Go to ground.news/rationality to stay fully informed on breaking news, compare coverage and avoid media bias. Subscribe through my link for 50% off unlimited access this month.
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies. 🤡 To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
Regardless of my disagreement with Michael Jones, for every case he makes no matter how “out there” it is, he cites scholars, and provides the citations, so saying he can’t talk about something because he didn't blow hundreds of thousands of dollars to be lectured on something you can usually find online or in a book is a little silly in my opinion.
@@jackricky5453 I think you missed Stephen’s point completely. If, and that is if, Michael quotes a source it is in general terms and it is left to you the listener to take it or leave it. 99.9% of the time who does this, and that is part of the secret sauce.
Question is how humble are you ?2 Kings 13 New International Version Jehoahaz King of Israel 13 In the twenty-third year of Joash son of Ahaziah king of Judah, Jehoahaz son of Jehu became king of Israel in Samaria, and he reigned seventeen years. 2
Everyone claims to be a expert or a spokesman for the truth. The internet is the channel of these kind of people. The invention of the printing press done same , Indirectly caused the horrendous 30 years war for religious autonomy.
@@Paremata charm? um, name a charming apologist. i'll wait. haha. WLC. no. narcissist DLR lookalike. Cameron? nah, incel dork. Turek. Nah, but he has a sexy bod, i'll give him that. I can't recall any charming apologist. Now, when we say 'charm' we mean 'charisma', like the kind of charisma that Trump or any maga acolyte demonstrates, sure, there are plenty of them. I watch far too many atheist videos. I've never seen a charming apologist. Charismatic, yes, but , in this age of trump, i've come to be wary of any public figure who relies on their charisma
@@jimmythebold589 "Charming" in this context is not synonymous to "I wanna f**c with you", like you would see on those bachelor TV-shows. To Charm and charming are precisely the correct words to use here. It is not used as an adjective on how they look. It is used as a verb for what they do. As a verb it means swaying people to see, believe and/or act like you want with words and promises, which is exactly what these apologists and even Trump is doing.
As a Muslim, I’ve also recognised this pattern on Islamic side but at all levels. Even at the local level, someone like my dad will quote an expert’s opinion on a field he’s not an expert in, like evolution, as evidence of it being false while ignoring the actual experts. It’s confirmation bias, the most dishonest thing in theist circles.
@FahimusAlimus unfortunately what you described is something that appears to be ingrained in the majority of humanity’s behavior. Not only does every religion fall prey to that behavior but also most politics, and even scientific arguments that can devolve into something more akin to politics and faith.
As a Christian, I resonate with this and my commitment to honesty can make me a bit unpopular, but I genuinely believe God would prefer honest conversation than argumentative defensiveness. Keep your head up, both our religious communities and the outside world can be very tiring. Rely on God, and even when you can’t God will not let you go, His Love is steadfast. God bless my friend.
@@Peculiar_VelocityAgreed. Including (and sometimes especially) those who are convinced their perspectives are “neutral” and/or “objective”. This is why I try to keep an eye for people who recognize this problem regardless of their religious, political, or cultural background. Just as this is an epistemological epidemic of humanity, so too in all of humanity are those who will hold it to account.
There is no line. Christian apologists are not doing what they do out of religiosity. Its for money. It's always for money. Every single one of them has a book to sell, a seminar, or a church for you to "donate" your money to. It's not just a grift, it's the oldest grift in human history.
@@lonercs Why do you think religious zealots want to rip apart modern education systems? When people no longer believe their schtick, the money dries up.
Oh man, these techniques are so familiar. I’ve joined some local political party and there is a populist politician in the council that does the same. He sounds so convincing and confident, even when uttering total BS. It completely caught me off guard the last couple of times. He is able to reframe a logical point you’re making in a sarcastic voice, taking it out of context and make it sound absurd. But the debate format in a council gives very little room to deconstruct what he just did. I guess I have something to learn.
I know right. Democracy is the WORST. Aristotle was right, people have NO business evaluating the veracity of claims for themselves... leave it to the EXPERTS, that's what I say!
I suppose when they grew up, their authority figures (parents, teachers, and so on) never showed doubt or allowed themselves to be questioned, and so they think that is how an authority figure should behave, It's all learned behavior. And parenting is unskilled labor, and they have a really big influence. It's a mess.
It is human nature (especially among all social animals) for the less confident to be drawn to confident leaders, even if those leaders are merely pretending. Many people want certainty and cannot tolerate uncertainty. Hence religion, which provides them false certainty.
@@KaiHenningsen Yeah, I never thought to question my religious teachings until I was a teenager and a youth pastor turned out to be a young earth creationist, when I had been taught old earth creation (and had a good enough education to see a young earth as nonsense). Until then I simply assumed without thought or question that my parents and pastors etc. must be correct. I think some people never really break out of that.
@@Dhavroch In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing. -Mark Twain-
Faith from a place of honest ignorance is one thing, but to double down on delusion when one’s “faith” is exposed as untenable, to maintain willful ignorance as virtue is truly a baffling and honestly heartbreaking thing to witness in other human beings.
That's the problem with ignorance..... It always takes more to convince somebody out of what they believe in than it is to convince someone of something new. You can't think logically if your foundations ideologically coincide with mysticism and unscientific claims that cant be proven.
@@SirRaiuKorenif you had reason to believe something, it would no longer be a belief in the strict sense of the word. I think you are talking about knowledge.
Faith isn’t a decision. You didn’t decide to have faith that your parents are actually your parents, or that feeling hungry means you’re hungry. Religious faith is just as undeniable an experience. You perhaps haven’t experienced it.
In your own words, define "RELIGION". 🤔 If your definition comes within a light year of the ACTUAL definition, I promise that I will send you a very valuable gift.🎁
it's what some of them refer to as theocratic warfare. In other words to them, lying is allowed as long as it's for what they consider the righteous cause
This is point on. When I was a Christian and went to church, I had these moments that this question will arise. How does he know this? This is because we start with the assumption that the pastor is an authority and knows what he is talking about. Does he? It was not until I started to listen to calling shows that I heard the question that I always wanted to ask. How do you know this? As the question was ask, there was no convincing answer. They didn’t have an answer. So they talk as if they knew WTF they were saying, when in reality they don’t. And this my friend is called lying.
I'm not religious, but I feel like this comes down to bad christian leaders.. I was raised catholic, and our pastor taught us about evolution, by explaining why some people closer to the equator have darker skin, because they evolved like that to get better sun protection. They never pretended to have the answers an atheistvwould ask, they usually gave more practical advice and the idea of god was something mostly meant to provide comfort in isolated times. Like, these debaters on shows etc. Don't act as if they had faith themselves, because if they had that fsith, they would not spend so much time making excusws, they'd just...have hat faith confidently.
You could say pretty much the same thing about anyone who is in a position of teaching any subject. We don’t live long enough to learn everything from scratch ourselves, so eventually the answer is going to be “I don’t know how we know, but that’s what I was taught.”
@@brittybee6615 no I think we stepped past the part where we pointed out a lie. I mean, I hope that not all your teachers were confidently lying about things. Most educators I've had were rather humble about how much they don't know, and about what they have learned, but it really is only this type of christian described in this comment, that would confidently tell you they have the answer, and then go ahead to just deflect the point or explain why you should not ask that question etc. It is arrogance, not confidence that is driving these points.
@jamesholland8057 because I see what is happening in America at the moment and not to mention the middle east fighting over lands given to them by their imaginary friend
I find it troubling how comfortable Christian apologists with being dishonest. It’s a very “ends justify means” mentality. Edited to correct transposed words.
@@TBOTSS ALL of them are dishonest. Because dishonesty is what lies at the core of apologetics. Because apologetics is lying to protect faith from legitimate criticism. Apologists KNOW that no god exists. Which explains why all of them stubbornly refuse to show a god exists. Instead, they argue their god into existence (which means they know none is in existence). No one can be dumb enough to seriously believe that something that does not exist magically turns into something that exists simply because of what is said about that something. So if apologists wish their dreamed up deity is an explanation of some real-world phenomenon, they first must make sure to provide objective, direct, and empiricial verification of their god. Because something that does not exist cannot explain what does exist.
@@TBOTSS Ravi Zacharias is one of the most flagrantly dishonest of apologists. He claimed a list of academic credentials that were fabricated. He did worse. Pastor Mark Burns put a resume on his web site that included false statements about his education, military service, and membership in social organizations.
Oh my goodness - so many unjustified claims here… no doubt there are charlatans around, but my experience is that the top tier apologists like WLC and John Lennox make it very clear whenever they are swimming outside of their lane!! E.g. Lennox frequently says, ‘I’m a mathematician - biology is only a hobby of mine’… and Craig often mentions that his scientific knowledge comes from his reading and conversations with scientists (of the calibre of Roger Penrose and Alexander Vilenkin) as his expertise is in philosophy… what’s more they almost always go to lengths to provide sources, relevant quotations etc when presenting arguments etc … are you saying that you can’t make a comment unless you are formally qualified in that particular topic??.. I fear that when it comes to true academic apologists, these claims are simply false!
@@alexissmith5589 So you accept that they win public debates and do so by saying nothing of substance? If that was the case then atheist would win most debates rather than lose.
@@TBOTSS No, they never win yet apologists think they do because their audiences have already been indoctrinated. When they debate an Athiest there are free thinkers in those audiences and when the Athiest destroys EVERY talking point, deflection, fallacy, pre sup and contridiction the theist runs away and claim they won. Not to mention, if defend the indefensable, you've already lost.
@@alexissmith5589 First of all what is an Athiest? When I first read it I thought is was an innocent spelling error but you repeated it. I think you will find that it is atheists that run away like Richard Dawkins did from William Lane Craig. Craig has a perfect record at both the Cambridge and Oxford debating Unions. A. C. Grayling was so badly traumatised that he lied and said that the debate never even happened, all the way up until the audio for the debate was found.
Oh my goodness - so many unjustified claims here… no doubt there are charlatans around, but my experience is that the top tier apologists like WLC and John Lennox make it very clear whenever they are swimming outside of their lane!! E.g. Lennox frequently says, ‘I’m a mathematician - biology is only a hobby of mine’… and Craig often mentions that his scientific knowledge comes from his reading and conversations with scientists (of the calibre of Roger Penrose and Alexander Vilenkin) as his expertise is in philosophy… what’s more they almost always go to lengths to provide sources, relevant quotations etc when presenting arguments etc … is he saying that you can’t make a comment unless you are formally qualified in that particular topic??.. I fear that when it comes to true academic apologists, these claims are simply false!
All these “ apologies “ follow the same “ pattern of thought and reasoning without ever questioning themselves and their beliefs or how they come up with these fake and bias conclusions without any evidence. 😮
Oh my goodness - so many unjustified claims here… no doubt there are charlatans around, but my experience is that the top tier apologists like WLC and John Lennox make it very clear whenever they are swimming outside of their lane!! E.g. Lennox frequently says, ‘I’m a mathematician - biology is only a hobby of mine’… and Craig often mentions that his scientific knowledge comes from his reading and conversations with scientists (of the calibre of Roger Penrose and Alexander Vilenkin) as his expertise is in philosophy… what’s more they almost always go to lengths to provide sources, relevant quotations etc when presenting arguments etc … are you saying that you can’t make a comment unless you are formally qualified in that particular topic??.. I fear that when it comes to true academic apologists, these claims are simply false!
It's frustrating how apologists (and others) will just so openly lie about what others believe and about what's true. Many of their followers just believe them, because they say it confidently enough with an air of authority, and their followers don't know any better (or they distrust the actual experts... often due to apologists spreading those seeds of doubt). When challenged, they or their followers will simply deny any contrary evidence, or they'll "massage" the claim into something that is actually true (or that's harder to disprove, or that's merely a judgement call), while never admitting that their original claim, as stated, is actually false, and they'll happily continue to repeat that same false claim.
In your own words, define "RELIGION". 🤔 If your definition comes within a light year of the ACTUAL definition, I promise that I will send you a very valuable gift.🎁
@TheWorldTeacher What makes you think he isn't using the actual definition of religion? Do you often make up your own definition for words that no one else uses? Of all the many dictionaries which define religion slightly differently, which is the actual definition and how do you know?
They might be wrong, but unless they're making truth claims that don't have evidence, or are demonstrably false, they aren't liars. However, that is mostly what apologetics does do.
@TheWorldTeacher Now I'm wo dering what your goofy secret definition is. And no, it isn't "linking back," that's perhaps the original definition of the Latin word. The definition is essentially what is in any dictionary. It actually isn't very well defined.
I’m disappointed in them. Lying about a field of study, pretend like you are an expert on things you know nothing about is an insult to those who spent years studying it. But what else can we expect from them
I too was wondering for a long time about why apologists make claims the way they do. But I understood it a lot better once I realized what role they actually play within fundamentalist religion: None of them are able to actually convince someone who is not already a christian or whatever. What they do is provide religious people with the feeling that they don't hold irrational views.
It doesn't matter so much that what the apologist is saying is correct or logically sound. All that flock really cares about is that someone is giving some kind, ANY KIND of response to the challenge. They will chose to believe it is correct because they WANT to believe it. That's what it means to have faith.
my brother is not christian but he's so far gone, that when asked about a why, he either says i should think and answer or he's giving me raw associations without a useful order, and present that as both an argument and refutation of my stated worldviews and feelings. that's both stuck in lvl 0 in critical thinking and differentiation from others.
But ... what are you going to do when all that sweet sweet money from the Christian networks is thrust in your wallet? Will you come clean ... or will fall to the temptation to keep on lying, like so many others have???
This only works if you're extremely familiar with someone that you spend a lot of time with and know their body language patterns. I've known neurodivergents or others who get nervous and can appear as if they are being deceptive.
Oh my goodness - so many unjustified claims here… no doubt there are charlatans around, but my experience is that the top tier apologists like WLC and John Lennox make it very clear whenever they are swimming outside of their lane!! E.g. Lennox frequently says, ‘I’m a mathematician - biology is only a hobby of mine’… and Craig often mentions that his scientific knowledge comes from his reading and conversations with scientists (of the calibre of Roger Penrose and Alexander Vilenkin) as his expertise is in philosophy… what’s more they almost always go to lengths to provide sources, relevant quotations etc when presenting arguments etc … are you saying that you can’t make a comment unless you are formally qualified in that particular topic??.. I fear that when it comes to true academic apologists, these claims are simply false!
As a Christian, I just want to say that I appreciate your channel. I was agnostic for a long time and happily listen to others with opposing views, because I believe the truth and opinions shouldn’t mind being questioned. I just want to say that a lot of Christian’s were the reason I didnt like the idea of it. But I mainly want to say that what actually got me to believe was to stop focusing on Christian’s and start focusing on Jesus and who he was. Christians are not meant to represent Christianity (as weird as that sounds), but thats the point. We all fall short of who Jesus is. The only true Christian was actually a Jew and he lived a selfless life and he did so for every one of us. Jesus saved me from depression after almost committing a horrible act on myself, he saved many people I know from being in gutters on the streets with needles in their arms, his nature is loving, and regardless of what we believe, he would die for you so you can live a better life. If you give him a chance with an open heart, he really will enter your life and you’ll see the effects. I have a peace I’ve never had before, even after I’ve lost so many family members. There’s hope and fulfillment I cant explain and genuinely Im writing all this because I just want everyone else to have it too. Believe me or not. I don’t believe in forcing others to believe anything. I just wanted to share my story, apologize on behalf of all Christian’s who actually want to represent it right with kindness and truth, & I genuinely wish everyone here the best :)
Apologists lie. Every single one of them. They can't "defend' their faith without scamming everyone. That should speak volumes, but those who need to hear it the most like to plug their ears.
To refer to the professor and scholar Stephen Meyer with the generic term "philosopher" is a bit disingenuous on your part. He is a "philosopher of science". Here are his full credentials: In 1981, Meyer graduated cum laude from Whitworth College, where he received a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) with a double major in physics and earth science.[8] He then was employed at Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) in Dallas from November 1981 to December 1985.[9] Meyer was granted a scholarship by the Rotary Club of Dallas to study in England at Cambridge University, where he earned a Master of Philosophy (M.Phil.) in 1987 and a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in history and the philosophy of science in 1991.[10] His dissertation was entitled "Of Clues and Causes: A Methodological Interpretation of Origin-of-Life Research".[11]
Rationality says Meyer uses "slimy tricks", "lies" and "deceit" to make a point? Where is the scientific proof of a "primordial soup" that begins every biology textbook in America? Just one of many faults of "evolution is a fact" movement.
@@RamadaDiver-w9o you say [that as if you're familiar with IP's modus operandi. Which makes me wonder why, if you are familiar with his stuff, do you not recognise it for the nonsense it is, and instead try to project his failings onto RR?
@bengreen171 If watched it for 9 years and there is a lot more nonsense from atheist channels . I.p helped me convert to Christ as a direct failure of popular atheists
I know right. Democracy is the WORST. Aristotle was right, people have NO business evaluating the veracity of claims for themselves... leave it to the EXPERTS, that's what I say!
I am finishing a book I’ve been writing, and I use the term 'The Emperor’s New Clothes' in it. I had to pause and ask AI if the term was outdated and whether I should remove it. I was assured it isn’t outdated, yet when I asked several coworkers my age and older if they were familiar with the story, I received a unanimous 'no.' I’m in the editing phase this week, and it was on the chopping block. I was delighted to hear it used in your video. Thank you!
@@RamadaDiver-w9o yes considering he went the first 7 mins of the video basically saying nothing goes to show how good he is at that. I guess his education works well when it allows him to sound compelling when in reality all he’s saying is “oh no, people have views on things they don’t have phds in! How dare they!!”
@@123ghdsno , he points out the dishonest methods of apologists. And that this triggers biblethumpers like you ...is one more indicator he hit the point
"The purpose of Apologetics is to perform the capacity to engage with scholarship in order to validate the beliefs of an audience that already believes." Dr. Dan McClellan
The middle of your video reminded me strikingly of Justin Brierley during his multitude of conversations with Alex. He portrays Christian revival as "moving in that direction" and like a tide that's *about* to come back in. Not that it IS coming back in... just that it's about to. Much like the whiplash example you gave here, it makes the presenter seem like they have a foundation for an argument they absolutely do not have.
With this in mind Steven, I think it would be particularly apt (and awesome) if you used an example of their defensive techniques from one of Alex's debates or podcasts. Even with the two of you giving masterclass examples of deconstructing them, they still somehow seem to get away with it.
I think Justin was pretty straight forward about it. He is taking his findings from his own conversations. He has said that. If you listened to his discussions with Alex then you know that. I do not see how someone saying I think there will be a change soon is an issue. there is no deception.
@@carlpeterson8182 - Justin's book is called: "The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God". Yet Justin only verbally admits that there is no actual evidence to back up his title. He doesn't say that in print, only in an interview when asked if he has any actual evidence. Justin Brierly is knowingly and consciously lying.
@ you should that he did not pick thd title. I am sure you know that since you referenced his conversation with Alex O’ Connor. He openly talks about what he is arguing for. This is just a weak take.
It's all about confidence and the ability to deflect awkward truths with a Teflon skin. I remember at school you used to have to give "talks" to the class about something usually a hobby. Each person would stand in front of the class and talk for 5 minutes. Usually someone will start the heckling almost immediately. Anything from their dodgy haircut, their unfashionable cloths or just the fact that their hobby was crap. I don't think we ever found out what anybodies hobbies ever where but we learnt which people you could shut up with a few well aimed pointed words. And you learned to return fire because if you ummed and ahhed stuttered or hesitated the teacher would tell you to sit down and call the next victim.
I think it is really interesting how they can justify behaving like they do, to themselves. If they truly believe what they say they believe, why is it necessary to lie? If they dont believe what they say they believe, is it then just because they enjoy having power and understands that religion is a great tool for obtaining that? Do they believe what they say they believe, but are just repeating frases they have been told and never consider questioning any of it?
Great video Steven! The point about people being shown as experts who are not, is a feature of Fox News in the USA. It's as though these people have figured out that people don't typically think for themselves. Like sheep. Like people who belive whatever someone says even if it PURE BS. Thanks! Your videos are excellent! Excited for the next in this series.
If only believers weren't so impressed by 'authority'. All apologists need to do is give each other 'special' status & voila! An ounce of critical thinking would go a long way to solve this problem.
@@RamadaDiver-w9o "Do you want to test your critical thinking?" I was criticising of the lack of critical thinking in religious believers but OK, what do you have?
@15:15 Wh... what the ----?! Women and children wouldn't have been hiding in the fort when an invading army came through? *What on God's green earth does this man think forts are for?!*
@daniellowry660 First of all, forward operating bases of the kind you're thinking of didn't exist in that time and place. This isn't the Hittite Empire, this is a region filled with tiny city-states and tribes. They don't have professional armies or the administrative capacity to build or maintain a fort of that kind. But that isn't even the important part. Even assuming there wouldn't normally be a single civilian on site, as soon as an enemy army invades Jericho's territory all the civilians in the surrounding area are going to flee into the fort for safety from the *enemy army marching over their territory.*
@@daniellowry660 that's not why settlements built walls, doofus. Cities were surrounded by walls. People from outside the walls would shelter inside or be slaughtered.
It's about damn time you posted another video, Stephen 😂 I check my subscriptions list literally every day for your next one. They've only gotten better with time. Great stuff 👍
I start with metaphysical naturalism--I reject the god hypothes. It saves time. Then becasue a lack of belief in unicorns isn't a very good basis for a life phylosophy, I look to humanism to inform my ethical decisions.
I am still waiting for frank turek to get back to me about 65,000 + years of Australian Aboriginal civilisation and culture , that has never had any gods from the middle east by the simple fact women had equal rights until the british christians landed in 1788. 235 years later and women are still fighting to get those rights back. Also still waiting to here from frank some 8 years later, guess he hasn't got an answer that isn't degrading or racist. When noter dame burnt down i was cheering, i even started crying iwas that elated that another monument to genocide and child rape was gone, Was disgusting to see fixed.If putin bombs france and goes for notre dame i will donate money to him,( 1 c Australian because i can't afford any more than that as i try to donate to Jake Broe as much as i can)..
“This guy is an expert and he agrees with the weird stuff I believe! I’m validated.” “No, he is not an expert. And experts say the exact opposite.” “Academia is rigged, scientists don’t accept him because he dares challenge the consensus!!!”
I found it ironic that he condemns apologists for deliberately not identifying as "experts" in the clips he provided. You don't have to be an expert to reference other experts or their discussions
My father had a saying about experts. X is an unknown variable. A spurt is a drip, but under pressure. So, an X-spurt (expert) is just an unknown drip under pressure.
The editing and presentation was fantastic. You guys are really upping the production quality and it's building the suspense. I must learn the secret souffle spices🕵
You know, your 100% true. I am a Latter Day Saint and i have seen people blatantly lie about my beliefs in order to persuade their followers to gain up on my people.
I think this is a fantastic criticism but I think you’re leaving yourself open to people just pointing out “But Steve, you don’t have any academic credentials and you talk about this stuff too”. I don’t think it would be a very good argument but it probably would have been a good idea to address it
Oh my goodness - so many unjustified claims here… no doubt there are charlatans around, but my experience is that the top tier apologists like WLC and John Lennox make it very clear whenever they are swimming outside of their lane!! E.g. Lennox frequently says, ‘I’m a mathematician - biology is only a hobby of mine’… and Craig often mentions that his scientific knowledge comes from his reading and conversations with scientists (of the calibre of Roger Penrose and Alexander Vilenkin) as his expertise is in philosophy… what’s more they almost always go to lengths to provide sources, relevant quotations etc when presenting arguments etc … are you saying that you can’t make a comment unless you are formally qualified in that particular topic??.. I fear that when it comes to true academic apologists, these claims are simply false!
Matt Powell has a giant inflatable banana in his backyard, which he calls Dr Peel. He has no expertise in anything except reheating Kent Hovind's tired arguments.
Oh my goodness - so many unjustified claims here… no doubt there are charlatans around, but my experience is that the top tier apologists like WLC and John Lennox make it very clear whenever they are swimming outside of their lane!! E.g. Lennox frequently says, ‘I’m a mathematician - biology is only a hobby of mine’… and Craig often mentions that his scientific knowledge comes from his reading and conversations with scientists (of the calibre of Roger Penrose and Alexander Vilenkin) as his expertise is in philosophy… what’s more they almost always go to lengths to provide sources, relevant quotations etc when presenting arguments etc … are you saying that you can’t make a comment unless you are formally qualified in that particular topic??.. I fear that when it comes to true academic apologists, these claims are simply false!
"Flooding the Well" - a logical fallacy that involves presenting overwhelmingly positive information about a proponent before they speak to overcredit them
Humanity is hampered when we are forced to follow the consensus of any kind, whether it be scholarship or religious. I have gained a healthy skepticism of both academic and religious leaders and for good reason. They all want to maintain power. In the end I still believe living a life as represented by Christ is better for humanity as a whole. I have yet to see a better example or a lifestyle that works more effectively. Bottom line, be productive, put others ahead of yourself, and have enduring love for all.
@ That is the exact opposite of what I said. 😁. I will follow a path I believe to be the best for those around me. I am skeptical of “experts” telling me they have a better way. Especially given the wealth of evidence showing that a life lived for self is ultimately depressing and self destructive.
I would also add into the mix Jordan Peterson. He's become very popular amongst the evangelical/apologetic community as their go-to guy. " Here's that smart psychologist saying something profound" when it's just a mixed bag of word salad and phyco babble.
Nobody is claiming that the people being interviewed are experts in the field. They are asking apologists their observations on different fields. This whole video depends on projecting dishonesty on the apologists. This channel has mastered ad hominem.
One cannot project dishonesty on apologists when apologists are fundamentally dishonest in the first place (apologetics is making up excuses and lies to protect a faith the believers knows full well is not true). Clown you. LIAR you.
@@TheBastiusAre you a mind reader? How do you know full well that believers full well know that their belief is not true? Sounds like you believe in magic which we all full know is not true. Wait Am I the mind reader now?
Bingo, BinGo, BINGO!!!! You nailed that. It's exactly the same with each local pastor as well. Many learn from these fakers and repeat their same nonsense. This fills the churches with lying pastors all over the world. I was a Christian with a degree in science, yet the constant negatively towards the sciences had me doubting the veracity of the sciences and then I figured out the Bible was BS. I went back to my sciences and have read loads of science books since that time. I found that the good pastors were spouting lies on every topic. Then I studied religion for years, and again, I found the good pastors were lying. Scholarship is way different than the stuff spouted in church, and they know it. I found that no gospel was written by anyone who might have been alive with Jesus. I found that scholars don't believe the Pentateuch was written by Moses; in fact they don't believe Moses was a real character. Neither was Adam, Joseph, Abraham, and many, many more. At least 6 letters attributed to Paul are forgeries, and they know it. It goes on and on; experts at nothing, leading people to blindly follow and "believe" .... don't forget to tithe ..... and vote the way we recommend ... and so on. Power, respect, and influence for them, stupidity for us.
Two of the most brilliant debates I've seen were between William Lane Craig and Shelly Kagan on whether God is necessary for ethics and between William Lane Craig and Sean Carrol on Cosmology. In both cases the question was narrowly defined and Craig was up against a genuine expert in the field. His manufactured expertise was shown to be utterly threadbare.
You make it seem like atheist apologist are not the leading proponents of this. You'll find most claming science has provided answers that are in the field of theology and philosophy (outside of the study of mater) and you find lots of followers parroting without critiquing
You’re going to need to be waaaaay more specific there bud. The majority of people that actually do rigorous scientific research are atheist or agnostic, and that number only continues to grow science continues to develop.
@ritchie6162 I can bet you that by percentage atheists in science are not close to believers, neither do their number make any real advancement when compared to the believers.
@ramadadiver7810 Argument from incredulity "The universe couldn't have begun on its own, therefore God" Special pleading- " Everything created has a beginning except God" God of the gaps- " Science can't explain this phenomenon therefore God" False Dichotomy- " Without God, there is no basis for morality "
' the universe couldn't have begun on it's own therefore God There isn't even 2 premises in that but a premise and conclusion By defintion if the universe began to exist it's improbable that it's caused itself because it didn't exist to cause itself ' everything created had a begining except God' Again this is only a single premise and conclusion And God by defintion is uncreated. Uncreated things don't begin to exist. So no special pleading fallacy . This is a false equivalence comparing created entities to uncreated ' science can't explain this therefore God . Again only 1 premise and conclusion No one makes this argument ' Without God there is no basis for morality ' Again only 1 premise and conclusion This is true again this refers to objective morality.. there is no independent objective foundation for morality without an ontological foundation independent of humans . On all 4 accounts you are guilty of strawmanning because you only provided a single premise and conclusion where all philosophical arguments fornGod require at least 2 premises
@ramadadiver7810 That is incorrect. Not all logical arguments require two premises. 1. The universe could be eternal. It could have a natural explanation for it's beginning, or another reason other than a god for its beginning and that's the point. Why does God have to be the uncaused causer but not the universe? This goes right back to special pleading. Apologists definitely use the God of the Gaps argument. They clearly say that since science can't explain something such as the origin of the universe or origin of life, they assert that God must be the only explanation and that it's specifically the Christian God. Objective morality does not exist as it would have to be independent of not just a human mind but any kind of mind, including God's. Morality is the value of judgment of a behavior or action. A mind or subject is necessary to make that judgment, which means morality is subjective. To say that either morality is objective and God is the standard or morality doesn't exist at all is a false dichotomy
Jesus doesn’t use anything. We have no evidence he even existed. And even if he did, all that is claimed that he said was written by people decades after his time.
"...it is true. You can show it to be fact. In the beginning god created the heaven and the earth, is a fact of history". I fell off my chair laughing at that one. Matt Powell and his dead pan delivery. His use of the word 'fact', without flinching, is comedy gold. If Airplane! 3 is ever made, Matt must audition for a role.
I get not believing in God, I used to be atheist but it makes me wonder what is wrong with all you people? When I was an atheist God was the very last thing on my mind at any point in time, I literally didn’t think he existed. But this comment section is full of seemingly bitter and sad people so angry that others believe in something that makes them happy, provides excellent moral values, and has been around for thousands of years. Very strange to me that you all think God doesn’t exist so hard that he’s all you can think about 😂 Praise God I will pray for you all 🙏🏼❤️
@ Ahaha right, so you’re just automatically smarter than me because I have an opinion on a matter that neither me or you can prove or refute, nice to know! God Bless you Brother.
Go to ground.news/rationality to stay fully informed on breaking news, compare coverage and avoid media bias. Subscribe through my link for 50% off unlimited access this month.
Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
Regardless of my disagreement with Michael Jones, for every case he makes no matter how “out there” it is, he cites scholars, and provides the citations, so saying he can’t talk about something because he didn't blow hundreds of thousands of dollars to be lectured on something you can usually find online or in a book is a little silly in my opinion.
@@jackricky5453 I think you missed Stephen’s point completely. If, and that is if, Michael quotes a source it is in general terms and it is left to you the listener to take it or leave it. 99.9% of the time who does this, and that is part of the secret sauce.
Question is how humble are you ?2 Kings 13
New International Version
Jehoahaz King of Israel
13 In the twenty-third year of Joash son of Ahaziah king of Judah, Jehoahaz son of Jehu became king of Israel in Samaria, and he reigned seventeen years. 2
Everyone claims to be a expert or a spokesman for the truth. The internet is the channel of these kind of people. The invention of the printing press done same , Indirectly caused the horrendous 30 years war for religious autonomy.
“This one weird trick! Lying!”
They don't just lie though. They charm everyone first and then they throw lies at your so fast you don't even know which one to refute first.
@@Paremata charm? um, name a charming apologist. i'll wait. haha. WLC. no. narcissist DLR lookalike. Cameron? nah, incel dork. Turek. Nah, but he has a sexy bod, i'll give him that. I can't recall any charming apologist. Now, when we say 'charm' we mean 'charisma', like the kind of charisma that Trump or any maga acolyte demonstrates, sure, there are plenty of them. I watch far too many atheist videos. I've never seen a charming apologist. Charismatic, yes, but , in this age of trump, i've come to be wary of any public figure who relies on their charisma
@@jimmythebold589 "Charming" in this context is not synonymous to "I wanna f**c with you", like you would see on those bachelor TV-shows. To Charm and charming are precisely the correct words to use here. It is not used as an adjective on how they look. It is used as a verb for what they do. As a verb it means swaying people to see, believe and/or act like you want with words and promises, which is exactly what these apologists and even Trump is doing.
@@Paremata The old Gish-gallop
Michelin Star Chef: I am an expert in my field let me teach you about quantum mechanics.
As a Muslim, I’ve also recognised this pattern on Islamic side but at all levels. Even at the local level, someone like my dad will quote an expert’s opinion on a field he’s not an expert in, like evolution, as evidence of it being false while ignoring the actual experts. It’s confirmation bias, the most dishonest thing in theist circles.
@FahimusAlimus unfortunately what you described is something that appears to be ingrained in the majority of humanity’s behavior. Not only does every religion fall prey to that behavior but also most politics, and even scientific arguments that can devolve into something more akin to politics and faith.
Its not like Atheists dont do the same thing, its just human nature
As a Christian, I resonate with this and my commitment to honesty can make me a bit unpopular, but I genuinely believe God would prefer honest conversation than argumentative defensiveness. Keep your head up, both our religious communities and the outside world can be very tiring. Rely on God, and even when you can’t God will not let you go, His Love is steadfast. God bless my friend.
@@Peculiar_VelocityAgreed. Including (and sometimes especially) those who are convinced their perspectives are “neutral” and/or “objective”. This is why I try to keep an eye for people who recognize this problem regardless of their religious, political, or cultural background. Just as this is an epistemological epidemic of humanity, so too in all of humanity are those who will hold it to account.
@@cadenphilley9728 Who would you be without the God and religion you believe in? Would you be less in any way?
So basically, these apologists are just lying.
Acting in bad faith.
Lying with flair and style, after finding somebody to present them as an 'expert'.
But yes, underneath all the theatre, it's just lying.
They speaking THE TRUTH®
Shonk, horror 😂
Bing bing bing! We have a winner!
I think the line between Christian apologist and shameless grifter is becoming more blurred as each day passes.
There is no line. Christian apologists are not doing what they do out of religiosity. Its for money. It's always for money. Every single one of them has a book to sell, a seminar, or a church for you to "donate" your money to. It's not just a grift, it's the oldest grift in human history.
The apologist is just another subset of the grifter class.
There never was a line.
@@lonercs Why do you think religious zealots want to rip apart modern education systems? When people no longer believe their schtick, the money dries up.
they've always been grifters, their JOB is to lie to people.
Oh man, these techniques are so familiar. I’ve joined some local political party and there is a populist politician in the council that does the same. He sounds so convincing and confident, even when uttering total BS. It completely caught me off guard the last couple of times. He is able to reframe a logical point you’re making in a sarcastic voice, taking it out of context and make it sound absurd. But the debate format in a council gives very little room to deconstruct what he just did. I guess I have something to learn.
Populists AND elitists do the same thing.
You do know that Stephen is a proven liar who has no expertise in any field of academic endeavour?
I know right. Democracy is the WORST. Aristotle was right, people have NO business evaluating the veracity of claims for themselves... leave it to the EXPERTS, that's what I say!
That’s actually where the word “con-man” came from. It was short for “confidence man.”
@marcdejonge3113 "Oh man, these techniques are so familiar" But you cannot recognize when RR does the same thing?
Odd how some are so easily impressed by confidence while dismissing those who are willing to show doubt.
I suppose when they grew up, their authority figures (parents, teachers, and so on) never showed doubt or allowed themselves to be questioned, and so they think that is how an authority figure should behave, It's all learned behavior. And parenting is unskilled labor, and they have a really big influence. It's a mess.
It is human nature (especially among all social animals) for the less confident to be drawn to confident leaders, even if those leaders are merely pretending. Many people want certainty and cannot tolerate uncertainty. Hence religion, which provides them false certainty.
@@KaiHenningsen Yeah, I never thought to question my religious teachings until I was a teenager and a youth pastor turned out to be a young earth creationist, when I had been taught old earth creation (and had a good enough education to see a young earth as nonsense). Until then I simply assumed without thought or question that my parents and pastors etc. must be correct. I think some people never really break out of that.
So basically how Rationality Rules has always been acting?
@@Dhavroch In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.
-Mark Twain-
Faith from a place of honest ignorance is one thing, but to double down on delusion when one’s “faith” is exposed as untenable, to maintain willful ignorance as virtue is truly a baffling and honestly heartbreaking thing to witness in other human beings.
That's the problem with ignorance..... It always takes more to convince somebody out of what they believe in than it is to convince someone of something new.
You can't think logically if your foundations ideologically coincide with mysticism and unscientific claims that cant be proven.
Ah yes, agree with me or you are dishonest and delusional. Such open mindedness
What about faith from a place of honest reason and experience?
@@SirRaiuKorenif you had reason to believe something, it would no longer be a belief in the strict sense of the word. I think you are talking about knowledge.
Faith isn’t a decision.
You didn’t decide to have faith that your parents are actually your parents, or that feeling hungry means you’re hungry.
Religious faith is just as undeniable an experience.
You perhaps haven’t experienced it.
Slime is the secret power of every religious apologist
Is the slime brown and smelly?
Religion is the best tax free ponzi scheme ever! KEEP THE MONEY ROLLING IN.
I describe that creepy preacher voice as slimy. It feels greasy to my ears.
@@brightargyle8950 It's Frank Zappa actually......'>......
In your own words, define "RELIGION". 🤔
If your definition comes within a light year of the ACTUAL definition, I promise that I will send you a very valuable gift.🎁
it's what some of them refer to as theocratic warfare. In other words to them, lying is allowed as long as it's for what they consider the righteous cause
Like defending a God who wants genocide, rape and slavery. They are just following their role model on this one.
This is point on.
When I was a Christian and went to church, I had these moments that this question will arise.
How does he know this?
This is because we start with the assumption that the pastor is an authority and knows what he is talking about.
Does he?
It was not until I started to listen to calling shows that I heard the question that I always wanted to ask.
How do you know this?
As the question was ask, there was no convincing answer.
They didn’t have an answer.
So they talk as if they knew WTF they were saying, when in reality they don’t.
And this my friend is called lying.
I'm not religious, but I feel like this comes down to bad christian leaders..
I was raised catholic, and our pastor taught us about evolution, by explaining why some people closer to the equator have darker skin, because they evolved like that to get better sun protection. They never pretended to have the answers an atheistvwould ask, they usually gave more practical advice and the idea of god was something mostly meant to provide comfort in isolated times.
Like, these debaters on shows etc. Don't act as if they had faith themselves, because if they had that fsith, they would not spend so much time making excusws, they'd just...have hat faith confidently.
Their goal is to submit your will until you stop asking.
You could say pretty much the same thing about anyone who is in a position of teaching any subject. We don’t live long enough to learn everything from scratch ourselves, so eventually the answer is going to be “I don’t know how we know, but that’s what I was taught.”
@@brittybee6615 no I think we stepped past the part where we pointed out a lie.
I mean, I hope that not all your teachers were confidently lying about things.
Most educators I've had were rather humble about how much they don't know, and about what they have learned, but it really is only this type of christian described in this comment, that would confidently tell you they have the answer, and then go ahead to just deflect the point or explain why you should not ask that question etc.
It is arrogance, not confidence that is driving these points.
@ Oh I see. I misunderstood the context of what you were saying.
If the apologists have so much evidence for god,how come none of them can prove a god? Their evidence is so piss poor
Why care?
@jamesholland8057 because I see what is happening in America at the moment and not to mention the middle east fighting over lands given to them by their imaginary friend
@ they use god as their excuse for sadistic murder.
@jamesholland8057 my point exactly
It's simple, you don't want to accept it.
I find it troubling how comfortable Christian apologists with being dishonest. It’s a very “ends justify means” mentality.
Edited to correct transposed words.
What Christian apologists are dishonest? Are you thinking of the like, of say A C Grayling?
@@TBOTSS ALL of them are dishonest. Because dishonesty is what lies at the core of apologetics. Because apologetics is lying to protect faith from legitimate criticism. Apologists KNOW that no god exists. Which explains why all of them stubbornly refuse to show a god exists. Instead, they argue their god into existence (which means they know none is in existence).
No one can be dumb enough to seriously believe that something that does not exist magically turns into something that exists simply because of what is said about that something. So if apologists wish their dreamed up deity is an explanation of some real-world phenomenon, they first must make sure to provide objective, direct, and empiricial verification of their god. Because something that does not exist cannot explain what does exist.
@@TheBastiusso the options are agree with you or be a dishonest liar? Gotcha
@@TBOTSS
Ravi Zacharias is one of the most flagrantly dishonest of apologists. He claimed a list of academic credentials that were fabricated. He did worse.
Pastor Mark Burns put a resume on his web site that included false statements about his education, military service, and membership in social organizations.
Oh my goodness - so many unjustified claims here… no doubt there are charlatans around, but my experience is that the top tier apologists like WLC and John Lennox make it very clear whenever they are swimming outside of their lane!! E.g. Lennox frequently says, ‘I’m a mathematician - biology is only a hobby of mine’… and Craig often mentions that his scientific knowledge comes from his reading and conversations with scientists (of the calibre of Roger Penrose and Alexander Vilenkin) as his expertise is in philosophy… what’s more they almost always go to lengths to provide sources, relevant quotations etc when presenting arguments etc … are you saying that you can’t make a comment unless you are formally qualified in that particular topic??.. I fear that when it comes to true academic apologists, these claims are simply false!
Apologists defending the indefesible always make my head hurt.
Is that because they almost always win public debates?
@@TBOTSS No, because they say a lot things yet nothing of substance
@@alexissmith5589 So you accept that they win public debates and do so by saying nothing of substance? If that was the case then atheist would win most debates rather than lose.
@@TBOTSS No, they never win yet apologists think they do because their audiences have already been indoctrinated. When they debate an Athiest there are free thinkers in those audiences and when the Athiest destroys EVERY talking point, deflection, fallacy, pre sup and contridiction the theist runs away and claim they won.
Not to mention, if defend the indefensable, you've already lost.
@@alexissmith5589 First of all what is an Athiest? When I first read it I thought is was an innocent spelling error but you repeated it.
I think you will find that it is atheists that run away like Richard Dawkins did from William Lane Craig. Craig has a perfect record at both the Cambridge and Oxford debating Unions. A. C. Grayling was so badly traumatised that he lied and said that the debate never even happened, all the way up until the audio for the debate was found.
Apologetics is a confidence game run by confident men
A conman game run by conmen.
@ exactly
@@michaelmay5453 What do you think "con" is short for?
I enjoy this angle you're taking regarding apologists' techniques. I'm looking forward to the rest!
Oh my goodness - so many unjustified claims here… no doubt there are charlatans around, but my experience is that the top tier apologists like WLC and John Lennox make it very clear whenever they are swimming outside of their lane!! E.g. Lennox frequently says, ‘I’m a mathematician - biology is only a hobby of mine’… and Craig often mentions that his scientific knowledge comes from his reading and conversations with scientists (of the calibre of Roger Penrose and Alexander Vilenkin) as his expertise is in philosophy… what’s more they almost always go to lengths to provide sources, relevant quotations etc when presenting arguments etc … is he saying that you can’t make a comment unless you are formally qualified in that particular topic??.. I fear that when it comes to true academic apologists, these claims are simply false!
This was so desperately needed in a concise, digestible form. Thank you. I expect this will become widely used reference.
All these “ apologies “ follow the same “ pattern of thought and reasoning without ever questioning themselves and their beliefs or how they come up with these fake and bias conclusions without any evidence. 😮
Its ether faith, or lying for the money and fame, bet you its the money!
Can I say that I hate these charlatans?!😮
Me too!
Oh my goodness - so many unjustified claims here… no doubt there are charlatans around, but my experience is that the top tier apologists like WLC and John Lennox make it very clear whenever they are swimming outside of their lane!! E.g. Lennox frequently says, ‘I’m a mathematician - biology is only a hobby of mine’… and Craig often mentions that his scientific knowledge comes from his reading and conversations with scientists (of the calibre of Roger Penrose and Alexander Vilenkin) as his expertise is in philosophy… what’s more they almost always go to lengths to provide sources, relevant quotations etc when presenting arguments etc … are you saying that you can’t make a comment unless you are formally qualified in that particular topic??.. I fear that when it comes to true academic apologists, these claims are simply false!
Yes you can.
0:10 Is the slimy trick just... blatantly fucking lying?
Nah that can't be it. Aren't they supposed to not bear false witness, or something like that? Apologist f'cks like these would never lie, right?
It's frustrating how apologists (and others) will just so openly lie about what others believe and about what's true. Many of their followers just believe them, because they say it confidently enough with an air of authority, and their followers don't know any better (or they distrust the actual experts... often due to apologists spreading those seeds of doubt).
When challenged, they or their followers will simply deny any contrary evidence, or they'll "massage" the claim into something that is actually true (or that's harder to disprove, or that's merely a judgement call), while never admitting that their original claim, as stated, is actually false, and they'll happily continue to repeat that same false claim.
I like this type of content, Rules. I’ve told my wife many times that I apologetics is dishonest. To be a religious apologist is to be a liar.
I think that you will find that it is atheists how are the liars - Dawkins, Grayling Krauss etc.
In your own words, define "RELIGION". 🤔
If your definition comes within a light year of the ACTUAL definition, I promise that I will send you a very valuable gift.🎁
@TheWorldTeacher What makes you think he isn't using the actual definition of religion?
Do you often make up your own definition for words that no one else uses?
Of all the many dictionaries which define religion slightly differently, which is the actual definition and how do you know?
They might be wrong, but unless they're making truth claims that don't have evidence, or are demonstrably false, they aren't liars. However, that is mostly what apologetics does do.
@TheWorldTeacher Now I'm wo dering what your goofy secret definition is. And no, it isn't "linking back," that's perhaps the original definition of the Latin word. The definition is essentially what is in any dictionary. It actually isn't very well defined.
Lying for Jesus? Shocked, I'm shocked I tell you!
Good Girl! 👌
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
I’m disappointed in them. Lying about a field of study, pretend like you are an expert on things you know nothing about is an insult to those who spent years studying it. But what else can we expect from them
@@NdukaUche OP is being sarcastic. Lying is EXACTLY what we have come to expect from apologists.
@@kellydalstok8900 Exactly. If they WEREN'T lying, they'd have nothing to say.
Like the supreme court, literalist when it suits them.😂😂😂
This is unequivocally one of your best! Your breakdown of apologetic subterfuge is masterful.
In this episode, we've replaced Michael Jones with an articulate goose. Let's see if anyone notices!
I too was wondering for a long time about why apologists make claims the way they do.
But I understood it a lot better once I realized what role they actually play within fundamentalist religion:
None of them are able to actually convince someone who is not already a christian or whatever.
What they do is provide religious people with the feeling that they don't hold irrational views.
The better you make people feel, the more money they send.
Made me remember all the fake lab coats and fake "Dr" titles.
What is the difference between a fake lab coat and a real lab coat?
@@oflameo8927
You don't know the difference between a person who pretends to be a scientist wearing a lab coat and a real scientist?
@@Evidence1 That isn't what I said. I asked what the difference between a fake lab coat, and a real lab coat.
@@oflameo8927
I refuse to believe that you don't understand what I ment. Don't be a troll.
@@oflameo8927 there's probably a small label in the coat that says "FAKE - DO NOT USE IN A REAL LABORATORY" 😂
I can't wait for the next episode
When you introduced the topic as "the essential ingredient of apologetics," my first thought was, "unearned confidence?"
Aka confidence trickster.
thank you for your videos ❤
It doesn't matter so much that what the apologist is saying is correct or logically sound.
All that flock really cares about is that someone is giving some kind, ANY KIND of response to the challenge. They will chose to believe it is correct because they WANT to believe it.
That's what it means to have faith.
These professional presuppositionalists also need to realize that arguments are not evidence.
Do you have any arguments for that?
I’m sure they don’t care. All that matters is profitability.
@@shlockofgod What are you implying?
my brother is not christian but he's so far gone, that when asked about a why, he either says i should think and answer or he's giving me raw associations without a useful order, and present that as both an argument and refutation of my stated worldviews and feelings.
that's both stuck in lvl 0 in critical thinking and differentiation from others.
It's easier to trick somebody then to convince them that they have been tricked.
Should i try to become an apologist with all the dishonesty and arrogance to see how far i can make it as a social experiment?
Poe's law will get you
But ... what are you going to do when all that sweet sweet money from the Christian networks is thrust in your wallet?
Will you come clean ... or will fall to the temptation to keep on lying, like so many others have???
17:00 Body language when someone is lying: rapid blinking, avoiding eye contact, look away, down, or to the side when asked direct questions.
This only works if you're extremely familiar with someone that you spend a lot of time with and know their body language patterns.
I've known neurodivergents or others who get nervous and can appear as if they are being deceptive.
Excellent, can't wait for the next!👍🏼💙💙💙🥰✌
Oh my goodness - so many unjustified claims here… no doubt there are charlatans around, but my experience is that the top tier apologists like WLC and John Lennox make it very clear whenever they are swimming outside of their lane!! E.g. Lennox frequently says, ‘I’m a mathematician - biology is only a hobby of mine’… and Craig often mentions that his scientific knowledge comes from his reading and conversations with scientists (of the calibre of Roger Penrose and Alexander Vilenkin) as his expertise is in philosophy… what’s more they almost always go to lengths to provide sources, relevant quotations etc when presenting arguments etc … are you saying that you can’t make a comment unless you are formally qualified in that particular topic??.. I fear that when it comes to true academic apologists, these claims are simply false!
Apologetics equals lying. It is as simple as that.
As always, good content and presentation of such.
As a Christian, I just want to say that I appreciate your channel. I was agnostic for a long time and happily listen to others with opposing views, because I believe the truth and opinions shouldn’t mind being questioned. I just want to say that a lot of Christian’s were the reason I didnt like the idea of it. But I mainly want to say that what actually got me to believe was to stop focusing on Christian’s and start focusing on Jesus and who he was. Christians are not meant to represent Christianity (as weird as that sounds), but thats the point. We all fall short of who Jesus is. The only true Christian was actually a Jew and he lived a selfless life and he did so for every one of us. Jesus saved me from depression after almost committing a horrible act on myself, he saved many people I know from being in gutters on the streets with needles in their arms, his nature is loving, and regardless of what we believe, he would die for you so you can live a better life. If you give him a chance with an open heart, he really will enter your life and you’ll see the effects. I have a peace I’ve never had before, even after I’ve lost so many family members. There’s hope and fulfillment I cant explain and genuinely Im writing all this because I just want everyone else to have it too. Believe me or not. I don’t believe in forcing others to believe anything. I just wanted to share my story, apologize on behalf of all Christian’s who actually want to represent it right with kindness and truth, & I genuinely wish everyone here the best :)
So feelies before facts...got it. I just don't get what appealing in that?
Apologists lie. Every single one of them. They can't "defend' their faith without scamming everyone. That should speak volumes, but those who need to hear it the most like to plug their ears.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull” attributed to W.C. Fields.
To refer to the professor and scholar Stephen Meyer with the generic term "philosopher" is a bit disingenuous on your part. He is a "philosopher of science". Here are his full credentials:
In 1981, Meyer graduated cum laude from Whitworth College, where he received a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) with a double major in physics and earth science.[8] He then was employed at Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) in Dallas from November 1981 to December 1985.[9]
Meyer was granted a scholarship by the Rotary Club of Dallas to study in England at Cambridge University, where he earned a Master of Philosophy (M.Phil.) in 1987 and a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in history and the philosophy of science in 1991.[10] His dissertation was entitled "Of Clues and Causes: A Methodological Interpretation of Origin-of-Life Research".[11]
Rationality says Meyer uses "slimy tricks", "lies" and "deceit" to make a point? Where is the scientific proof of a "primordial soup" that begins every biology textbook in America? Just one of many faults of "evolution is a fact" movement.
Guarentee that IP will make a 6 hour livestream responding to this
What ? They go about an hour 30 minutes averagely.
Who made a 5 hour response ? R.R !!! With about 3 hours of waffle lol
only, he'll say it's a response to this, but it'll be a lot of strawmen and non sequiturs - because he knows he can't actually respond to the truth.
@@RamadaDiver-w9o
you say [that as if you're familiar with IP's modus operandi.
Which makes me wonder why, if you are familiar with his stuff, do you not recognise it for the nonsense it is, and instead try to project his failings onto RR?
@bengreen171
If watched it for 9 years and there is a lot more nonsense from atheist channels .
I.p helped me convert to Christ as a direct failure of popular atheists
@@RamadaDiver-w9oI'm sorry for you that you replaced critical thinking with wishfull thinking...
Glad to see you getting back into your stride, my dude. I was worried for a bit after the USA election.
I know right. Democracy is the WORST. Aristotle was right, people have NO business evaluating the veracity of claims for themselves... leave it to the EXPERTS, that's what I say!
I am finishing a book I’ve been writing, and I use the term 'The Emperor’s New Clothes' in it. I had to pause and ask AI if the term was outdated and whether I should remove it. I was assured it isn’t outdated, yet when I asked several coworkers my age and older if they were familiar with the story, I received a unanimous 'no.' I’m in the editing phase this week, and it was on the chopping block. I was delighted to hear it used in your video. Thank you!
You are "writing a book" and asking for INFORMATION?
Da fak is wrong with you dimwits..............................
Isn’t the guy making this video the same guy with his education on art and design, and advertising….
Yup
Or in other words. Marketing 😮
@@RamadaDiver-w9o yes considering he went the first 7 mins of the video basically saying nothing goes to show how good he is at that. I guess his education works well when it allows him to sound compelling when in reality all he’s saying is “oh no, people have views on things they don’t have phds in! How dare they!!”
@@123ghdsno , he points out the dishonest methods of apologists. And that this triggers biblethumpers like you ...is one more indicator he hit the point
@@RoninTF2011I’m not really upset I’m just showing that he’s doing the same thing he’s accusing apologists of doing.
"The purpose of Apologetics is to perform the capacity to engage with scholarship in order to validate the beliefs of an audience that already believes."
Dr. Dan McClellan
' trust me bruh'
The middle of your video reminded me strikingly of Justin Brierley during his multitude of conversations with Alex. He portrays Christian revival as "moving in that direction" and like a tide that's *about* to come back in. Not that it IS coming back in... just that it's about to.
Much like the whiplash example you gave here, it makes the presenter seem like they have a foundation for an argument they absolutely do not have.
With this in mind Steven, I think it would be particularly apt (and awesome) if you used an example of their defensive techniques from one of Alex's debates or podcasts.
Even with the two of you giving masterclass examples of deconstructing them, they still somehow seem to get away with it.
I think Justin was pretty straight forward about it. He is taking his findings from his own conversations. He has said that. If you listened to his discussions with Alex then you know that. I do not see how someone saying I think there will be a change soon is an issue. there is no deception.
@@carlpeterson8182 - Justin's book is called:
"The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God".
Yet Justin only verbally admits that there is no actual evidence to back up his title. He doesn't say that in print, only in an interview when asked if he has any actual evidence.
Justin Brierly is knowingly and consciously lying.
@ you should that he did not pick thd title. I am sure you know that since you referenced his conversation with Alex O’ Connor. He openly talks about what he is arguing for. This is just a weak take.
@@carlpeterson8182 the weak take is Justin's, sadly. I like the guy, but his entire premise is anecdotal wishful thinking.
This is a super clear and accurate explanation of how these guys manufacture and spread false ideas, thanks for putting this together Steven!
The more infinitely ontologically awesome God is the less likely he had anything to do with the bible.
It's all about confidence and the ability to deflect awkward truths with a Teflon skin.
I remember at school you used to have to give "talks" to the class about something usually a hobby. Each person would stand in front of the class and talk for 5 minutes.
Usually someone will start the heckling almost immediately.
Anything from their dodgy haircut, their unfashionable cloths or just the fact that their hobby was crap. I don't think we ever found out what anybodies hobbies ever where but we learnt which people you could shut up with a few well aimed pointed words.
And you learned to return fire because if you ummed and ahhed stuttered or hesitated the teacher would tell you to sit down and call the next victim.
The slimy trick of this video: Ad Hominen.
Describing accurately those conmen for what they are, is not an ad hom.
Theists really need to grow up!
@@CNCmachiningisfuneven tho theists are the older demographic ?
We aren't the younger underdeveloped brains
@@RamadaDiver-w9o
I pity you, child!
@CNCmachiningisfun
Seriously?.I love you too 😘
These apologists have the same confidence vibe that ancient astronaut archeologists, cryptid hunters, and ghost researchers do.
I think it is really interesting how they can justify behaving like they do, to themselves.
If they truly believe what they say they believe, why is it necessary to lie?
If they dont believe what they say they believe, is it then just because they enjoy having power and understands that religion is a great tool for obtaining that?
Do they believe what they say they believe, but are just repeating frases they have been told and never consider questioning any of it?
maybe they are compulsive liars. Just a thought
Apologists is a misnomer. They never apologise. They find excuses.
Religions arise out of a fear of death. Pure and simple.
That because apologise and apologist both come the word apologia which is a defence of one's opinions or conduct.
Great video Steven! The point about people being shown as experts who are not, is a feature of Fox News in the USA.
It's as though these people have figured out that people don't typically think for themselves. Like sheep. Like people who belive whatever someone says even if it PURE BS.
Thanks! Your videos are excellent! Excited for the next in this series.
If only believers weren't so impressed by 'authority'. All apologists need to do is give each other 'special' status & voila! An ounce of critical thinking would go a long way to solve this problem.
That's certainly a narrative.
Do you want to test your critical thinking?
@@RamadaDiver-w9o "Do you want to test your critical thinking?" I was criticising of the lack of critical thinking in religious believers but OK, what do you have?
@15:15 Wh... what the ----?! Women and children wouldn't have been hiding in the fort when an invading army came through? *What on God's green earth does this man think forts are for?!*
Military encampments. How many women and children are living on forward operating bases
@daniellowry660 First of all, forward operating bases of the kind you're thinking of didn't exist in that time and place. This isn't the Hittite Empire, this is a region filled with tiny city-states and tribes. They don't have professional armies or the administrative capacity to build or maintain a fort of that kind.
But that isn't even the important part. Even assuming there wouldn't normally be a single civilian on site, as soon as an enemy army invades Jericho's territory all the civilians in the surrounding area are going to flee into the fort for safety from the *enemy army marching over their territory.*
@@daniellowry660 that's not why settlements built walls, doofus. Cities were surrounded by walls. People from outside the walls would shelter inside or be slaughtered.
It's about damn time you posted another video, Stephen 😂 I check my subscriptions list literally every day for your next one. They've only gotten better with time. Great stuff 👍
I've sold everything from tennis shoes to commercial real estate for decades. This is old hat. But, still tried and true.
Thank you for another great video!
I start with metaphysical naturalism--I reject the god hypothes. It saves time. Then becasue a lack of belief in unicorns isn't a very good basis for a life phylosophy, I look to humanism to inform my ethical decisions.
No apologist has ever delivered on their claims.
I am still waiting for frank turek to get back to me about 65,000 + years of Australian Aboriginal civilisation and culture , that has never had any gods from the middle east by the simple fact women had equal rights until the british christians landed in 1788.
235 years later and women are still fighting to get those rights back.
Also still waiting to here from frank some 8 years later, guess he hasn't got an answer that isn't degrading or racist.
When noter dame burnt down i was cheering, i even started crying iwas that elated that another monument to genocide and child rape was gone, Was disgusting to see fixed.If putin bombs france and goes for notre dame i will donate money to him,( 1 c Australian because i can't afford any more than that as i try to donate to Jake Broe as much as i can)..
“This guy is an expert and he agrees with the weird stuff I believe! I’m validated.”
“No, he is not an expert. And experts say the exact opposite.”
“Academia is rigged, scientists don’t accept him because he dares challenge the consensus!!!”
"These Christians aren't even experts in the fields they're speaking on!"
-Atheist who isn't an expert in the fields he's speaking on
Yup
I found it ironic that he condemns apologists for deliberately not identifying as "experts" in the clips he provided. You don't have to be an expert to reference other experts or their discussions
@@ravioli-boy
You also don't have to claim your not an expert after every claim you make .
Is there a field of noticing that people aren't experts on the topics they claim knowledge of. Or is just.. Noticeable?
My father had a saying about experts. X is an unknown variable. A spurt is a drip, but under pressure. So, an X-spurt (expert) is just an unknown drip under pressure.
Finally, back to what I signed up for
This is great but the political stuff is even more necessary; and remember fascism is a political religion.
AND the US has been taken over by Christofascists.
Boo this man
AND even more so when you remember that the US has been taken over by authoritarian Christian ultra-nationalists or Christofascists.
AND even more so when you remember that the US has been taken over by authoritarian Christian ultra-nationalists or Chris….
The editing and presentation was fantastic. You guys are really upping the production quality and it's building the suspense. I must learn the secret souffle spices🕵
You know, your 100% true. I am a Latter Day Saint and i have seen people blatantly lie about my beliefs in order to persuade their followers to gain up on my people.
That's the one that follows the treasure hunting guy?
I think this is a fantastic criticism but I think you’re leaving yourself open to people just pointing out “But Steve, you don’t have any academic credentials and you talk about this stuff too”. I don’t think it would be a very good argument but it probably would have been a good idea to address it
Convergent evolution of religious apology - a very interesting theory. There could be papers.
Excellent stuff!
Oh my goodness - so many unjustified claims here… no doubt there are charlatans around, but my experience is that the top tier apologists like WLC and John Lennox make it very clear whenever they are swimming outside of their lane!! E.g. Lennox frequently says, ‘I’m a mathematician - biology is only a hobby of mine’… and Craig often mentions that his scientific knowledge comes from his reading and conversations with scientists (of the calibre of Roger Penrose and Alexander Vilenkin) as his expertise is in philosophy… what’s more they almost always go to lengths to provide sources, relevant quotations etc when presenting arguments etc … are you saying that you can’t make a comment unless you are formally qualified in that particular topic??.. I fear that when it comes to true academic apologists, these claims are simply false!
Matt Powell has a giant inflatable banana in his backyard, which he calls Dr Peel.
He has no expertise in anything except reheating Kent Hovind's tired arguments.
Looking forward to more content like this. Time to take off the gloves.
I have yet to see a religious apologist that was both knowledgeable and honest.
A god that was so evident wouldn’t need so many conman defending it.
IPs face when he talks looks like he's lying 🤥😂!
First Alex O'Connor does the Moustache scare, now Steven does the haircut scare.
Sounds like you are getting old... 😊
Very good video, point on!
Oh my goodness - so many unjustified claims here… no doubt there are charlatans around, but my experience is that the top tier apologists like WLC and John Lennox make it very clear whenever they are swimming outside of their lane!! E.g. Lennox frequently says, ‘I’m a mathematician - biology is only a hobby of mine’… and Craig often mentions that his scientific knowledge comes from his reading and conversations with scientists (of the calibre of Roger Penrose and Alexander Vilenkin) as his expertise is in philosophy… what’s more they almost always go to lengths to provide sources, relevant quotations etc when presenting arguments etc … are you saying that you can’t make a comment unless you are formally qualified in that particular topic??.. I fear that when it comes to true academic apologists, these claims are simply false!
"Flooding the Well" - a logical fallacy that involves presenting overwhelmingly positive information about a proponent before they speak to overcredit them
Nice one
5 sec into this video 😮
😂😂😂
“ …..out of nothing “
😂😂😂
Christians tricks 😮
Humanity is hampered when we are forced to follow the consensus of any kind, whether it be scholarship or religious. I have gained a healthy skepticism of both academic and religious leaders and for good reason. They all want to maintain power.
In the end I still believe living a life as represented by Christ is better for humanity as a whole. I have yet to see a better example or a lifestyle that works more effectively. Bottom line, be productive, put others ahead of yourself, and have enduring love for all.
Nah, what you basicly say is: i gave up scepticism...
@ That is the exact opposite of what I said. 😁. I will follow a path I believe to be the best for those around me. I am skeptical of “experts” telling me they have a better way. Especially given the wealth of evidence showing that a life lived for self is ultimately depressing and self destructive.
Nicely broken down.
I would also add into the mix Jordan Peterson. He's become very popular amongst the evangelical/apologetic community as their go-to guy. " Here's that smart psychologist saying something profound" when it's just a mixed bag of word salad and phyco babble.
Nobody is claiming that the people being interviewed are experts in the field. They are asking apologists their observations on different fields. This whole video depends on projecting dishonesty on the apologists. This channel has mastered ad hominem.
One cannot project dishonesty on apologists when apologists are fundamentally dishonest in the first place (apologetics is making up excuses and lies to protect a faith the believers knows full well is not true).
Clown you. LIAR you.
@@TheBastiusAre you a mind reader? How do you know full well that believers full well know that their belief is not true? Sounds like you believe in magic which we all full know is not true. Wait Am I the mind reader now?
@@TheBastius Lol, so you've chosen to go full paranoic conspiracy theory :D Good work. Now seek professional help, please.
Bingo, BinGo, BINGO!!!! You nailed that. It's exactly the same with each local pastor as well. Many learn from these fakers and repeat their same nonsense. This fills the churches with lying pastors all over the world. I was a Christian with a degree in science, yet the constant negatively towards the sciences had me doubting the veracity of the sciences and then I figured out the Bible was BS. I went back to my sciences and have read loads of science books since that time. I found that the good pastors were spouting lies on every topic. Then I studied religion for years, and again, I found the good pastors were lying. Scholarship is way different than the stuff spouted in church, and they know it. I found that no gospel was written by anyone who might have been alive with Jesus. I found that scholars don't believe the Pentateuch was written by Moses; in fact they don't believe Moses was a real character. Neither was Adam, Joseph, Abraham, and many, many more. At least 6 letters attributed to Paul are forgeries, and they know it. It goes on and on; experts at nothing, leading people to blindly follow and "believe" .... don't forget to tithe ..... and vote the way we recommend ... and so on. Power, respect, and influence for them, stupidity for us.
As a Christian apologist, I appreciate ypur perspective.
Do you agree that these disingenuous tactics are often used by folks in your field?
same even though i didn’t agree with everything he said
Two of the most brilliant debates I've seen were between William Lane Craig and Shelly Kagan on whether God is necessary for ethics and between William Lane Craig and Sean Carrol on Cosmology. In both cases the question was narrowly defined and Craig was up against a genuine expert in the field. His manufactured expertise was shown to be utterly threadbare.
You make it seem like atheist apologist are not the leading proponents of this.
You'll find most claming science has provided answers that are in the field of theology and philosophy (outside of the study of mater) and you find lots of followers parroting without critiquing
Is that so? What for example? And who makes those claims?
You’re going to need to be waaaaay more specific there bud. The majority of people that actually do rigorous scientific research are atheist or agnostic, and that number only continues to grow science continues to develop.
What is the field of theory what are you talking about please do define your term and give example
@ritchie6162 I can bet you that by percentage atheists in science are not close to believers, neither do their number make any real advancement when compared to the believers.
Huh really give me one actual example.
If you believe genesis is factual you’re living in fantasy land.
Amazing
I'm hooked! Give me the spices! I can't wait for the next part. 👍
It really is true that every logical fallacy has been used as an argument for God and that every argument for God is a logical fallacy
Give an example
@ramadadiver7810 Argument from incredulity "The universe couldn't have begun on its own, therefore God"
Special pleading- " Everything created has a beginning except God"
God of the gaps- " Science can't explain this phenomenon therefore God"
False Dichotomy- " Without God, there is no basis for morality "
@@memecity9849
You haven't actually quoted anyone but strawmanned on all 3 accounts let me demonstrate
' the universe couldn't have begun on it's own therefore God
There isn't even 2 premises in that but a premise and conclusion
By defintion if the universe began to exist it's improbable that it's caused itself because it didn't exist to cause itself
' everything created had a begining except God'
Again this is only a single premise and conclusion
And God by defintion is uncreated.
Uncreated things don't begin to exist. So no special pleading fallacy .
This is a false equivalence comparing created entities to uncreated
' science can't explain this therefore God .
Again only 1 premise and conclusion
No one makes this argument
' Without God there is no basis for morality '
Again only 1 premise and conclusion
This is true again this refers to objective morality.. there is no independent objective foundation for morality without an ontological foundation independent of humans .
On all 4 accounts you are guilty of strawmanning because you only provided a single premise and conclusion where all philosophical arguments fornGod require at least 2 premises
@ramadadiver7810 That is incorrect. Not all logical arguments require two premises.
1. The universe could be eternal. It could have a natural explanation for it's beginning, or another reason other than a god for its beginning and that's the point. Why does God have to be the uncaused causer but not the universe? This goes right back to special pleading.
Apologists definitely use the God of the Gaps argument. They clearly say that since science can't explain something such as the origin of the universe or origin of life, they assert that God must be the only explanation and that it's specifically the Christian God.
Objective morality does not exist as it would have to be independent of not just a human mind but any kind of mind, including God's. Morality is the value of judgment of a behavior or action. A mind or subject is necessary to make that judgment, which means morality is subjective. To say that either morality is objective and God is the standard or morality doesn't exist at all is a false dichotomy
I like that line: "It's not a bug- it's a feature."
An claim without evidence that can be dismissed without evidence
Michael is just using the same features Jesus uses like dishonesty, gaslighting, and misdirected. I have read the bible!
Jesus doesn’t use anything. We have no evidence he even existed. And even if he did, all that is claimed that he said was written by people decades after his time.
"...it is true. You can show it to be fact. In the beginning god created the heaven and the earth, is a fact of history". I fell off my chair laughing at that one. Matt Powell and his dead pan delivery. His use of the word 'fact', without flinching, is comedy gold. If Airplane! 3 is ever made, Matt must audition for a role.
I get not believing in God, I used to be atheist but it makes me wonder what is wrong with all you people? When I was an atheist God was the very last thing on my mind at any point in time, I literally didn’t think he existed. But this comment section is full of seemingly bitter and sad people so angry that others believe in something that makes them happy, provides excellent moral values, and has been around for thousands of years. Very strange to me that you all think God doesn’t exist so hard that he’s all you can think about 😂 Praise God I will pray for you all 🙏🏼❤️
🤦♂️
Maybe because your dumb beliefs affect the rest of us, that conclusion too hard to come to all on your own?
Because I have to share voting rights with you.
"I will pray for you all 🙏🏼❤"
And we'll THINK for you!
@ Ahaha right, so you’re just automatically smarter than me because I have an opinion on a matter that neither me or you can prove or refute, nice to know! God Bless you Brother.
@@noluckasmr
Which god?
I’ve been wanting content like this and did not even realize.
Your hair is so beautiful!❤