@BeSensiblePlayThePercentages How dare you, not only mis-gender me, but also, not blindly believe in the accuracy of my randomly estimated and uncited percentage, unquestioningly?!?! 😆
This guy should be shunned in every conversation about religion for the rest of his life. AronRa couldnt get him to give a single true answer in an hour!!! Literally an hour of deflection and obfuscations.
This is the end result when Muppets start with the assumption that their religion just has to be correct, but they can't get it through their tiny little minds that they are basing their lives on a false premise. It's both sickening and sad. Good on you Aron for getting as far as you did.
Boo! That's an insult to Muppets. Boo!
Atheism is a religion so be specific.
@@jdos5643 Believing that an atheist is following a religion is equivalent to believing that "Off" is a TV channel.
Nice when a Muppet stops by to prove the point. Thanks.
@@jdos5643100% incorrect. Atheism isn't a religion, it's the opposite of that. Saying atheism is a religion would be like saying like sexual abstinence is a sexual intercourse position. We just don't see sufficient evidence for the existence of a god and don't act stupid, gullible and scared shitless of hell as though such nonsense existed. At best, "god" is a concept of a higher and better idea of self, but there are already words for that and that isn't a religion, and it's compatible with atheism.
@@Paolo8772 absolutely not. Don’t bet on it. Belief in no God is still just a belief. It takes faith to accept that. Also maybe you live under a rock but there are for a fact atheist churches. Some of these are next level cultish. Aaron himself is an atheistic pagan cultist. Look up the atheist churches around. For ppl who admit atheism is a religion. It’s the fish religion. Sure atheist don’t worship a deity. But I have seen a heck amount of atheist worship celebrities they idolize them others worship objects and even nature. Many are as patriotic as the so call Christian nationalist who venerate a tangible piece of cloth of flags. Atheist worship without realizing. Anyways atheism is also a religion in that it’s a way of life. A religion of no moral codes do as you please. In the world of politics atheism=communism. Maybe read about Stalin who pushed atheism across schools during his regime. if that wasn’t enough facts for you to handle, atheist and I mean most have beliefs that are contradicting one to another, many which conflict reality itself. What do you think Aaron believes? Besides nonsense he holds the universe magically created itself. He doesn’t admit it. But he has been seen parading around in wizard costumes being the clown he is. Of course such costumes befit a person whose existence is owed to magic. Many atheist I have come across believe life came to this earth from stardust (aka pixie dust.) maybe you should try this- go around and Ask atheist what they believe in. You will find out each has either no clue or conflicting beliefs to you or others. Atheism is a religion whether you care to admit it or not-That’s the bottom line. And I don’t care for insults I don’t take such individuals serious. The minute you spew that kind of language nonsense you proved only how intellectually lacking you really are. I was never taught curse words as part of curriculum. That’s that.
Just because you're speaking in a calm monotone voice doesn't mean you're not the asshole 😂
I prefer the monotone to the sing song evangelistic tone some use.
Usually they're all wound up and animated, as well as celebratory when they make a point like only God explains logic, morals, and the appearance of life, etc and you (atheist or scientist) can't explain it. Supernatural!! Oh yes, Supernatural! Smug a holes.
well this guy probably has a future in apologetics the way he dodges questions, lies, and blames Aron for not letting him fire-hose falsehoods.
or politics!
Nah, he's way too soft.
Aron reviewed and openly debated most abrasive apologists out there.
Angelos couldn't get a couple words out before Aron began tearing apart inconsistencies with dogma, mistakes or things I can only generously presume Angelos wasn't even aware of being lies.
Having finished the whole video... Well, Angelo has certainly paid attention to other apologists. He's got a bright future shilling to the irrational, because he's already memorized the same tired song and dance.
I 100% understand your frustrations, Mr. AronRa.
Wait what frustrations? Atheism comes with no benefit. Why would aaron get frustrated when his beliefs are false and his science is distorted? Maybe he got frustrated trying to communicate his lies in a way that more ppl can gulp them up. You see, when you back a crook into a corner their last line of defense is to get hostile as what Aaron does. You give him the facts and he gets loud rude and interrupts. Look at all his interviews, he does just that.
Well, that certainly was reinforcing.
@jdos5643, what facts were given?
@@markbrown8097 not by Long hair that’s for sure.
@@jdos5643
A-maze-ing!!! (i.e. I have no fucking clue)
Best question of the convo: "Why are you an apologist". I nearly fell over. They should all be called out on this grifting profession. Same for psychics, homeopaths, and (hot take) Chiropractors.
Homeopathy and chiropractic absolutely deserve to be called out too.
Chiropractic is legally a religion because the government started cracking down on it, and so the quack who made it figured "huh, well the can't call it quackery if it's a religion."
It is quackery though. People suffer and die because of it, and it enrages me that we aren't taught about this in school.
Hot take: I think its actually important to allow chiropractors to keep practicing, because the first ammendment is important to uphold consistently and fairly.
Howwwwever... that doesn't mean that we can't be taught about the origins of chiropractic as quackery and learn about how baseless it is.
That information can literally save lives.
Same goes for Homeopathy.
"Theres no point in sharing my evidence because youll prove it wrong in 5 seconds with verifiable facts and i'll look like an idiot infront of my fledgling audience of 3, ruining my chances of taking peoples money by lying to them"
BINGO..... DING DING DING. YOU WIN THE OBVIOUS PRIZE WHICH MOST DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE DESPITE THE OBVIOUSNESS. IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY IN THE END FOR THESE LIARS NOT GOD.
@@davidt8087 I think most people do realize it, at least skeptics do
@@deathdealer312 eh. Not really. Just being an atheist in the comments doesn’t guarantee someone can actually read between the lines, see through the veil, or use logic or common sense to induce or deduce something even if it’s obvious. Instead, most viewers on any channel, just believe and do and or follow whatever the RUclipsrs they watch say, even if they conflict with each other or change. For example they’ll watch a video where a popular RUclipsr says “all RUclips apologies are fake”, and it will be LITERAL news to them, and they’ll believe it, then a few later the same RUclipsr will get caught in a scandal and make an apology video saying “RUclipsr apologies are not fake and mine is totally genuine”, and they’ll believe that too. But they will never wonder “wait why did he say that? Why is he contradicting himself? Oh wait that’s right he’s afraid to lose his subs which really means lose his ad revenue because oh wait that’s right we don’t matter to him at all only the money we make for him does”. So yea most people are too dumb to understand the meaning behind what people do or say. You know Andrew Tate or whatever. Guys kiss his a55 and I’ve been telling them in comments that he doesn’t care about any of you and probably laughs behind ur back and calls u stupid. They won’t believe me cuz I’m not popular with millions of subs (not that I want to), and guess what, he got exposed calling his viewers stupid. And STILL they remain subscribed and keep paying him. Never underestimate the average persons desire to fit in. It will make them shut off their brain and lack awareness, and be permanently r3tarded (no offense) if it helps them fit in and belong with the group
As to your opening: I love it when you finally lose your patience, some people just don't learn, you can't reason with them, you can't show them evidence, they either don't want to learn, or simply can't. Then there are those who truly deserve it, those who know better, but refuse to acknowledge the facts and evidence, because it would hurt their image.
I greatly appreciate how much time and effort you put in to this, and how much overall time you've spent in this. You're more than allowed to go off on someone once in a while, you need that vent.
You have far more patience than I.
Dude, Aron.. I fucking loved the intro you added to this video. When I clicked to watch it, I wasn’t sure if this was a video where you’re talking to a sane person, or a moron. As soon as he started speaking and said “yeah thanks for having me on again Aron blah blah thanks for letting me share with you blah blah thank you.” Like holy shit, every religious person seems to think that being polite at the introduction to a debate is plot armor to the entire discussion. It’s probably because religious people don’t even listen to factual discussions. And if they’re convinced to listen to a second of it, they hear the morons being polite.
It is so strange to me that the kind of people who hold the most harmful beliefs use civility as if somehow to compensate for their transgressions.
It's also been my experience that they think speaking in a polite tone will let them get away with constant insults, both insinuated and direct. As though tone matters more than substance... That garbage was frustrating even back when I was a believer.
@@KianaWolftbf, tone mattering more than the substance is a very common neurotypical thing. As a neurodivergent autistic person I had to learn that the hard way. It's not just religious people.
I've made the same observation quite a few times. Seems they expect a more generous disregard of their irrational content as a returned favour if they but flatter and fawn the necessary bit for it, only to be dissapointed - though never in themselves - thus justifying their ad hominem henceforth.
@@KianaWolf Indeed, as if clean language in anyway promotes rationality less contains more facts.
I checked for him. carbon-14 dating won't work on dinosaur bones. The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, so carbon-14 dating is only effective on samples that are less than 50,000 years old.
but... they think the world is less than 6000 years old so... Carbon dating should work fine... for everything. *sigh*
You can though, you can perform the procedure of carbon dating. The results will just be unreliable.
Just did same. I have no knowledge around this so checked.
Potholer54 did a video where he mentioned a creationist getting a fossil from a museum that was covered in shellac and having it carbon dated and claiming it disproved evolution, it might be what he was thinking about.
That trap springing shut was delicious to behold
"Carbon-dating dinosaur bones"...🙄 Geez, these people never learn.
They probably try to weigh a truck with a kitchen scale
Or more accurately, these people never tell the truth. You can say "Oi, you can't carbon date dinosaur bones, there's no fucking carbon in them!" as much as you like, they will never admit they know that.
Never ever.
Remember what Potholer54 said once upon a time?
"Hey, you can't carbon date these, there's no [redacted] carbon in it!!! >:("
@@david2869there is carbon, just not carbon 14, which is exactly what you need to do the measurement
Unfortunately BRAINWASHING in Religious books is incredibly powerful.
I admit it. I was. And I'm still ignorant. I hardly know how little I know. Gullible.
@@mardishores4016 Nearly everyone has been brainwashed by it in the past. As a child when you see seemingly intelligent people believing in in it and preaching it you automatically think it’s true but are being brainwashed. It still goes on that is the horrible part.
This is both frustrating and unreasonably fun at the same time 😂
Angelos thinks it's not a lie to say "you can carbon date dinosaur bones" because he believes it. This is the Trump defense, too stupid to lie. Anyone who knows anything about carbon dating knows it doesn't work for anything that old.
This is something I actually hoped Aron Ra would have addressed, but didn't. Regardless if something is true or not or even if you believe it is true or not, you should not make a claim in a debate if you are not qualified and informed about the subject. If you want to mention something, but you don't have that level of certainty, you need to qualify it with "I think..." or "I could be mistaken, but..." etc. Alternatively, you can just admit you don't know. If you make such claims without proper qualification, you are dishonest. It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong nor what you believe to be true, you are being dishonest. Angelos doesn't think he lied because he doesn't use the same definition of a lie that I think a reasonable person should
Technically you can, it just won't give you reliable results.
@@tabularasa0606- Yeah, agreed, technically you can put anything through the carbon dating process. But for dinosaur bones you'll just get background noise, something over 50000 years.
Angelos believes you can carbon date dinosaur bones and get young ages (e.g. under 10000 years), which is nonsense.
(To be clear, I'm agreeing with you!)
@@NotGoodAtNamingThings
My thoughts exactly. Here's something else to consider, we should be careful not to insist that "you can't carbon date dinosaur fossils because they're too old" less we be doing science by starting with the conclusion. We should be open minded (and skeptical) to any evidence that demonstrates dinosaur fossils that do contain levels of C14 that might suggest a more recent age than expected, or we could be missing out on a very interesting discovery! For example, there are several life forms that we once thought to be extinct and now know to be still living! In fact, there are many living organisms that have been around since the time of the dinosaurs and before that are still largely unchanged. Maybe there was a "dinosaur" that made it to as recently as 30,000 years ago that would still be recognizable as it's ancestors from 65mil years ago and may have left a fossil that could be dated with C14! Unlikely, but scientifically possible.
@@neelsghe kinda did when he said if you cant demonstrate what your saying to be true you are lying.
I can't stand liars. Your anger is natural.
Aron: asks a yes or no question, any question
Angelos: tries to find ways to explain why his answer isn't the one Aron is expecting instead of answering the question
Advice for anyone in Angelos position: Answer the question first and THEN give your reasons
If Angelos wasn't so disgustingly dishonest he might be worth listening to. He deserves neither respect nor attention.
I stopped after 5 minutes. I don't want to hear more of his imaginary pseudo-history or any more accusations that Aron Ra is ignorant.
He's not, in his mindset. He just adopts the same methodology of every believer: takes what he needs to support his thesis, and gives them enormous relevance even when they were minority exceptions. That's why I would appreciate a more steel-manning approach from Aron. Usually, it works better with this kind of tactic, because it stop the opponent's usual defense, self-victimization.
@@MicheleGardinithe guy literally lied about radiocarbon dating and lied about how many arguments he had presented forth, how enraging it is when someone lies to your face about your own conversation history D:
@@kwahn106 he actually believes what he says, so technically he's not a liar. This is the power of religion. And that makes it so dangerous.
There a type of attention I would definitely like to give to him... 🤔
Angelos continually dodges, deceives, dives, denies and deflects to defend his indefensable ideas. He's not particularly good at any of that either...
Love the content Aron. Keep up the great work.
Don't forget he disgraces himself and deflates his own arguments. Also he is dumb and detestable.
Nearly every time Angelos says "That's a really good question", he goes on a tangent rather than answer the sodding question.
I'm autistic and I can see Angelos is lying. I used to be Christian for years. I just heard about the stars and how 2/3 of the named stars are Arabic names because Islam used to be very scientific and made advances in mathematics but some religious thing happened and it was forbidden to mess with anything modifying numbers. So religion held them back and is still holding them back. The name "Apologetic" implies that you are sorry about something as if you are wrong. I think that's weird. Also did anyone find it weird that at first with AronRa Angelos said he just started apologetics 7:58 and later says he's been doing it for awhile 22:42 ? Contradicting. Wow, Angelos really screwed up with the dinosaur bones. There's no reason to respect this Angelos guy he tries to say AronRa is ad hominem attacking him but he clearly doesn't understand that calling someones ignorance on a subject is not a ad hominem attack. His ignorance is very clear and AronRa made him glitch like an Oblivion NPC script. AronRa is good at that.
What does being autistic have to do with anything?
@@Arth950Yeah, I was wondering about that myself.
@@Arth950 Autistics have a disadvantage with reading deception and complex social cues.
I'm not Christian but you got that first thing wrong, it says BOTH all your heart and mind, soul and strength. How do you not know that?
Please don't talk about stuff you know nothing about.
@@TruthSpeaker. Maybe because I haven't been a Christian in so many years. It's been over 16yrs. So I forgot. It doesn't matter since it's all delusion. I'll talk about what I want you control freak. You said I know nothing? I'll have to correct you "it says BOTH all your heart and mind, soul and strength." It's not BOTH. You mentioned 3 more. Mind, soul, and strength. That's more than 2. If you are going to correct me at least use correct English. You even edited it. So much for you trying to be critical. What's that saying? Let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone? 🤣
Apologists aren’t getting any better. They’re seriously naive-and they may be getting worse.
they are. Some of them have realised that none of the existing arguments have ever worked, and are flailing to try something new.
@TheMahayanist That’s exactly how it looks. These people are just walking tape recorders.
@TheMahayanist so apologetics is now no more than public prayer--it exists only to make the user and their friends feel good about themselves.
Sadly exactly yes.
@@thekaxmax it was never to recruit more, but to keep the ones there stay. like jehova's witnesses going door to door, it's not to actually get new people to join, just to make the outside world look scary so the missionaries going door to door would stay in the cult
This is the way to address apologists: focus on one objective point and don't let them either away with gish-gallopping or whataboutism. Tie them to their words and all they can do is recede into sophistry and personal attacks.
It was entertaining, thanks.
We appreciate you and your hard work, Aron. 👍
Hard work? What exactly is he doing to produce hard work? Hard work is what construction workers do while laboring under the sun. Producing results worthy of honor. Pardon this but This crook Aaron sits his drunken behind on a desk and rants about his false atheism using distorted science and loud bold letters on shirts that show his ignorance. Hard work? Try again.
1:03:21 Aron: NAME ME ONE THING
Bald, Babbling Baby Apologist: "see, here's the thing"
This interaction sums up the entire encounter between these two.
I don't think it's a lack of patience. It's dealing with the most insufferable humans on earth so often.
No one has infinite patience, but apologists sure are making an attempt at infinite idiocy.
Sadly exactly yes.
Theists are not the most insufferable humans on the plant, unless they also happen to be dominionists. Fascists are the most insufferable ones in all their forms, libertarians, dominionists, Liberals, conservatives, Capitalists, imperialists, etc.
@@eleSDSUModern Liberals or Leftists in this current post-millenial era are the most insufferable of all.
You have more patience than I would've. My blood pressure was going up with the amount of bs this guy was knowingly spewing. I think I got an aneurysm just watching this.
I love it. NEVER suffer a fool, good sir.
Aron: "Tell me one thing." *pauses so Angelos can respond*
Angelos: "Well you're not giving me a chance to respond."
The more I watch them doing it, the more I'm convinced that apologetics is some sort of therapy for morons who want to get their own back on the world.
Thank you! This. Exactly this.
It's not "therapy" for them. It's all just tools for exerting dominance over others
They had their moron president (Trump) and he almost destroyed the country. How long will we put up with the insane ramblings of christians?
One of the dumbest snake in Aron’s cages is infinitely smarter and more honest than that dimwitted and dishonest Christian.
When people who practice all of this garbage get shown over and over again the evidence that it's garbage they have to admit the fact that they have wasted a huge portion of their life. This causes them to double down because its hard for them to admit they've been fooled. That's the reason for their anger.
There is a common strand running through the debates between AronRa and religious apologists and creationists: they always go in circles. The latter, in particular, are always evasive in their answers -- never being able to look AronRa straight in the eye.
You invest so much work, effort, energy, time, money and patience in your educational work. You've helped more than you might think. I am very grateful to you for that.
"I can give you lots" -- great, so it ought to be easy.
Your patience lasted one hour and thirteen minutes longer than mine would have. This guy must have learned his apologist debating tactics from Kent (I wasn't prepared for that) Hovind!
ah, yes. Kent "Inmate #06452-017" Hovind.
I applaud you Aron for spending over an hour with this guy. I've dealt with pathological liars in the past and there's nothing more frustrating than dealing with someone who lies to your face when you both know you know the truth.
So you know the truth is what you’re saying?
@@jdos5643Truth is that which corresponds with reality. I.E, Claim, Evidence, correlation with reality=Truth.
"Maybe you aren't familiar with the current scientific consensus in regards to religion, mister several decades long counter-apologist and science communicator!
It's not like it's been your job or anything!" xD
"You are allowed to question doctrine"
Do atheists who questioned doctrine go to heaven?
"Well, uhm, you know, you are allowed to question doctrine, but, uhm, I'm not gonna do that and don't give you a straight answer"
"So, yeah, like, atheists don't believe in heaven, and so it doesn't matter to them."
Guy was such an empty-headed moron, lmfao
"differing versions of truth"
Agh, yes, alternate facts.
Oddly, Pontius Pilate had the same opinion...😉
And somehow their reality is being more real but they're still being unable of showing or prove how?
The guy does nothing but accuse Aron of ad hominems and then starts flinging them like he has a limitless supply.
Regarding the preface...
Even from the perspective of someone who errs on the side of being too diplomatic (I typically want to convince people, and getting angry rarely helps with that), the fact that so many of the people you respond to are willfully ignorant liars who often build their careers actively making this problem ('this problem' being the epidemic of misinformation in society) worse definitely justifies getting a bit rude now and then.
Also, of the 'grumpy atheist' types, you're by far the most patient that I've seen. You've kept a level head in situations where lesser people would have long since started throwing out childish insults.
Aron, you made me an atheist nearly 6 years ago. Scratch that, you demonstrated scientific knowledge that guided me to a better understanding of the world at large. Thank you for all the work you do.
So in other words that interprets as you have no purpose nor meaning nor hope of any kind life is a mistake according to you and Aaron and you are proud of that…….
@@jdos5643 If that is the truth, then you should be proud of believing it. Or would you rather be proud of believing a lie that tells you you do have purpose? Wouldn't you rather want to believe whatever the truth happens to be, irrelevant of what it is?
@@Mithcoriel I don’t believe life is a result of dumb mistakes. Neither do I accept atheism because there is no benefit to it….also because there’s no such thing as absolute truth with atheism. For someone like me who loves the truth I stick to it.
@@jdos5643 Evolution isn't a result of dumb mistakes. It's a result of natural adaptations for survival, which have one random component (mutations) and one non-random component (which mutations were beneficial for survival).
The claim that there is no benefit to atheism is called Pascal's Wager. Look it up. If atheism is the truth, there is no need for there to be a benefit to it, you just believe it cause you don't want to believe a lie. If Christianity is false, there is also no benefit to Christianity.
You are using wishful thinking here with the claim that you're no atheist because "there is no benefit" and "there is no absolute truth" and apparently also with evolution: it seems you don't want to be the result of "dumb mistakes" as you put it, I guess cause it doesn't sound as fancy as "an all-powerful being created me on purpose", so you choose to reject evolution. Just because you want there to be a benefit to what you believe, and you want there to be an absolute truth, and you want to be the creation of a god, doesn't magically change reality and mean any of these things is true.
@@Mithcoriel if atheism is true then nothing matters even your long pointless comment. but because atheism is false then you are wrong and can be proven. Evolution and life according to atheist/evolutionists was result of dumb mistakes. Stamping “natural “ to it is just sugarcoating it. Also mutations and adaptions have everything to do with micro evolution which simply means there’s variations within kinds. Example there’s variations of finches but bottom line is finches are still finches to this day. What you haven’t been able to prove is macro evolution which is in simple words-a made up lie. I reject evolution not just because there is no evidence for it, but also because it conflicts biology of life. I mean if evolution is true as you claim, then what came first the newborn or its mother? I already know the answer but do you? Go ahead….
Aron, you ARE patient. And you have high standards. I am on the same subject in two conversations and I am faced with people that are denying that until we find gods, the god proposal can't bring anything but attribution errors.
Actually it’s the atheist proposal that is lacking. There is evidence for God but there is no evidence against one. Atheism is false.
Mind naming the evidences for some god ?
But I can name you one evidence against "God" If you want.
It's called the Bible.
@@celiand2618 the Bible is scientifically historically and archaeologically accurate. this is why scholars and historians alike agree with it. But the Bible is not evidence against God. Try again. or better yet first prove God does not exist let’s start there.
@@celiand2618 mind naming evidence for God? Sure glad to. Hmm let’s see which one do we start with. Ok the universe; we know it is governed by precise mathematical laws of Physics-Rule of newton: there cannot be laws without a lawmaker. All laws require minds to formulate and mind to understand. The laws of the universe call for intelligent design not dumb mistakes. As for the earth. God created things in fours. for example: there are four seasons four elements four winds four sides to earths compass. The grid used for global maps is made up of four squares all exact in four sides. In nature we have animals that walk on fours have four limbs typically have four toes. Tarantula fours in each side same with octopuses. Humans have four fingers excluding thumbs. Humans also grow four wisdom teeth. DNA which makes up all life is made up of four principle molecules. Gods name in Hebrew you guessed it, four letters-YHWH. The eden he created in the beginning origins had four rivers go through it, two of which still exist today. It seems God left his fingerprints all over creation.
"I have lots of proof, but I'm not gonna give it, if I can't first complain that you have no concept of truth."
like tbh i havent seen the video yet but i love the opening and thats why we like you sir
speak no bullshit
do no bullshit
tolerate no bullshit
I'm deeply impressed that Aron didn't lose his rag more. Angelo was being a terrible guest, and Aron gave him every chance to not lie, but Angelo couldn't do it. Good on you Aron, keep up the good work.
It always makes me want to puke when the people put on this veil of false respect and patience. "Yeah, thats a really good question...." The tone of voice and the look on his face comes across so condescending and disrespectful.
For a minute, I felt a little sorry for the man Aron is talking with.... I wanted to know what the quote was that he had mined. Eventually, I looked up the doctrinal quote Aron gave. I found it came from the New Testament Mathew 4:7. For one, it absolutely applies to the topic. Second, it completely refutes the apologists' assertion that doctrine supported and led to the beginning of science. The kicker is that when read in context, it's about 10 verses of the bible that accurately depict what the apologist is literally doing right then. Someone says, "Prove to me the veracity of your claims. Show me the evidence" and the believer says, "Im not supposed to do that and I dont have too, and here are some quotes that dont offer any proof but, instead condemn you and your criticism.
So Aron, this was really fantastic. I understood your point as, "Not only does doctrine not support the pursuit of science, but it condemns those who pursue it. You can ask a priest (or others, I guess) whatever you want about god, but you must accept their conclusions as truth without any burden for proof. To question further, or worse, conclude differently, is heresy, the punishment for which is death and eternal damnation. And this is what the apologist thinks you desreve and what is coming to you.
Makes a lot of sense why you didn't give a shit about his stupid ass quote.
You did well
"no dude I swear I got lots of evidence, she just goes to a different school"
She lives up in Canada.
I used to believe that even if someone was arguing dishonestly that extending them grace and continuing to debate civilly would somehow get them to eventually take what I’m saying seriously. I don’t believe that anymore. Hopefully grilling these people and holding their feet to the fire will either stick in their brain until they’re forced to confront their flawed reasoning, or someone out there questioning their beliefs sees these debates and it convinces them to critically think and do their own research.
I admire Aron Ra for his patience!
.
Aron, I appreciate your self-awareness and I get it. People piss me off too.
Apologists and politicians share one infuriating trait in common: _they never answer the fucking question!_
I cannot believe Angelos actually tried saying, with a straight face, that Aron's standards for evidence were "too high", or "shallow" as he put it. And it was like arguing with a child? What the actual hell?
Aron never apologise for getting frustrated for liars and apologetics. They keep showing that they don't care about the truth and they twist and turn their scripts to say what they want it to show and fit their own mind. They will never admit that they are wrong and lying about it. It's their way to make money and feel important and wanted.
Keep it that way, Aron. Never give them and inch for their gish galloping. We love what you do exactly the way you do it.
And what is that exactly?
@@jdos5643Named after creationist debater Duane Gish, "The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments."
@@Sal.K--BC ok so atheism is still false. Aaron makes no valid point.
@@jdos5643 no it isn’t, you provided no evidence for your god
@@jdos5643You are an idiot! Athiesm is just the position of disbelief. A thiest says there is a god, an Athiest says I don't believe you, demonstrate there is s God. Never been any evidence.
1:03:54 "there's lots"
Meanwhile, he never coughs up a single one.
Angelos, claims do not equal evidence.
What can be claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.~
Hahah I love the cutting of the stream while he's in mid sentence.
Perfection!
Aron Ra you are not mean, you are a powerhouse of reasoning for humanity in the modern age, so awesome, I’m awed, you’re a hero, that would be a more appropriate description for one Aron Ra.
Once Aron abandons his humility he will become truly dangerous. I'd like to see that, better than a re-run of the Princess Bride.
Refusing to answer yes or no questions as much as this guy does is one of the biggest red flags of a dishonest operator. Your anger at someone refusing to be honest in any capacity is well warranted.
And instead of answering, he immediately started accusing Aron of being unreasonable. They hope you'll try to defend yourself so they can change the subject.
I disagree. Demanding a yes or no answer is often a fallacy.
@@Mithcoriel What fallacy was Aron commiting when he asked his yes or no questions, then?
@originalslothking Insisting that the answer can only be yes or no is called a false dichotomy. Sometimes the answer is something else. I for one don't think you should ever insist your opponent answer only in the binary. It just feels too much like "Have you stopped beating your wife". I can understand telling them to keep their reply short and not go off on a tangent, but flat-out only yes or no doesn't sound like a good debate to me.
Now, when Aron asked "Can an atheist go to heaven, yes or no?" that one was pretty clear-cut, alright (though even then I would have liked to hear what he's going to reply). But the second time it was "can you show me evidence for carbon dating dinosaurs". Ok, technically you can answer it yes or no, as in yes I've seen a study. But it's more natural to start describing the evidence. Maybe what he had wasn't a scientific study but some less reliable source. Maybe he wasn't sure if his source was scientific. Would have still been interesting to know what it is. He started replying with "So..." and I would have liked to hear a few sentences of that before Aron cut him off. Who cares if he's going to make a fallacious statement. I want to hear what that is too, so I can enjoy the rebuttal.
@@Mithcoriel So it was impossible for Angelo to answer with "Yes, and the evidence is..."????
This isn't a false dichotomy, he either has evidence or he doesn't and he refused to answer in the affirmative.
Do you have any scientific studies that can back up what Angelo was claiming?
Einstein wrote:
" The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable but still largely primitive legends. No interpretation, however subtle, can change this (for me). "
.
"Perhaps you can let me finish" means, in this case, "Let me continue to evade, avoid, and tell fibs."
"You don't like yes or no questions?" True of many apologists.
I meet people like this and they make me so frustrated with them, just nothing to say and accept nothing that challenges their dogma, well done Aron for lasting so long I normally walk away laughing at them long before it gets to that stage timewasters.
That was frustrating lol. You sir Aron are a work of art. I could fully feel what you were trying to convey. And as I am viewing you through my phone as a video I think that qualifies as art right? Well done
We all know how doctrine spread Galileo’s findings throughout the house that he was confined to.
Did he say 'carbon dating dinosaur bones?" 😂😂😂
The mere impertinentance!
Apologists get the Templeton Prize!😂😂😂
One small suggestion: when apologists/opponents complain that you are not letting them state their best point, then announce "OK, I will give you three minutes uninterrupted to state your best case." Set an egg timer to three minutes and allow your debate opponent dig himself into a hole without interruption and then address the problems with the parts of that statement. This may allow them to filibuster a bunch of wild allegations, but you can focus on one main (or early) point.
Maybe just a minute. Don't underestime the amount of BS claims a human can spout for a minute. But also 3 minutes will be enough material for Aron to produce content for a month.
@sejembalm As much as that sounds nice on paper, in practice it would be 3 minutes of preaching with every second that goes by a chance for the apologist to assert something that can be shown to be false. After 3 minutes, no matter how hard you try going back through every point one by one, you will be stuck at the first point forever because it's the apologist job to deny so they can keep believing.
This means that those 3 minutes of preaching, only the first 10 seconds will be argued anyway. So why not cut to the chase to begin with and interject when something is said that is demonstrably false?
Yes sometimes it's fair to give the other person time, but if he was indeed someone who knew his stuff, then the criteria of "shut up, tell me 1 thing" would be an easy challenge to pass. If the tables were turned, Aron would have just listed things from muscle memory (as shown in this video).
It was very obvious that the guy did his best to stick the obvious script that we've heard a million times. I'm sick of that same script, and unlike Aron, I haven't been hearing it for 25 years or so.
Oftentimes Aron has said that he doesn't like these types of debates because it's hard for people to cite things in the moment. It's why he requested in the video they do it over email or give him time because then you can do exactly what you asked. Point by point, let him write everything and then point by point, list everything and refute one by one. But this is youtube, not gmail. Unfortunately the apologists know that and use it to their advantage. They know it's the only way they can convince their lies without ever having to cite anything. Because the moment they do, they lose.
OK,@@DVDplayerz, give them one minute of uninterrupted silence to make their best case and then get one minute of silence from them during the rebuttal and see how that works. As I have seen before from apologists, this gives them a perfect opportunity to dig themselves into a ludicrous mental pit of no escape. Such as this clown asserting that there are no transitional fossils. Aron should have just bit his lip and let him go further with that one that is easily refutable (except for those who do not believe in evidence that is counter to their preferred narrative, but the evidence is not for them, but the video's viewers). Let them present their case and show the world how irrational it is.
@@sejembalm Unfortunately their case is all about getting eyes and ears because there is no such a thing as bad publicity.
The more people they can get to hear their bullshit the bigger the chance someone gullible enough can get hooked.
Their whole thing revolves around following a script because if you give them time, it works. Lies with a bit of truth can do miracles. (pun intended)
We've all seen debates where every second is structured and I have never seen any of those debates actually be productive. With every turn you get into 10 tangents and you'd get lucky to be able to address one or two things properly during your few seconds.
There's a reason viewers and debaters go to channels like modern day debate where the structure is removed. Yes, with structure you get to see their views fully and scrutinize it yourself, however you also give them a platform to tell lies after lies and odds are that most of the lies wont have time to be addressed by the opponent.
The way I see it. If you start by saying something that is factually incorrect, then there is no reason to keep rambling since the beginning already doesn't make sense.
Could have Aron given a 1 minute silence? Sure.
Would it have been any more productive or would the apologist have said anything original and not predictable? I doubt it.
@@sejembalm can't we just start, and END, with the silence part? sooooo tired of hearing brainwashed idiots prattle. so, so tired.
I honestly didn't know about the carbon dating thing can't be used with dinosaur bones. Thank you for that nugget
I still live in hope that one day a North American Christian will engage with me in polite conversation. Whenever I ask a simple question, seeking clarification on one point within the body of their claim, I am suddenly attacked. I am immediately told that I am an Atheist, followed by an onslaught of abuse. And ending with "You will burn in hell".
Aron, you have my respect for tolerating ignorance for this long.
@@AnnoyingNewsletters Thank you. You make perfect sense and have verified my own hypotheses. From the age of four years old when I started infant school, my classmates were regularly beaten by our Christian Teachers. A slap on the face, the ruler across the palm and the cane across the bare backside. "Spare the Rod..." was the doctrine enforced by the Church of England in all State Schools. We envied North America for being Constitutionally Secular. How ironic I still get a short, sharp shock 60 years later from a Secular Nation, after my own countrymen have finally turned their back on Christianity.
@@tomsenior7405they did and still do the same thing in private religious schools here. My parents actually found it amusing that my catholic school teacher hurled textbooks at me from across the room or smacked me with a ruler.
That being said, kids are fucking awful and need some balance of discipline, there just needs to be some median between the religious love of beating the literal piss out of a child and the modern sense of parenting in all developed nations where people just let their kids run roughshod and act like absolute animals because they refuse to even verbally correct them.
@@Tsumami__ Thank you for this. Yikes! Corporal Punishment lives on. Bloody hell, that is not good. You do not deserve that. It became illegal here in the 1980s. Too late for my generation. I agree that children are not the little angels we want them to be. And yes indeed, they can be frightful little basterds. I recall getting a Blackboard Eraser in the face, it was aimed at the child behind me. Every Teacher could play the piano, but they were all lousy at Cricket. A terrible bowling arm. Violence towards children does not work. Nor does tearing them to shreds by a couple of bears.
I completely agree with you. There is a better way. We know not how each child has to navigate their way through life. Not all of of us enjoyed the benefits of a loving. supportive family. It is a blight on everyone. Take care of yourself. Thanks again.
There are no actual christians in North America.
@Tsumami__ kids are not awful...they are children
Having watched your content over the years, I really do see the patience of a saint you have for the majority of the people you talk to. Whenver I talk to people half as dumb as your interlocutors, I am not even half as calm as you are. Facing stuff like fractal wrongness of creationism and eventually getting angry is a natural and understandable reaction, especially once you tried being calm and laying out facts before. Stay strong!
I think we reached a point where we have literally all knowledge to mankind available in a second's reach and combatted superstition to the point that anything that isn't traditionally religion will be handwaved away by most people, and had countless debates and failed attempts to prove any religion ti be true, that I think we should be allowed to lose our shit. If you live in a first and second world country and have access to the internet, you don't have any excuse to ignore facts and counter arguments.
Twitter & Facebook have millions of followers for anti-scientific clap-trap. Authors of pseudo-science make millions. US politics overflows with science denial. The internet is powerful at spreading nonsense, rumor & lies.
Unfortunately, god's are the excuse, critical thinking skills in childhood instead of indoctrination would be a game changer in religious countries. I'm Irish and 30 years of war against the tyranny of foreign occupation thought us to think critically and abandon falsehoods for the truth of the matter. We lost our fear, they lost their power.
Fuck'em 🖕 fuck'em all.
🌈✨🧚🦄💚
Aron, you are my hero dude.
He will never really "apologise" for his lies.🤨
Yeah, he'll only get paid for them.😂
What lies, name one…..
@@jdos5643
"Name one"
Carbon dating dinosaur fossils
Now, watch and listen.
41:00 around here is one lie
@@jdos5643the fact that he claims that dinosaur fossils can be carbon dated when they Can’t? And when Aron pressed him to show one Peer reviewed study he kept on deflecting and dodging?
He brought up the Bereans… who were commended for STUDYING THE BIBLE to test Paul, not for any kind of journalistic or scientific investigation.
I just want the ability to *like this* more than once.
Anglelos: 'I have lots of evidence for creationism. Are you afraid of it?'
Aron: 'Give it.'
Angelos: 'Hold on, I'm just going to google "religious scientist" and then I'll talk about blasphemy.'
Apologists???
You mean Excusegists 😅
When they start apologizing for the lies and such... they can earn the apologists title.
Til then they're just liars making shitty excuses.
He was trying so hard not to get pinned down by any facts . 😂😂😂 irritated Aron is by far my favorite.
Aron is a formidable debater because of his ability to recall information so well.
*science:* tries to make sense of things.
*apologetics:* tries to make things make sense.
I started taking issue with just about every other sentence uttered by Angelos. I'm self-aware enough to know I have no business doing what Aron does out in public forums.
Apologists are salespeople. They aren't there to convert non-Christians and win souls, they're there to convert existing Christians to their brand.
They're not evangelists, they're intravangelists. Their targets are the fans of the other teams in the competition, not the people who don't follow the sport. The reason they debate people like Aron isn't to convert atheists - because they know they won't - it's to convert Brand A Christians to Brand B.
How do you know you're dealing with an apologist? When they accuse you of having a defective standard of truth after they learn you don't accept mythology as history.
41:33 AronRa: "if you come to the conclusion that God does not exist you are going Heaven or Hell which is it pick one"
Apologists: "So ..."
Apologists can not answer a question directly. That's actually a sign of con men.
That so reminds me of the 'Pulp Fiction' scene: "Say one more time 'what', I dare you!" - "What?"...
This guy was already frustrating me but the moment he started saying "It's like arguing with a child" I was furious. Very disrespectful!
Polite doesn't mean you're right.
True, but being right doesn't mean you can't be polite.
The truest politeness comes of sincerity. ~ Samuel Smiles
@@troelsvestergaard6644 how does politeness or scinarty have anything to do with being right?
I sincerely love my dog and my family. That doesn't mean I can afford to house them all.
@@taylormade9971
Did the statement say anything of being right?
@troelsvestergaard6644 people are always sincere about when they try and save someone's life. As they may not know to or have the strength or proper knowledge and could put their own life in danger. It doesn't mean they can still save this person's life. You either don't understand the actual definition of sincerity or your apply the word to how your belief in a God makes you feel.
'I've got tons of examples!'
'Provide one.'
'... I've got just so many examples.'
'Provide one.'
'So very many examples.'
'Provide *one*.'
'Well now I don't want to because you're being mean.'
Yeah there are times where if you're not angry you're not paying attention and dealing with someone that dishonest certainly qualifies as a good reason to get angry.
Aaron Ra is an absolute legend. "This is not a tape, we're in the 21st century now".
This was painful to watch. Aron is a champion for going through.