Talking about “what makes me feel good” - projection much? I am not the one thinking the whole universe was meant to lead to my existence and that I am buddies with the “Supreme Being”. Facepalm city!!
Funny how so many of those 'atheists don't know/understand' something almost always have their comments turned off. Almost like they are scared that atheists actually do know/understand better then they can.
Right? I used to work with a really confrontational religious woman who would come in each day with a fully rehearsed argument that she thought would be impossible for me to refute. Of course I'd effortlessly refute it, which is NOT the way she ever saw it going in her head, and her arguments always fell apart. These people have arguments with us in their heads all the time, but it never works in real life because the things we actually say aren't the things that they expect us to say. We win arguments because we're practiced at debating real people in real time. They only argue with straw men, which doesn't work in real debates. You have to actually listen.
@@Gwaithmir You misunderstood; the OP was referring to the type of people who say: 'atheists don't know/understand something"* Who have comments turned off. It shows how weak even they know their arguments are. * I moved the quotation mark.
@@pineapplepenumbra I think he was talking about how atheist channels don't have their comments turned off while theists often have their comments turned off. It shows that atheists are pretty much always up to counter arguments while theists aren't always up to it.
Both of these videos seem to me to be scaring believers into thinking that they must cling to their belief or they will turn into ignorant people who will do all sorts of terrible actions.
@@brenateviFrom which follows, also by someone :-) , "If that's the only thing keeping you from doing all those things... I sincerely hope you never stop believing the nonsense."
In general levels of crime have dropped. At the same time religion has declined. This shows, unequivocally, that religion is not necessary for good behavior.
"Atheists can't think rationally!" Says the guy who believes an invisible man in the sky brought a mud man and a rib woman to life with a magic sneeze, but then a talking snake tricked them into eating a magic fruit that made a T-Rex unable to eat watermelons anymore.
It's weird how the implications of the "original sin" are never really examined. If they were, it might show how bad the storytelling is. A major oversight.
You people just ignore the rational religious people who are able to explain rationally because of confirmation bias. The self awareness is severely lacking.
@@Justin-pe9cl We're not ignoring anything. While there might be rational religious people, not a single one of them applies their rationality to their religion. It's compartmentalization. You hold the beliefs you want to be true as unassailable, and only leverage your rational mind as far as necessary to justify believing it. If you think I'm wrong, go ahead and provide objective, demonstrable, rational evidence of invisible magical spirits. And no "I don't know how this thing works, therefore it must have been God" doesn't count, and neither does "I experienced something I decided was divine intervention, despite there being no objective evidence pointing towards that conclusion."
"Rational" doesn't always mean objective. It could be considered "rational," as what is considered rational can depend on the individual's perspective, beliefs, and the context of the situation, meaning different people may judge the same action as rational or irrational based on their own understanding and information. I can justify any of my beliefs and am willing to have conversations and have my mind changed when the evidence warrants it. The evidence or rationale of preachers has not been shown to be sufficient to warrant a change in my beliefs.
Regarding the first video and doing things because they "feel good," it seems to me this Elder is conflating a few things. He appears to be painting a picture of dangerous self-indulgent hedonists who will tear down society for a laugh. But that's not the sort of "feel good" that atheists and others would generally have in mind. I think what people usually have in mind is how good or positive feelings inform you about well-being. That is to say, there is a kind of good feeling that comes along with health, success, learning, raising a family, making friends, etc. This feeling contrasts with a kind of "feel bad" that comes along with disease, failure, ignorance, loneliness, mistrust, etc. Unfortunately this confusion often goes beyond terminology. I think plenty of religious figure, including this Elder, direct their lives according to this confusion -- they're deeply suspicious of genuine good feelings and the associated virtues, so they shun them. They hold on to all kinds of suffering and vices in the misapprehension that's what it takes to principled and anti-hedonist.
Hello fellow Dark One! I’m on holidays this week but I’m trying to keep up. PS - My roommate hails from Medical Lake. It’s really religious there but he’s a lifelong atheist.
It is tough to find the balance between the two videos. I don't use a music remover yet. Considering it, but I want to keep the audio as original as possible.
"The Dark Waters of Thor's Bay" sounds like a hell of a D&D adventure. Perhaps the lies of a rural minister preaching against corruption are the true cause of the corruption in some quaint coastal village? I should write that down...
Something tells me they would say that they are willing to be judged because they are pretty arrogant thinking THEIR version of THEIR god is the right one, and everyone else is wrong.
I think Elder Thorsvik was playing that old game of shooting an arrow and drawing a target around where it lands, combined with the usual "they just want to sin!" nonsense. I'd like to hear the Elder respond to your point about the sinning rate among the religious, esp. church leaders.
IQ doesn't measure every possible parameter of intelligence, and it is only a very rough approximation of the areas it does look at. For my part, I have very personal reasons to view IQ with deep distrust. Also, the councilor my parents hired back when I was given that test put too much value into it, and he completely overlooked other much more relevant factors that would have helped me a great deal such as obvious withdrawal from socializing. He never looked into consistent rejection as one of the reasons I was having problems, instead telling my parents I was just bored with the class work in school, which led to further rejection and punishment leading to a feedback loop of depression. This is one of the reasons I say I wish I had never had that test.
Mine was on specific intelligence and brain capability. Also for ADHD and other spectrum-based diagnoses. IQ tests just measure how good someone is at taking IQ tests.
The music designed to emotionally manipulate and going straight into the quote mine makes me think there's more than a little projection going on, but what do I know I'm just a stoopid atheist right?
I find it funny how they say atheists don’t and can’t understand when most atheists are atheist due to their understanding because they was once a god fearing Christian
Doug is simply 'othering' and dehumanising outsiders to bind his listeners to the flock: we're wise and good, they're evil. This not only reinforces a tribal mentality, but also reminds Doug's tribe that they are only wise and good because of what he tells them. Using a standard cult tactic, the elder is boosting his status by telling his followers not to listen to 'others' and warning of the perils of not obeying him.
Ah well, I suppose there's nothing quite like insulting the likes of me, to get me to drink the Jesus Juice ? (BTW, it doesn't work Buddy !) He's probably more concerned with keeping his church income, and paying customers, than he is with having an honest dialogue.
@@darkofalltrades It was late, so I accidentally wrote "religious". It's sorted now, though. I think of "duck" when I hear The Strangler's song, "I was a Toiler" (a toilet, that had to find a toilet duck).
But you did let him get away with saying "twentyFOURTH century America". His subtitles say "21st century", but you can clearly hear him say "24th century". Must be a TNG Trekkie! 🤣😂
You pinpoint all the flaws in that preacher's arguments precisely. I'd only offer that this fellow isn't engaging in honest discourse. He's a propagandist, and those don't care about truth. Their only goal is to hammer in their talking points again and again. A lie repeated enough times becomes the truth to the cultist. They don't call them catechisms for nothing.
No I don't think you represented his ideas in a mean-spirited way.. The level of self-unawareness, especially given the well known iniquities of believers-in-power, give me a universe-damned break.
The "elder" sounds desperate. Is he loosing faith in his God?. After all, his God is omniscient, omnipotent and "in control of his creation".🤣 He should stop complaining but instead observe God's master plan in action.😆
The main point he makes is that it's ok to lie in the name of jesus. Everything he said is a product of personal projection and outright lies. Since there is a commandment against lying (bearing false witness) i can only conclude that this elder doesn't believe the bullshit he's selling any more than i do. PS. I typically cuss enough for the both of us, so i got you covered 🤣👍
I can not help but wonder about how many preachers actually believe what they are preaching. The Clergy Project proves that some number of them do not actually believe what they are saying. P.S. thank you. You can use my share of the swear words.
In the first clip that "elder" featured doesn't seem to have any sort of argument or reasoning, all he has are assertions (the only purpose of the mind is to act as a transmitter for specifically their god and how atheists have no restraints or morals). The clip, contrary to its caption, did NOT even touch on why atheists can't understand ANYTHING, instead it was more on the "atheists don't have any morality or restraints" which is, as one might observe, rather different from the claim that "atheists can't know anything". Since theists are known for only reading the titles and headlines and stopping there I suppose it serves it's clickbaity purpose in the end. The whole thing ended up basically being an exercise of presuppositional thinking where they hold as true certain presuppositions and assert them to be such. The reasoning, if it even comes to that, which it largely does not wiht this elder, is, for the part about how atheists have no morality or restraints at least, hinges, of course on the presupposition that morality and restraint can only be found or supported through their religion and their god and nothing else can achieve that. This is not an attack against atheists, it's an attack against all others who do not believe as they do, including other Christians of other denominations who have different beliefs from them. You've dealt with it before and explained it again here to an extent, that coupled with empirical observations that clearly do not support such a statement (such as how societies in countries NOT dominated by the religious are not only fine morally speaking but do better in certain metrics, that even the theists would agree are pertinent, with regards to "restraint and morality"). in light of that and in light of the fact that this topic of how "atheists have no morality because morality can ONLY come from my specific religious belief in my specific god" is, to put it crudely, "a chicken that has been fucked millions if not billions of times over", I see no reason to, nor have any inclination to, continue fucking that chicken by going into any sort of depth into this topic, it's based on presuppositions that require justification that by definition, do not have that justification. Apply the Hitchens Razor and move on. 5:32 This strawman is simply an extension of the "atheists have no morality" presupposition. Best answer to this I would bother to give at this moment is that this elder clearly has been listening to James Brown a little too much: "I feel good, nah nah nah nah nah nah nah, I knew that I would now nah nah nah nah nah nah nah..." Now the SECOND clip is actually overlaps the first and actually does address, or at least CLAIMS to address, what its caption actually indicates, that atheists can't know anything about reality. Of course this is based yet again on another presupposition (surprise surprise), that only by believing in their specific god can anyone "know" anything at all. This is simply backed up by yet another assertion (also based on a presupposition, unsurprisingly) that the viewpoint of atheists (unbelievers actually, the meaning of which is as with the first clip) is based on "lies" and is somehow "false" while theirs is the "true" worldview (I suppose). And that was it. It failed to even reach what I had expected from this video, which was at LEAST a justification for how THEIR religious worldview is the only correct one. It simply heaps negative assertions onto those who do not believe as they do with a quote that simply presupposes the same thrown in for good measure and calls it a day. My expectations for theistic reasoning is already below the ground, but I suppose since such clips are probably meant to be preaching to the already believing I suppose it would be a bit unfair for me to foist my already subterranean expectations with regards to reasoning, onto it. Here's what I was actually expecting from the clips from reading their captions: the putting forward of the line about how atheists (i.e unbelievers) cannot "know" anything because they cannot trust their minds and senses to be reliable. It is only by believing (through blind faith of course) that their senses and minds are reliable because their god created their senses and minds to be reliable can one "know" that their minds and senses are reliable. Therefore any who do not believe this cannot know that their minds and senses are reliable and hence they can't "know" anything at all. To put it in syllogistic terms: Premise 1: Only by believing that God created our minds and sense to be reliable can we "know" that our minds and senses are reliable. Premise 2: Atheists don't even believe in God so they don't believe that God created their minds and senses to be reliable. Conclusion: Atheists cannot know that their minds and senses are reliable. And it follows from there that if you can't know your minds and senses are reliable, you can't "know" that anything you perceive or mentally process can be reliable, hence the caption of the clip. There are of course a few obvious problems, some of which are: a.) our minds and senses aren't truly "reliable" as in completely so, they are however reliable enough to ensure or survival and proliferation as our current status quo is evidence of. And b.) the part about :knowing" that their god created their minds and senses to be reliable is a presupposition based on faith, which cannot really be considered as "knowing something" since then ANY presupposition or unjustified beliefs, including ones that contradict each other, can and MUST be considered as "knowing" something to be real or true. It would boil down to "my god/belief/religion is better than your god/religion/belief" which I think is really the central core of theistic thinking, which is to say that their beliefs are considered "knowledge" by them and these beliefs, whether true or false, drive their thinking, worldview and actions. However the most fatal error in such reasoning would be the undeniable empirical fact that no one is born with the inherent knowledge or belief of any specific god let alone theirs, and that in order to even believe in such a god, they must rely on their senses and minds, which at this point in time they, by their own admission, cannot "know" to be reliable, to be reliable! What this results in is a criteria that cannot be fulfilled without first disregarding the qualifications of such criteria. One has to "believe or know" that their senses and minds are reliable in order to even LEARN about ANY god let alone understand, accept or believe anything about said god and consider all this that they have learned about said god to be reliable. All this has to come before the criteria of "only by believing that our specific god created our minds and senses to be reliable can we then "know" that our minds and senses are reliable". In short they have to believe that their unreliable minds and senses are reliable without subscribing to the above criteria for the reliability of their minds and senses before even being able to subscribe to said criteria. Hence it is basically a criteria that has to be first ignored before it can even be met. Some may lie about whether or not people are born inherently "knowing" by mindlessly quoting the scriptures about "god writing laws in our hearts". However this bit of hypocrisy can easily be demonstrated by pointing out how such theists encourage teaching their children about their god and religion and about morality. All of which would be redundant and unnecessary if their claims about knowing god from birth is true.
Big F. I just delated or my stupid phone did, my comment. Simply brilliant… both ways, lol. This argument , the argument from reason which overlaps the moral argument , is of paramount importance as, after all, epistomology is the bases of all philosophy. You need to address the heavey hitters, namely Plantigas evulutionary argument against naturalism. As to secular society’s having low crime rates etc, you could have taken it one step further and mentioned the stats on how people of faith in these countries have a much higher crime rate. That may be as good as it gets . Even if it’s just to dismiss it, the book’ Sex and culture’ I believe it’s called, an oldie but a goodie, realeased 90 yrs ago, claims all society’s that don’t do the three pillars of stability- monogamy, and theism of course , I forget the third, end up in the drink , should have been referenced. The writer studied 85 cultures before reaching his conclusions.Their much more fragile than traditional societies. Perhaps theirs something to the notion then that secular societies are pimping of the largeness of theism. I’m afraid we’re going the way of the Roman Empire and for the same reasons.
Well, that's a good start. "The true purpose of the mind is to receive God's revelation." How has he determined that? "Fallen humanity, those unbelievers he is talking about, they have abandoned all restraints in life, is the idea." First issue. In Christian theology, *all* humanity is "fallen," not just unbelievers, but that's an issue with the presentation. Second issue. Unbelievers have no more "abandoned all restraints in life" than believers have. Because we don't see the context here, I'm going to hazard a guess he's referring to Rom 1: 20-, which isn't about unbelievers. It's about "Pagan" Romans.
Once you get atheism you get responsibility for the construction of society. So in Ancient Greece philosophers believed it was their responsibility to develop ethical systems and work out how to structure society. Xeno developed stoicism. Plato came up with models of society. (Stupid ones but no one is perfect) Buddhism is an atheistic religion which sees Gods as ineffectual. Buda a person worked out a system Your first video of the rather animated chap shows a clear example of the fact that theology has nothing to do with knowledge. It is a form of learned stupidity. With the first chap he also has the American complete lack of interest in the existence of the rest of the world and how it might operate. He just spouts a narrow theory which has has no idea of it's inherent stupidity
they always start with claims. Not shocking. Many people do start there. But these folks always start at claim 2 and counting. The plans and desires and rules and sex and gender etc of the g0d. Without ever demonstrating what the g0d even is.
Hmm. "The unbeliever (of science) cannot view the world correctly. They just cannot because they've lost grasp of reality. Etc.." Even if the best possible light, this sentiment still rings false. People can be correct on accident. People can deny global warming (for example) and also know the names of their children and parents. Methinks the gentleman quoted was talking out of his backside.
Meanwhile, in the real world it's creationists who are proving that they "don't know anything," and that their thinking (including the Christian apologetics rhetoric discussed in the video), is complete horse pucky.
Talking about “what makes me feel good” - projection much? I am not the one thinking the whole universe was meant to lead to my existence and that I am buddies with the “Supreme Being”. Facepalm city!!
Funny how so many of those 'atheists don't know/understand' something almost always have their comments turned off. Almost like they are scared that atheists actually do know/understand better then they can.
I THOIGHT THAT TOO!!!
But why would they need comments turned off? What are they afraid of?
What atheists specifically have their comments turned off?
Right? I used to work with a really confrontational religious woman who would come in each day with a fully rehearsed argument that she thought would be impossible for me to refute. Of course I'd effortlessly refute it, which is NOT the way she ever saw it going in her head, and her arguments always fell apart. These people have arguments with us in their heads all the time, but it never works in real life because the things we actually say aren't the things that they expect us to say. We win arguments because we're practiced at debating real people in real time. They only argue with straw men, which doesn't work in real debates. You have to actually listen.
@@Gwaithmir You misunderstood; the OP was referring to the type of people who say:
'atheists don't know/understand something"*
Who have comments turned off. It shows how weak even they know their arguments are.
* I moved the quotation mark.
@@pineapplepenumbra I think he was talking about how atheist channels don't have their comments turned off while theists often have their comments turned off. It shows that atheists are pretty much always up to counter arguments while theists aren't always up to it.
Both of these videos seem to me to be scaring believers into thinking that they must cling to their belief or they will turn into ignorant people who will do all sorts of terrible actions.
Yep! The smell of burning straw is at 200 AQI around there.
"If you need the fear of punishment to stop you from doing something terrible, you are not a good person." Not sure who said that, but it's true.
Fear is religion's bread and butter, after all.
@@brenateviFrom which follows, also by someone :-) , "If that's the only thing keeping you from doing all those things... I sincerely hope you never stop believing the nonsense."
I've come to the point that I think apologists ain't talking to or even at nonbelievers. But rather, they are just trying to keep believers in line.
In general levels of crime have dropped. At the same time religion has declined. This shows, unequivocally, that religion is not necessary for good behavior.
Weird that. The more religious a country, the higher the crime rate tends to be. . . .
I am curious to know why not being convinced of a deity makes me unable to perceive reality.
Weird, right? Almost as if they aren't connected at all!
Wonder which presidential candidate with the more selfish desires and lack of knowledge this church would support.
Weird how they ignore that to get their agenda across.
I wonder which politician isn't owned by mega conglomerates like Black Rock and Vanguard. 😂 actually, I don't wonder. There's none.
How dare we indulge the self - "whatever makes me feel good" - instead of constantly praising God - "whatever makes God feel good"
According to some old men who claim to have talked to him.
Almost as if we care about us, or even people in general.
"Atheists can't think rationally!"
Says the guy who believes an invisible man in the sky brought a mud man and a rib woman to life with a magic sneeze, but then a talking snake tricked them into eating a magic fruit that made a T-Rex unable to eat watermelons anymore.
You mean a talking snake revealed the invisible sky man's lies about said fruit. It didn't actually resort to any kind of trickery.
It's weird how the implications of the "original sin" are never really examined. If they were, it might show how bad the storytelling is. A major oversight.
You people just ignore the rational religious people who are able to explain rationally because of confirmation bias. The self awareness is severely lacking.
@@Justin-pe9cl We're not ignoring anything. While there might be rational religious people, not a single one of them applies their rationality to their religion. It's compartmentalization. You hold the beliefs you want to be true as unassailable, and only leverage your rational mind as far as necessary to justify believing it.
If you think I'm wrong, go ahead and provide objective, demonstrable, rational evidence of invisible magical spirits.
And no "I don't know how this thing works, therefore it must have been God" doesn't count, and neither does "I experienced something I decided was divine intervention, despite there being no objective evidence pointing towards that conclusion."
"Rational" doesn't always mean objective. It could be considered "rational," as what is considered rational can depend on the individual's perspective, beliefs, and the context of the situation, meaning different people may judge the same action as rational or irrational based on their own understanding and information.
I can justify any of my beliefs and am willing to have conversations and have my mind changed when the evidence warrants it.
The evidence or rationale of preachers has not been shown to be sufficient to warrant a change in my beliefs.
Regarding the first video and doing things because they "feel good," it seems to me this Elder is conflating a few things. He appears to be painting a picture of dangerous self-indulgent hedonists who will tear down society for a laugh. But that's not the sort of "feel good" that atheists and others would generally have in mind. I think what people usually have in mind is how good or positive feelings inform you about well-being. That is to say, there is a kind of good feeling that comes along with health, success, learning, raising a family, making friends, etc. This feeling contrasts with a kind of "feel bad" that comes along with disease, failure, ignorance, loneliness, mistrust, etc.
Unfortunately this confusion often goes beyond terminology. I think plenty of religious figure, including this Elder, direct their lives according to this confusion -- they're deeply suspicious of genuine good feelings and the associated virtues, so they shun them. They hold on to all kinds of suffering and vices in the misapprehension that's what it takes to principled and anti-hedonist.
I hope your channel attracts the viewership it deserves. I consider your channel to be one of the most informative on atheism.
Hello fellow Dark One! I’m on holidays this week but I’m trying to keep up.
PS - My roommate hails from Medical Lake. It’s really religious there but he’s a lifelong atheist.
Oh wow! What an interesting coincidence! So, your roommate would have near 1st hand experience with the area!
Interestingly enough, I am away from my hometown as well at a convention! ^_^
5:45 the correct answer to this question is literally everyone. 🤦
Who believes they will live in an afterlife with NO END! Yikes!
It doesn't matter how good it is. It's ETERNAL! Eventually, the feeling will wear off, and you'll just be there experiencing the same thing forever.
That music in the background is distracting. The pastors video, I mean. Your video is cool.
It is tough to find the balance between the two videos. I don't use a music remover yet. Considering it, but I want to keep the audio as original as possible.
@@darkofalltrades it’s no problem on your part
Yay time for another enhanced slideshow! :D
Only the best PowerPoint presentations for you all!
I think “Elder Sweatervest” fits him quite well.
Most apologists have lost the proper use of logic. You know, the same brand of logic that gave us the Dark Ages.
"The Dark Waters of Thor's Bay" sounds like a hell of a D&D adventure. Perhaps the lies of a rural minister preaching against corruption are the true cause of the corruption in some quaint coastal village? I should write that down...
Whatever happened to "judge not lest ye be judged"?
Something tells me they would say that they are willing to be judged because they are pretty arrogant thinking THEIR version of THEIR god is the right one, and everyone else is wrong.
That was for a different time. Now that they're in power, that verse goes right out the window in a torrent of apologetics.
Which Xtianite has *ever* let scripture dissuade them from things they want to do?
I think Elder Thorsvik was playing that old game of shooting an arrow and drawing a target around where it lands, combined with the usual "they just want to sin!" nonsense. I'd like to hear the Elder respond to your point about the sinning rate among the religious, esp. church leaders.
IQ doesn't measure every possible parameter of intelligence, and it is only a very rough approximation of the areas it does look at. For my part, I have very personal reasons to view IQ with deep distrust. Also, the councilor my parents hired back when I was given that test put too much value into it, and he completely overlooked other much more relevant factors that would have helped me a great deal such as obvious withdrawal from socializing. He never looked into consistent rejection as one of the reasons I was having problems, instead telling my parents I was just bored with the class work in school, which led to further rejection and punishment leading to a feedback loop of depression. This is one of the reasons I say I wish I had never had that test.
Mine was on specific intelligence and brain capability. Also for ADHD and other spectrum-based diagnoses.
IQ tests just measure how good someone is at taking IQ tests.
#letDarksayf#ckwhenitswarranted
This actively made me smile. Thank you.
It is probably warranted quite a bit more than even you think! But you can say it for me.
@@darkofalltrades
I got you lol!
The music designed to emotionally manipulate and going straight into the quote mine makes me think there's more than a little projection going on, but what do I know I'm just a stoopid atheist right?
Why would atheist reject God out of a desire to be indulgent... would this be stupid knowing that God will punish you for it?
Love from a SirSic and Vaush fan!
I find it funny how they say atheists don’t and can’t understand when most atheists are atheist due to their understanding because they was once a god fearing Christian
Doug is simply 'othering' and dehumanising outsiders to bind his listeners to the flock: we're wise and good, they're evil. This not only reinforces a tribal mentality, but also reminds Doug's tribe that they are only wise and good because of what he tells them. Using a standard cult tactic, the elder is boosting his status by telling his followers not to listen to 'others' and warning of the perils of not obeying him.
Ah well, I suppose there's nothing quite like insulting the likes of me, to get me to drink the Jesus Juice ? (BTW, it doesn't work Buddy !) He's probably more concerned with keeping his church income, and paying customers, than he is with having an honest dialogue.
That is probably why comments are always turned off.
"My religion is *Duck!"*
British group, though now I TOTALLY hear it!
@@darkofalltrades It was late, so I accidentally wrote "religious". It's sorted now, though.
I think of "duck" when I hear The Strangler's song, "I was a Toiler" (a toilet, that had to find a toilet duck).
But you did let him get away with saying "twentyFOURTH century America". His subtitles say "21st century", but you can clearly hear him say "24th century". Must be a TNG Trekkie! 🤣😂
He may be! He needs some redeeming qualities (as ironic as that statement may be)
@@darkofalltrades as long as he doesn't do redeemed-zoomer levels of self-superiority...
You pinpoint all the flaws in that preacher's arguments precisely. I'd only offer that this fellow isn't engaging in honest discourse. He's a propagandist, and those don't care about truth. Their only goal is to hammer in their talking points again and again. A lie repeated enough times becomes the truth to the cultist. They don't call them catechisms for nothing.
Hmmmm! I still believe in gravity ( not wanting to do a wile e coyote an all ) ... Pain, too...
No I don't think you represented his ideas in a mean-spirited way.. The level of self-unawareness, especially given the well known iniquities of believers-in-power, give me a universe-damned break.
The "elder" sounds desperate. Is he loosing faith in his God?. After all, his God is omniscient, omnipotent and "in control of his creation".🤣
He should stop complaining but instead observe God's master plan in action.😆
I keep thinking, "Who is he trying to convince? His congregation, of himself?"
This will be good
ahh, the darth dawkins argument
Effectively. DD just fills it with more confusing language.
@@darkofalltrades hahah and a very dominant style of conversation
The main point he makes is that it's ok to lie in the name of jesus. Everything he said is a product of personal projection and outright lies. Since there is a commandment against lying (bearing false witness) i can only conclude that this elder doesn't believe the bullshit he's selling any more than i do.
PS. I typically cuss enough for the both of us, so i got you covered 🤣👍
I can not help but wonder about how many preachers actually believe what they are preaching. The Clergy Project proves that some number of them do not actually believe what they are saying.
P.S. thank you. You can use my share of the swear words.
@@darkofalltradesmy grandfather only turned against Richard Nixon when White House tapes revealed Nixon cussing in the Oval Office.
In the first clip that "elder" featured doesn't seem to have any sort of argument or reasoning, all he has are assertions (the only purpose of the mind is to act as a transmitter for specifically their god and how atheists have no restraints or morals). The clip, contrary to its caption, did NOT even touch on why atheists can't understand ANYTHING, instead it was more on the "atheists don't have any morality or restraints" which is, as one might observe, rather different from the claim that "atheists can't know anything". Since theists are known for only reading the titles and headlines and stopping there I suppose it serves it's clickbaity purpose in the end.
The whole thing ended up basically being an exercise of presuppositional thinking where they hold as true certain presuppositions and assert them to be such. The reasoning, if it even comes to that, which it largely does not wiht this elder, is, for the part about how atheists have no morality or restraints at least, hinges, of course on the presupposition that morality and restraint can only be found or supported through their religion and their god and nothing else can achieve that.
This is not an attack against atheists, it's an attack against all others who do not believe as they do, including other Christians of other denominations who have different beliefs from them. You've dealt with it before and explained it again here to an extent, that coupled with empirical observations that clearly do not support such a statement (such as how societies in countries NOT dominated by the religious are not only fine morally speaking but do better in certain metrics, that even the theists would agree are pertinent, with regards to "restraint and morality").
in light of that and in light of the fact that this topic of how "atheists have no morality because morality can ONLY come from my specific religious belief in my specific god" is, to put it crudely, "a chicken that has been fucked millions if not billions of times over", I see no reason to, nor have any inclination to, continue fucking that chicken by going into any sort of depth into this topic, it's based on presuppositions that require justification that by definition, do not have that justification. Apply the Hitchens Razor and move on.
5:32 This strawman is simply an extension of the "atheists have no morality" presupposition. Best answer to this I would bother to give at this moment is that this elder clearly has been listening to James Brown a little too much: "I feel good, nah nah nah nah nah nah nah, I knew that I would now nah nah nah nah nah nah nah..."
Now the SECOND clip is actually overlaps the first and actually does address, or at least CLAIMS to address, what its caption actually indicates, that atheists can't know anything about reality. Of course this is based yet again on another presupposition (surprise surprise), that only by believing in their specific god can anyone "know" anything at all. This is simply backed up by yet another assertion (also based on a presupposition, unsurprisingly) that the viewpoint of atheists (unbelievers actually, the meaning of which is as with the first clip) is based on "lies" and is somehow "false" while theirs is the "true" worldview (I suppose).
And that was it. It failed to even reach what I had expected from this video, which was at LEAST a justification for how THEIR religious worldview is the only correct one. It simply heaps negative assertions onto those who do not believe as they do with a quote that simply presupposes the same thrown in for good measure and calls it a day. My expectations for theistic reasoning is already below the ground, but I suppose since such clips are probably meant to be preaching to the already believing I suppose it would be a bit unfair for me to foist my already subterranean expectations with regards to reasoning, onto it.
Here's what I was actually expecting from the clips from reading their captions: the putting forward of the line about how atheists (i.e unbelievers) cannot "know" anything because they cannot trust their minds and senses to be reliable. It is only by believing (through blind faith of course) that their senses and minds are reliable because their god created their senses and minds to be reliable can one "know" that their minds and senses are reliable. Therefore any who do not believe this cannot know that their minds and senses are reliable and hence they can't "know" anything at all.
To put it in syllogistic terms:
Premise 1: Only by believing that God created our minds and sense to be reliable can we "know" that our minds and senses are reliable.
Premise 2: Atheists don't even believe in God so they don't believe that God created their minds and senses to be reliable.
Conclusion: Atheists cannot know that their minds and senses are reliable.
And it follows from there that if you can't know your minds and senses are reliable, you can't "know" that anything you perceive or mentally process can be reliable, hence the caption of the clip.
There are of course a few obvious problems, some of which are: a.) our minds and senses aren't truly "reliable" as in completely so, they are however reliable enough to ensure or survival and proliferation as our current status quo is evidence of. And b.) the part about :knowing" that their god created their minds and senses to be reliable is a presupposition based on faith, which cannot really be considered as "knowing something" since then ANY presupposition or unjustified beliefs, including ones that contradict each other, can and MUST be considered as "knowing" something to be real or true. It would boil down to "my god/belief/religion is better than your god/religion/belief" which I think is really the central core of theistic thinking, which is to say that their beliefs are considered "knowledge" by them and these beliefs, whether true or false, drive their thinking, worldview and actions.
However the most fatal error in such reasoning would be the undeniable empirical fact that no one is born with the inherent knowledge or belief of any specific god let alone theirs, and that in order to even believe in such a god, they must rely on their senses and minds, which at this point in time they, by their own admission, cannot "know" to be reliable, to be reliable!
What this results in is a criteria that cannot be fulfilled without first disregarding the qualifications of such criteria. One has to "believe or know" that their senses and minds are reliable in order to even LEARN about ANY god let alone understand, accept or believe anything about said god and consider all this that they have learned about said god to be reliable. All this has to come before the criteria of "only by believing that our specific god created our minds and senses to be reliable can we then "know" that our minds and senses are reliable". In short they have to believe that their unreliable minds and senses are reliable without subscribing to the above criteria for the reliability of their minds and senses before even being able to subscribe to said criteria. Hence it is basically a criteria that has to be first ignored before it can even be met.
Some may lie about whether or not people are born inherently "knowing" by mindlessly quoting the scriptures about "god writing laws in our hearts". However this bit of hypocrisy can easily be demonstrated by pointing out how such theists encourage teaching their children about their god and religion and about morality. All of which would be redundant and unnecessary if their claims about knowing god from birth is true.
That's your brain on presuppositional apologetics.
I missheard you. I Heard "Do you think elder GOD Has sone good points" 😂😂
"What do you think Cthulu thinks of this?"
Fantastic!
@@darkofalltrades I was thinking more in terms of Raiden and Shinok. But Cthulu fits too :)
I appreciate the reference! ^_^
Even if every single atheist didn't believe in god because they just wanted to be immoral that wouldnt prove anything about the existence of god
I mean, if I wanted to be immoral, I would be a part of the religion that specifically lets me be immoral if I say sorry afterward.
This is an EXCELLENT point!
Big F. I just delated or my stupid phone did, my comment. Simply brilliant… both ways, lol.
This argument , the argument from reason which overlaps the moral argument , is of paramount importance as, after all, epistomology is the bases of all philosophy.
You need to address the heavey hitters, namely Plantigas evulutionary argument against naturalism.
As to secular society’s having low crime rates etc, you could have taken it one step further and mentioned the stats on how people of faith in these countries have a much higher crime rate.
That may be as good as it gets . Even if it’s just to dismiss it, the book’ Sex and culture’ I believe it’s called, an oldie but a goodie, realeased 90 yrs ago, claims all society’s that don’t do the three pillars of stability- monogamy, and theism of course , I forget the third, end up in the drink , should have been referenced. The writer studied 85 cultures before reaching his conclusions.Their much more fragile than traditional societies.
Perhaps theirs something to the notion then that secular societies are pimping of the largeness of theism.
I’m afraid we’re going the way of the Roman Empire and for the same reasons.
Well, that's a good start.
"The true purpose of the mind is to receive God's revelation."
How has he determined that?
"Fallen humanity, those unbelievers he is talking about, they have abandoned all restraints in life, is the idea."
First issue. In Christian theology, *all* humanity is "fallen," not just unbelievers, but that's an issue with the presentation. Second issue. Unbelievers have no more "abandoned all restraints in life" than believers have. Because we don't see the context here, I'm going to hazard a guess he's referring to Rom 1: 20-, which isn't about unbelievers. It's about "Pagan" Romans.
Once you get atheism you get responsibility for the construction of society. So in Ancient Greece philosophers believed it was their responsibility to develop ethical systems and work out how to structure society. Xeno developed stoicism. Plato came up with models of society. (Stupid ones but no one is perfect) Buddhism is an atheistic religion which sees Gods as ineffectual. Buda a person worked out a system
Your first video of the rather animated chap shows a clear example of the fact that theology has nothing to do with knowledge. It is a form of learned stupidity. With the first chap he also has the American complete lack of interest in the existence of the rest of the world and how it might operate. He just spouts a narrow theory which has has no idea of it's inherent stupidity
If they presuppose their god, they don't need to think.
they always start with claims. Not shocking. Many people do start there. But these folks always start at claim 2 and counting. The plans and desires and rules and sex and gender etc of the g0d.
Without ever demonstrating what the g0d even is.
Hmm. "The unbeliever (of science) cannot view the world correctly. They just cannot because they've lost grasp of reality. Etc.."
Even if the best possible light, this sentiment still rings false. People can be correct on accident. People can deny global warming (for example) and also know the names of their children and parents.
Methinks the gentleman quoted was talking out of his backside.
Meanwhile, in the real world it's creationists who are proving that they "don't know anything," and that their thinking (including the Christian apologetics rhetoric discussed in the video), is complete horse pucky.
Hard to strawman arguments that are all straw.
So let me see…..empty claims bald assertions yup he’s a liar for Jesus.